On Tuesday, the news came that Tom Hagen has been arrested on suspicion of murder or assisting in the murder of his wife Anne-Elisabeth Hagen who has been missing since October 2018.

Police are upset about the state of evidence and the motive - but do not believe the woman has been kidnapped.

Now, NRK publishes parts of the couple Hagen's marriage order established in 1987 - which shows that Anne-Elisabeth was not entitled to any of her husband's wealth.

Land, Citroën and 200,000

The document states that all Tom Hagen's companies and shareholding are in his name - while Anne-Elisabeth Hagen is attributed to a plot in Biri municipality, NOK 200,000 in the form of a gift from her husband and a Citroën BX 14 RE or another car in corresponding standard.

Furthermore, it is stated that everything that Tom Hagen acquires in the future through inheritance, gifts, salary or return or otherwise must belong to his individual property.

By individual property here is meant that certain assets can be kept outside the joint ownership in the division of housing.

In the same way, it says in the document, everything that Anne-Elisabeth inherits from her family must be regarded as her individual property.

Hard to say if it's valid

- I have worked as a lawyer for over 25 years and inheritance and division of housing is an important part of my business. I have seen many marriages through my practice, but rarely seen a marriage ordinance that seems so uneven, says lawyer Randi Birgitte Bull, at the law firm Bull & co, to NRK.

Bull further explains that it is difficult to say whether the marriage ordinance is valid, but that at first glance it appears that Tom Hagen has secured his individual property in the form of shares while the joint residences were owned jointly by the spouses.

Lost his share of the accommodation

According to Bull, however, it is possible under Norwegian law to completely or partially deviate from a marriage order if the outcome appears unreasonable for one of the parties.

In 1993, an amendment to the marriage ordinance was carried out, which meant that Anne-Elisabeth no longer owned her share of the joint residence in Lørenskog, which was instead written to her husband. The reason was that Anne-Elisabeth was not considered in need of her part as she had recently inherited her parents' home.

- It is highly unreasonable that she would have to give up her part just because she got inherited from her parents, says Randi Birgitte Bull.

NRK has sought Tom Hagen's lawyer Svein Holden for a comment.