Brother, sister cut his ex-wife from family fortune despite claims of violence during relationship TWO siblings have cut an ex-wife out of a vast family fortune after she complained of "repugnant" violence during a 35-year relationship. In a decision handed down in Brisbane's Family Court, the ex-wife lost a claim against her ex-husband and his sister for a majority stake in the $1.5 million marital home. The ruling has left the ex-wife with shares of very modest value and a negligible amount of funds in a bank account despite "compelling" evidence of violence. "I accept that she was the victim of regular, serious acts of family violence at the husband's hands," Justice Peter Murphy said. Important to her feelings of injustice, which I find understandable is ... not only the disrespect inherent in that repugnant conduct ... but also ... a further pervasive disrespect towards her at the husband's hands. While her claim for "equitable interest" has failed, Justice Murphy has paved the way for her to claim under property settlement provision in the Family Law Act. According to his judgment, business loans were taken out using the marital home as surety without the knowledge of the ex-wife. When she complained about being left off the land title, the ex-husband reacted by telling the ex-wife's sister to "mind your own f...ing business." Justice Murphy said the ex-wife argued she was "induced" and "encouraged" by statements by her sister-in-law, who lived next door, that the property would "naturally" be hers if the ex-husband died. The warring couple raised their family in the house during a 23-year marriage, sharing it for six years with his parents. However, Justice Murphy found throughout the marriage, the ex-wife had been excluded from the "intra-familial planning" by "a series of transactions including borrowings." To add to her insult, she had poured part of a $71,000 poker machine jackpot she won into a new kitchen. Her ex-husband and sister-in-law had also used the home as surety for several business loans. One of the loans was to fund a business for the sister-in-law and her de facto. Another loan was for the warring couple's "sportsman" son for a joint restaurant venture, which failed. The ex-wife told the court she was called a "Lowes dummy" by her ex-husband for challenging the loan. "He did not want to hear a word against (our son)," she told the court. He thought he did no wrong because he was a sportsman. Justice Murphy said the case was "redolent" of planning being made for "family members and not those not connected by blood."