Dr Katia De Filippo has been forced to move into rented accommodation with her parents (pictured above with her father Angelo De Filippo)
A scientist has been forced to move in with her parents following a divorce battle with her multi-millionaire ex-husband for their £1million marital home.
Dr Katia De Filippo claims the home she shared with her estranged ex Luca Manetta and their young child, has been left ‘derelict and ugly’.
The Imperial College London immunologist split with her wealthy partner in 2016 and has since moved into a rented home with her parents, while her once ‘lovely home’ in west London remains empty.
Mr Manetta inherited a vast fortune from a rich uncle in Italy and plunged some of his cash into buying their Shepherds Bush home in 2009, having married in 2006.
At a hearing at Central London County Court, Dr De Filippo asked Judge Michael Kent QC to order the sale of the property, in order for her to have enough cash to purchase a new property for her and her daughter.
However, Mr Manetta – who told the court he is an electronics developer and property manager – denies the house is unfit to live in and insists his ex is entitled to nothing from the property, because it is his alone.
The allegedly ‘derelict’ house in Hadyn Park Road where Dr Katia De Filippo and Luca Manetta lived as a married couple.
The court heard the couple married in 2006 when Mr Manetta was still living in Italy and Dr De Filippo was studying for her PhD in London.
In 2008, the husband inherited his uncle’s sizeable property portfolio, including land, commercial premises and two apartment blocks, and more than £3.5million in cash.
The four-bed house was purchased in 2009 and they had a child, but their relationship foundered and, in January 2016, they separated and are now undergoing a divorce.
Mr Manetta (pictured above) has claimed the house is his and said the condition of the property is fine and highlighted that he even stays there when he visits London
Since then, Dr De Filippo says she is living on her ‘modest’ scientist’s wage and has had to move in with her parents at an undisclosed location in west London, so that there is someone to look after her child while she works.
Meanwhile, the former family home is left uninhabitable and unused, she says.
Dr De Filippo claims the house has become a ‘disgraceful’ eyesore for neighbours, with no central heating, holes in the floors and full of rubbish.
‘When we bought it, it was a lovely house. You couldn’t live there now, it’s awful. It’s a shame. It’s ugly. It’s full of stuff, pieces of wood that were supposed to be used for finishing the floor.
‘There’s no central heating. There’s no kitchen. It’s a disgrace. You can see from one floor to the other because bits of the floor have been removed.’
Her barrister, Sally Jackson said the case was long longer a matter of money and that her client ‘desperately needed somewhere to live’.
Dr De Filippo claims that the house – which is now worth about £1m – was bought in their joint names in 2009 because it was meant to be their family home.
Prior to the purchase, they had lived in different countries, she told the judge.
She said: ‘The plan was to start our married life together. We didn’t start our married life together as a married couple until 2009 when we bought the house.
‘We wanted to stay here, live here and have a family here.’
Dr De Filippo (right with her father) said her estranged husband has the money to continue works on the property (left)
But for the husband, Aidan Vine QC said all of the funds which went towards buying the property for about £550,000 came ultimately from Mr Manetta’s uncle.
It was an investment the husband made to distance his inheritance from a rival claim to his uncle’s money in Italy a decade ago, he says.
In 2009, Mr Manetta had been facing a claim against his uncle’s estate and took advice on how to safeguard his inheritance, said the barrister.
He was advised to buy property outside of Italy and to transfer more than 500,000 euros into a joint bank account with his wife, he continued.
Giving evidence himself, Mr Manetta said he had been threatened in Italy and put the house in joint names so his wife would inherit it if something happened to him.
A document suggesting joint ownership did not properly reflect the couple’s intention, which was that Mr Manetta would be the sole beneficial owner, he claimed.
Mr Vine said the husband disputes the claim that the house is derelict, pointing out that Mr Manetta stays there when he is in London.
The only reason it is in a bad condition now is because extensive building work was left unfinished when the couple split, he told the judge.
‘The truth is you started a building project and it hasn’t been finished because of the separation and the dispute,’ he put to the wife.
Dr De Filippo replied: ‘He withdrew the entire amount of money. To finish that building, it would require 300,000 euros. He is in possession of that money, so why hasn’t he finished it?’
The wife’s barrister told the judge that a vital transfer document produced at the time of the house purchase proved that it was always intended to be shared equally.
She urged the judge to rule that the house is owned 50-50 and to order its sale, which would allow the mother to find a new home for herself and her daughter.
‘Her basic position is she is with the parties’ child in rented property with her parents, so she can continue to work full-time.
‘Mr Manetta, quite self-evidently, is a man of considerable means by virtue of the significant inheritance he received from his uncle.
‘She is in desperate need of a resolution for quite obvious reasons. My client is desperate.’
The judge will give his decision on the case at a later date.