British entrepreneur lives with MOTHER after bitter divorce

A British entrepreneur who has been embroiled in a bitter court battle with his ex-wife claims he has been left ‘penniless’ and now lives with his 76-year-old mother after having his five properties taken away. 

Richard Rothschild, 45, and Charmaine de Souza had a 21-year relationship after meeting as students, marrying in 2005 and having two children, now aged 13 and 10, before later separating. 

He then met US Playboy model Sherra Michelle and moved her into his luxury Miami flat. Now the businessman, from west London, is fighting his ex-wife in court after complaining that a divorce judge handed her millions and left him nothing. 

Mr Rothschild and Ms de Souza ran a thriving west London telecomms business, which he claims was started by capital injected by his mother during the 1990s.

The pair led a lavish lifestyle living in the UK, with Mr Rothschild driving a Lamborghini. He lived together with his then wife in the UK, where they ran their Park Royal business together in London, though the couple also enjoyed a multi-million dollar condo in an exclusive Miami Beach apartment block.

Charmaine De Souza, 46, outside London’s Court of Appeal. The judge awarded her the £1.85m Park Royal, west London-based mobile phone business they had run together, plus cash and properties worth almost another £1m

The pair split in 2016 and first clashed in court in 2018 after Mr Rothschild moved his new girlfriend, American Playboy model Sherra Michelle, into the Miami condo.

Mr Rothschild does not descend from the well known Rothschild family who made their fortune in banking, but was known as Richard Pierzchalo-Piasecki before changing his name on a Companies House record in June 2016. 

He told MailOnline he initially decided to change his name in 2010 when his eldest daughter started school, and had concerns about his Polish surname. 

‘Some people are racist in the UK, and there’s an issue of bullying,’ he said. ‘Going into business I used to use my middle name and answer the phone as Rich Scott. 

‘I read Dale Carnegie’s book, How to win friends and influence people, and I didn’t realise he had also changed his name.’ Mr Rothschild claims he was not aware of the significance of the Rothschild name and empire, but instead simply ‘googled famous names’ and selected the new surname due to it ‘being a common name in line with my heritage, my father was born in Lithuania and mother born in a former region of Poland, now Ukraine.’

In December last year, divorce judge Mr Justice Cohen divided their collective wealth, awarding Ms de Souza, 46, the £1.85m telecoms company BusinessMobiles.com plus cash and properties worth almost another £1m. 

Richard Rothschild (left) moved Playboy model Sherra Michelle (right) into the apartment he once shared with his wife, which started off the original court proceedings

He says he has happily moved on after his marriage broke down, and now cannot wait to marry US model Sherra Michelle in the future

The couple met on a Miami beach, which Mr Rothschild says occurred after his split from his wife Ms de Souza

Mr Rothschild was given the Miami apartment, which the judge valued at $3million (£2.38m), but which the husband says is worth far less, leaving him effectively with nothing after paying off family debts.

He is now challenging the ‘unfair’ divorce ruling at the Court of Appeal, where his lawyers this week said he had been left ‘with in effect no capital at all, and no income.’

Mr Rothschild told MailOnline: ‘I’m now back living in London with my 75-year-old mother after they took my five houses.

‘They sold my Lamborghini, a £400,000 car for around £95,000. But I don’t care, you can sell my things but you can’t take my happiness. I love Sherra and I can’t wait to marry her.’ 

He says he has not seen his young children properly since 2017 and has gone through multiple mediation sessions, each of which have failed.

The former couple had waged an earlier court war over the apartment in 2018 after Mr Rothschild moved in his then girlfriend, Miss Michelle, prompting a bid by Ms de Souza to get him jailed for contempt of court.

That clash blew up after Mr Rothschild said the Miami Beach property belonged to him alone, but he was told by a divorce judge in London at that time that he had to share it 50/50 with his ex.

He promised to give up ‘vacant possession’ of the luxury flat, to spend thousands of dollars repairing it and to put it on the rental market.

But instead he continued to stay there himself and also let his then girlfriend Miss Michelle stay, lawyers for his ex-wife said.

The former couple eventually settled their differences over that issue and a year later Mr Justice Cohen split their wealth, handing the business to Ms De Souza and the whole apartment to Mr Rothschild.

Ms de Souza had a 21-year relationship with Mr Rothschild after meeting as students, marrying in 2005. They now have two young children together, aged 13 and 10

Ms De Souza, pictured here in Miami, was awarded the London telecoms business by the judge, though Mr Rothschild disputes this and says it was originally started by his mother

But his barrister Patrick Chamberlayne QC told the Appeal Court that, after debts including about £300,000 in lawyers’ fees for their divorce fight had been paid, the judge’s order left the wife with capital worth £1,760,138, while Mr Rothschild got just £23,938.

And he went on to claim that the position in reality was even worse than that for the husband, arguing that the judge had overvalued the Miami Beach apartment by £615,000, leaving Mr Rothschild with nothing at all from the marriage, while his ex got millions.

Regarding the telecoms company, Mr Rothschild told MailOnline: ‘It was my mother who started that company, putting over £600,000 of investment in. She has now only got that investment back which was put in 25-years ago, and would now be worth millions.

‘She [Ms de Souza} came to us as basically a glorified secretary. We took her in. She was employee number nine and never started the company.’ 

Mr Rothchild’s barrister said that the judge had deprived the husband of ‘every penny, everything he has achieved in this 21-year marriage’ and left him without any assets or the ability to meet his needs. 

Mr Chamberlayne argued that the judge had not taken into account Mr Rothschild’s financial needs when he split the couple’s wealth, but only the needs of his ex-wife.

The ‘huge disparity’ in what the former couple ended up with must have been because the judge took into account Mr Rothschild’s ‘conduct’ during the long-running litigation.

Mr Justice Cohen had criticised some of Mr Rothschild’s conduct as ‘lamentable,’ saying he had been ‘vindictive and irrational,’ Mr Chamberlayne told the Appeal Court.

The luxury condo building in Miami containing the apartment owned by Richard Rothschild – the judge valued this at $3million (£2.38m), but the husband says is worth far less, leaving him effectively with nothing after paying off family debts

‘There is no doubt that the husband presented himself to the judge as an unattractive personality, insensitive, over-confident and overbearing,’ the barrister added.

He continued: ‘The overwhelming impression is that the judge sympathised with the wife’s position due to the husband’s behaviour, and it is no part of this appeal that he was not entitled to do so.

‘However, that caused him to lose sight of considering both parties’ needs, and to reach the ultimate draconian outcome – all the net assets and available income go to one party, permanently, and the other party gets nothing, permanently.’

He added: ‘That form of huge disparity has to be explained in terms of conduct, and it is not sufficient for the judge to make in various parts of the judgment statements like ‘the husband has brought this on himself’.’

‘The judge’s rationale for the outcome was that the wife needed the business to provide income to meet her and the children’s needs. She also needed to be largely debt-free,’ he said.

‘The outcome was indeed that she would be largely debt-free, with a business worth £1.85m, and £18,000 per month net income (£216,000 per annum). The income would also enable her to pay her rent

‘The husband, however, would end up…with in effect no capital at all, and no income.’

Mr Rothschild presented himself to the judge as an unattractive personality, insensitive, over-confident and overbearing, said a barrister

Mr Rothschild told MailOnline that he once took out 32 billboards across to put his girlfriend’s image across the capital city following a modelling campaign

He also claimed that an assessment by a local estate agent suggested the judge overvalued the apartment, which was the main asset the husband took out of the marriage, by £615,000.

‘That would take his capital figure down from £23,938 to minus £591,000,’ the QC said.

He added: ‘Given that the husband was already on virtually zero capital (£23,000) on the basis of a $3m sale, the judge should have given proper consideration to what the impact on him would be if the property sold for less.’

Mr Chamberlayne urged Lord Justice Patten, Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Newey to overturn the divorce judge’s order.

But for Ms de Souza, Charles Hale QC argued that the judge got it right.

He said that the disparity in the outcomes for Mr Rothschild and Ms De Souza could be explained by the judge having taken into account their children’s needs.

The judge reserved their decision in the case at the end of a day-long hearing, to be given at a later date.