My partner and I can't agree whether I'm entitled to spousal maintenance. What can I do? If you can't reach an agreement over the amount of spousal maintenance then you can make an application to Court. The Court doesn’t have a set formula to say how much, if any, spousal maintenance should be paid. The Court has a lot of discretion to make what orders it thinks appropriate. The Court can also order lump sum payments and property transfer orders. These are separate but linked to spousal maintenance orders. This means that the less capital that a husband or wife receives then the greater the probability that they may need spousal maintenance in order to meet their income needs. Reaching a financial settlement is a bit like putting a jigsaw together as it is important that the capital, pension and income settlements meet needs. If I am entitled to spousal maintenance how long will the spousal maintenance last for? The Court can order different types of spousal maintenance or no spousal maintenance. Joint lives maintenance is often called the ‘’meal ticket for life’’ spousal maintenance in the media. Why? It is because the spousal maintenance continues throughout the joint lives of the payer and the payee until further order of the Court or until the payee remarries. A husband or wife can apply back to the Court to change the amount of maintenance payable upwards or downwards if there is a change in circumstances. It is also possible for the payer to apply to the Court to stop the spousal maintenance payments if there is a change in circumstances. Term spousal maintenance continues for a set number of years. The level of spousal maintenance can be changed before the term expires (but not afterwards). The term or length of time that spousal maintenance is paid for can be extended by the Court although there must be a good reason to do so and the application must be made before the term maintenance order expires. Term spousal maintenance with a bar is exactly the same as a term spousal maintenance order save that the length of time that the maintenance is paid for cannot be extended. Clean break order is when no spousal maintenance is payable. If the Court makes a spousal maintenance clean break order then a husband and wife can’t make a maintenance application, even if there is a change in their personal financial circumstances at a later date. I am worried about if I am entitled to spousal maintenance. What should I do? The best thing to do is to get some early legal advice. Why? If you are entitled to spousal maintenance then an urgent Court application for what is known as ‘’maintence pending suit’’ may be necessary. Even if your situation isn’t urgent it pays to get legal advice so that you understand what steps need to be taken to ensure that you are either able to negotiate spousal maintenance; get a Court spousal maintenance order; or apply to change the amount or extend the time that spousal maintenance is payable for. In some situations that involves looking at your ex-spouses income and financial circumstances and in others looking at your outgoings, career prospects and family circumstances. [related_posts] If you have been reading the news about the end of the "meal ticket for life" divorce case of Mr and Mrs Mills and you are either getting divorced or are a divorcee you may be concerned about the question ‘’am I entitled to spousal maintenance?”. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume from some of the press coverage of Mr and Mrs Mill’s financial Court proceedings that spousal maintenance is an old fashioned concept and that after their divorce spouses will, in future, have to stand on their own two feet and be financially independent of one another. A careful read of the Court decision in Mr and Mrs Mill’s case reveals that the question "am I entitled to spousal maintenance" is still a very valid question. How does the Mills decision affect the question ‘’am I entitled to spousal maintenance?’’ Why has Mr and Mills case hit the headlines? In the Mills case the dispute was over whether Mr Mills should pay his ex-wife increased monthly spousal maintenance payments. When the couple split up the Court ordered Mr Mills to pay spousal maintenance to Mrs Mills. In addition the Court gave Mrs Mills enough capital to buy a house. Fast forward nearly a decade and Mr Mills wanted to reduce the spousal maintenance payments and Mrs Mills wanted the spousal maintenance payments to increase as she’d made unwise financial investments and was in debt and renting a house. She therefore argued that as she had increased outgoings she needed more spousal maintenance to meet her basic needs. The Supreme Court has ruled that the original level of spousal maintenance payments must continue but that they won't be increased. So, those who say that the Mills case stops the ‘’meal ticket for life’’ are wrong. However the Mills case and other recent Court decisions do show an increased concern on the part of the divorce Court to really analyse if spousal maintenance should be paid and if so the amount of the spousal maintenance and how long it should be paid for. This is with a view to both husband and wife in appropriate family situations, being able to achieve financial independence of one another. One of the strong reasons behind the Court decision not to increase Mrs Mill’s spousal maintenance payments was the fact that at the time of the first financial proceedings Mrs Mills had been given enough cash to buy a house and so if she’d used the money wisely she wouldn't have needed more spousal maintenance to pay her debts and rent. The Court concluded her ex-spouse shouldn’t be penalised by her poor financial decisions a decade after the marriage had broken down. For help with your entitlement to spousal maintenance or to review an existing spousal maintenance order please contact us.  

We were delighted to support a business breakfast recently with the special guest speaker Economist, Jim O’Neill, Lord O’Neill of Gatley.  The event was attended by over 100 guests from the business community, and raised nearly £10,000 for MedEquip4Kids. Once breakfast and coffee were served, MedEquip4Kids chairman Brian White welcomed Lord O’Neill and gave a brief introduction to his many impressive achievements. After graduating from Sheffield University, Lord O’Neill studied for a PhD at Surrey and went on to become a renowned economist, working for various banks including 15 years at Goldman Sachs Division of Asset Management. He is especially well known for developing the acronym BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), a group of countries considered to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. In 2011 he was named by Bloomberg Markets magazine as one of the 50 most influential financial professionals worldwide. When Lord O’Neill left Goldman Sachs he had a desire to do something different, though he wasn’t sure at first what that would be. Then he was asked by David Cameron to lead a review into the problem of antimicrobial resistance. His wife, who is a scientist, commented that it was the first time she’d be able to understand and be interested in what he was doing! Lord O’Neill has subsequently co-written a book called Superbugs: An Arms Race Against Bacteria. After the talk the floor was opened up for the audience to ask questions. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the circumstances, the first topic to be raised was Brexit.  Lord O’Neill’s view as a remainer was that there were likely to be negative consequences of Britain leaving the EU, but it perhaps wasn’t the most important issue facing the UK economy at the current time. In fact it was possible that increased productivity could eventually make up for any negative impact of Brexit. But in order to achieve that productivity, it was crucial to tackle geographical and intergenerational inequality – factors he believed were responsible for the referendum result, especially in places like Sunderland where people had felt for decades that they were being left behind compared to other parts of the UK. This led on to the subject of the Northern Powerhouse, an initiative which Lord O’Neill has championed and remains heavily involved in. In his opinion the six key factors in regenerating the northern economies are: devolution (in particular healthcare – he mentioned that in areas of North Manchester the life expectancy for men is just 59 years old), transport, education, skills, businesses moving out of London to prevent young people in the north having to relocate for jobs, and backing from private sector and council leaders. Finally Lord O’Neill was asked about the best emerging markets for UK exports, and he emphasised the importance of China. Although its growth has slowed recently, it still creates an equivalent of the South African economy every month. One important area is Chinese consumers: Apple now sells more iPhones to Chinese customers than it does to US ones. Other key emerging markets he noted were Vietnam and Laos. At the end of the breakfast Lord O’Neill, who is an enthusiastic supporter of Manchester United, drew out the winning envelope from the prize draw. The lucky winner was our very own Becky who went away with a Paul Pogba shirt! [related_posts]

Is it a gift or a loan? Helping your children on the property ladder. In an age where a lot of young people and divorcees recovering from the financial split from their spouse can’t get on the property ladder without help from the ‘’bank of mum and dad’’ a reported case in the Daily Mail highlights the importance of recording agreement over property. The reasons behind why Mr and Mrs Joy gave their daughter £90,000 are complex but in essence the Joy family dispute was simple: was the £90,000 payment a loan, as claimed by Mr and Mrs Joy, or a gift, as asserted by their daughter, Lucy. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5669857/Bitter-rift-bank-mum-dad-Couple-lose-90-000-loaning-daughter.html After a Court battle a judge has recently ruled that the money was a gift and is not repayable by the couple’s daughter, Lucy. This is despite Mr and Mrs Joy reportedly re-mortgaging their family home to raise the £90,000 for their daughter on the basis of an alleged verbal agreement that Lucy would then transfer an inherited property into Mrs Joy’s name. The key factor in the Court decision was that there was no written agreement or contract between parents and child. As a family solicitor I am often told by clients that they don’t need a written agreement or document between their family members. The Joy case is a salutary reminder of the importance of writing things down. That is not just because family can fall out but also to protect family members from: The donor’s estate being liable for extra inheritance tax as the HMRC might not view a payment to a family member as a ‘’gift’’ without formal evidence; The person receiving the money facing a financial claim on divorce and therefore needing to establish that money received from family was a gift to them as an individual or a repayable loan; The person receiving the money facing bankruptcy or a Court judgement – without a written document a third party or a Court may not accept that the money was a loan and not a gift. [related_posts] There are many different ways in which family property agreements can be recorded, such as: Cohabitation agreement between cohabiting couples; Declarations of trust between joint owners; Loan – not secured on the property ; Mortgage – secured against the property ; Prenup agreements between an engaged couple; Postnup agreements – suitable for a married couple who acquire property after marriage, for example, inherited from a parent; Record of gift of property or deposit to purchase a property. Whatever the type of document and however the paperwork is drawn up, the important thing is that there is a written agreement. By spending the time recording the property agreement a lot of time and money can be avoided when it comes time for the loan to be repaid, the property sold or the estate sorted out. The English philosopher, John Locke, said ‘’where there is no property there is no injustice’’. I say ‘’ where there is a written agreement on property there’s normally no injustice’’. For help with family agreements and estate planning please contact us

Spousal maintenance is always a thorny topic, in many cases the person making the payments thinks that they are paying too much and for too long and the person receiving the spousal maintenance thinks that they are getting too little, taking into account child care responsibilities, lifestyle during the marriage or lack of qualifications or career experience over a long marriage. A husband and wife locked in a Court battle over maintenance payments after their separation in 2012 hit the news after a Court of Appeal ruling. The couple, William Waggott and his former wife, Kim Waggott split up in 2012, after a 21 year marriage. Mr Waggott was ordered to pay his wife a lump sum of nearly 10 million and spousal maintenance for life at the rate of £175,000 a year. The one thing that the husband and wife were agreed on was that the original Court ruling was unfair; the husband thinking that spousal maintenance for life gave Mrs Waggott no financial incentive to get a job and the wife thinking the amount was too low and needed to be adjusted by the date of the Court of Appeal hearing to take into account cost of living increases and Mr Waggott’s income. The battle lines were drawn with Mr Waggott applying to Court to stop the spousal maintenance for life and Mrs Waggott asking the Court for more maintenance. The Court of Appeal has ruled that Mrs Waggott’s spousal maintenance payments shouldn’t continue for life but instead end in three years’ time. The Court has also said that the amount of maintenance won't increase. As well as losing her spousal maintenance in three years Mrs Waggott also faces substantial legal costs. Reasoning behind the Court decision Mrs Waggott argued that her former husband's earnings capacity had been created during their 21 year marriage and that it was only right that she should continue to share the fruit of the marriage as her ex-husband's ongoing income was still a ‘’matrimonial asset’’. It was also argued, on Mrs Waggott’s behalf, that she should not have to invest some of the near 10 million she had received in 2012 to generate an income for herself, instead of getting ongoing spousal maintenance. It was said that would mean she was using her share of the capital of the marriage to live off when the 10 million was her entitlement to the family assets generated during the marriage. Mr Justice Moylan ruled that the former husband's future earnings capacity is not a ‘’matrimonial asset’’ and accordingly it doesn’t have to be shared with Mrs Waggott and that the wife could invest some off her lump sum and live off the interest or get employment. The Court is always keen to achieve what is known as a ‘’financial clean break’’ to sever the money ties between a husband and wife as soon as possible after a divorce. That will be achieved in the Waggott’s case in three years’ time when the maintenance payments stop. [related_posts] What does the ruling mean? In the press the Waggott Court of Appeal decision has been hailed as a victory for bread winners and the end of ‘’the meal ticket for life’’ of spousal maintenance. Does the decision mean that? The leading judge was careful to say that he acknowledged that long term maintenance can be required as part of a fair outcome in a divorce . There is therefore a danger in saying that the Waggott decision means there will be an end to spousal maintenance for life. In Mrs Waggott’s case she had received nearly 10 million and both she and her former husband had bought new houses for about 2 million each. That meant Mrs Waggott still had capital and, as importantly, had previously enjoyed a good career and so she could, in the judge’s opinion, adjust to the termination of her spousal maintenance payments without undue hardship. That won't be the case for many families where the economically weaker spouse has used all of their capital sum to pay for a new house, perhaps with a mortgage, and therefore doesn’t have the option of living off interest or the prospect of getting a well-paid job that will pay enough to cover the mortgage and bills. The frustrating thing about family Court decisions is that whilst they lay down principles of law the principles can't be applied rigidly to every family situation. Each Court decision is based on the individual’s personal and financial circumstances. That is why it is so important to get objective legal advice on what a ruling might mean for you and your family. Why? Because there is normally a range of Court orders that a Court could reasonably make in a given family situation rather than one ‘‘right answer’’. That’s why Court litigation is such a lottery as there is always a risk that you could be a loser in a Court battle. In light of this decision many breadwinners will want to review whether they should apply back to Court to stop their spousal maintenance payments for life and others will want advice on how to negotiate a clean break figure following the Court ruling. Equally those receiving spousal maintenance will need legal advice as Mrs Waggott’s case is a clear reminder, to both husband and wives, of the risks and costs of Court litigation. For help with any aspect of divorce and family finances or changes to an existing spousal maintenance order please contact us.

The race to start international divorce proceedings Most people assume, especially as we are currently part of the European Union, that if a couple decide to separate and get divorced it doesn’t matter which country they petition for divorce in as a ‘’divorce is a divorce’’. Well that response is both right and wrong. My apologies for giving a stereotypical ‘’on the fence’’ lawyer’s answer but whilst a husband or wife may achieve a divorce as a result of the decision to petition for a divorce in country A it may mean the husband or the wife's financial settlement is a lot less compared to if they had started the divorce proceedings in country B. The Court of Appeal has been hearing a case involving a German financier Oliver Thum and his wife, Catja, to decide whether to stop the divorce proceedings issued by Mrs Thum in London and to allow Mr Thum’s German divorce proceedings to go ahead: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5504825/German-financier-estranged-wife-divorce-battleground-dispute.html This scenario of a family with more than one divorce country to choose from is surprisingly common however when a husband or wife are separating they often don’t realise at that stage the financial significance of their decision to start Court proceedings in a particular country or they don’t have the means to challenge an estranged husband or wife's decision to commence the divorce in country A rather than B. In the Thum’s case it is agreed that Catja Thum started her divorce proceedings in London before her husband had issued proceedings in Germany. The question for the Court is whether her delay in sending her divorce petition to her husband should mean that her divorce petition is dismissed? That is an issue that the Court of Appeal judges are considering. It certainly won't be the last time this scenario comes before the Court for adjudication for whilst London is perceived to be ‘’the divorce capital’’ for large financial awards there will be always be a natural attraction for the economically weaker spouse to start Court proceedings in England. I am often asked to give preliminary advice where there is potentially more than one divorce Court jurisdiction and if advice is needed from an overseas lawyer as to whether it would be preferable to start divorce proceedings overseas then I can easily arrange this as I am a fellow of the International Academy of Family Lawyers, the world’s leading organisation of expert international family lawyers. [related_posts] Always seek expert advice If there is the potential to start divorce proceedings in more than one jurisdiction it is vital to get expert legal advice as quickly as possible on your options so that you preserve the ability to start divorce proceedings in the country of your choice. Sometimes people are reluctant to take the step of seeing a lawyer but an initial consultation doesn’t commit you to anything but gives you information to help you chose the right option for you. If that option is a divorce then early advice gives you the opportunity to choose the ‘‘right’’ country to initiate the Court proceedings in. For help with international divorce proceedings or financial settlements please contact us

Pilot faces a £600,000 payment and a freezing order after losing his Court battle over the enforcement of a family Court order. Whenever a divorcing couple end up in Court with a family judge making the decision on how their assets should be divided or how much spousal maintenance and child support should be paid there is always a risk that either the husband or wife or both of them may be very unhappy with the outcome of the Court proceedings and their Court Order. The dissatisfaction with a family Court judgement and financial order can lead to appeals against the decision or to orders being deliberately flouted in the hope that an ex-husband or wife won't want to launch further Court proceedings to enforce the original financial Court order. Sometimes financial Court proceedings can take on a life of their own. The media has recently highlighted the case of Richard Wilmot and his ex-wife Viki Maughan who have been engaged in a 16 year battle over payment of child support, with paternity of the youngest child being in dispute despite DNA testing. The Court has ruled that just shy of £600,000 should be paid to the ex-wife, consisting of child support arrears and legal costs. Importantly the Court has also made a freezing order freezing property, money in bank accounts as well as pension and insurance monies. The Court decision to freeze assets shows just how far family judges are prepared to go to make sure that Court orders are complied with. A read of the Court judgement emphasises just how exasperated the judge was by the ‘’utter folly’’ of the ex-husband’s actions resulting in him being ordered to pay nearly £600,000 when the child support arrears only amounted to about £115,000 with the rest of the monies being legal costs and the costs of specialists employed by the ex-wife to trace and recover the money. The case highlights the financial and emotional costs of engaging in a long drawn out Court battle but, perhaps more importantly, shows the long arm of the law, in this case over a 16 year period to enforce the payment of child support . [related_posts] In my view this unhappy Court saga reveals why it is so vital to try and reach an out of Court financial settlement that both an ex-husband and ex-wife can live with to avoid enforcement Court litigation and costs. That isn’t always possible. If a financial Court order has to be made by a judge it is important to take legal advice on appeal options and, if necessary, enforcement options to avoid the costs of the Court proceedings getting out of hand and ultimately, as in the case of Mr Wilmot, dwarfing the amount in dispute between husband and wife. If you need help with the terms of a financial settlement or a Court order please contact us.

When I read that an 83 year old had been jailed for 14 months I assumed that he had been sent to prison for a very serious criminal offence. Reading on I learnt that the businessman had been incarcerated for breaching a family financial Court order. The case of Mr and Mrs Hart highlights that family law judges do have the power to enforce financial Court orders although it remains very rare for a family Court to jail a husband or wife for contempt of Court. What led to the incarceration? In 2015 Mr and Hart got divorced and Mr Hart was ordered to pay his ex-wife 3.5 million of the couple’s reported assets of 9 million. The Court order involved the transfer of shares in a property company from the ex-husband to his ex-wife. Mrs Hart complained that her ex-husband had breached the financial Court order and she wasn’t able, as a result of Mr Hart’s actions, to run the property company. Those difficulties led to an application by Mrs Hart for Mr Hart’s committal to prison for contempt of Court. When sentencing Mr Hart to custody the judge highlighted the attempts made by Mrs Hart and her lawyers to avoid pursuing the committal application but ultimately, in the judge’s view, there was no option other than a prison sentence to ensure the original financial Court order would be complied with. Can all financial Court orders be enforced? A lot depends on the precise wording of the Court order. That is why, in my opinion it is vital to make sure that Court orders are written in a way that if either a husband or wife doesn’t comply with what they were ordered to do that the Court order can be enforced. In some situations it is important to anticipate difficulties and to therefore make sure that the family finance Court order gives a tight deadline for the transfer of property, or sets out exactly how a family home will be sold (for example recording the mechanism for agreeing the sale price and the choice of estate agent) and, where possible, providing for the sale of an asset if a transfer of property doesn’t take place by the Court imposed date. The other important thing to bear in mind is to try and keep financial Court orders as straightforward as possible, subject to the nature of the family assets. Sometimes an ex-husband and wife want to continue to co-own a property or a company together after a divorce but that type of financial settlement, even if incorporated into a Court order, can lead to difficulties and enforcement applications. That is why if there is a simple financial solution the family Courts often prefer that type of Court order to achieve closure and avoid the cost of bringing enforcement action. [related_posts] Can financial orders be varied? If a family judge has made a final financial order then normally most aspects of the order can't be changed save for the amount of any spousal maintenance. However depending on the precise wording of the order the Court could be asked to extend time to make a payment or to change how a property is sold. That is why it is important to get specialist legal advice when sorting out a financial agreement so that both an ex-husband and ex-wife know where they stand if they want to vary the financial Court order or they need the order to be enforced.   For advice on enforcing family financial Court orders or to discuss divorce financial settlement options please contact us.

According to the BBC news a couple of days ago, the number of first-time buyers relying on mum and dad for the deposit to buy their first home or to climb the property ladder has reached a record high https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39381157 This is not surprising, given that house prices are, on average, seven times salary. The problem is a lot worse in London and the home counties. As a specialist family finance solicitor, with many years experience in dealing with divorce and cohabitation breakdown, I have seen plenty of examples of where parents have helped their son or daughter to buy a property, only to find that when their son or daughter’s relationship breaks down, half or even more of that money goes to their ex. Why is mum and dad’s money vulnerable? Many people assume that just because the money has come from their family, or just because the house is bought in their son or daughter’s sole name, the money is protected. This is not true. Partners and spouses can make financial claims over property, even if their name is not on the title deeds and even if they have not paid the mortgage or the bills. Marriage makes the family money even more vulnerable because normally the divorce court will completely ignore the source of funds used to buy the house. Many people assume that just because the money has come from their family, or just because the house is bought in their son or daughter’s sole name, the money is protected. This is not true. Partners and spouses can make financial claims over property, even if their name is not on the title deeds and even if they have not paid the mortgage or the bills. Marriage makes the family money even more vulnerable because normally the divorce court will completely ignore the source of funds used to buy the house. Increasingly, I am being asked by clients how they can protect the parents’ money from relationship breakdown. There are a large number of ways of doing it, and they each have their pros and cons. However, the key message is that whatever way you choose, it needs to be agreed and properly documented at the time the money is provided by mum and dad. The different ways of protecting mum and dad’s money A loan from mum and dad Mum and dad co-owning the house A gift of the deposit Putting the gift of money into a ‘trust’. The trust can then lend, or give money to the beneficiary of the trust fund to buy the house, or even co-own the house with the beneficiary Mum and dad own the house completely, but let their son or daughter occupy the house The best option will depend on the family’s circumstances. That is why it is important to get specialist advice. For example, if parents are wealthy and know that they have a lot of capital that they won’t get through in their lifetimes the option of a gift or trust fund might be the best way to help the family member get on the property ladder and save on inheritance tax. A record of the gift will help evidence it for the tax man and will also help if the son or daughter later starts to live with a partner at the property. If a family is not wealthy then a loan agreement may be the best way forward. The key to a family loan is that it can be prepared to meet the family’s needs over when the money is paid back and if the loan will charge interest or not. You need a cohabitation agreement (or a pre-nup) Whatever option you choose, it is highly advisable to have a cohabitation agreement (or a pre-nup, if son or daughter are definitely going to get married) before the property is bought, which explains what will happen to the house and the money if the relationship does not work. [related_posts] A cohabitation agreement or pre-nup are absolutely essential if mum and dad are going to gift the money to their son or daughter because it is not being protected in any other way (e.g. a loan or co-ownership). If you ask most parents whether they need a written agreement over giving or lending money within the family they say that raising the topic would make them feel uncomfortable. My own view is that it is the parents’ money, it is perfectly reasonable for them to want that money to stay in the family, and it is therefore perfectly reasonable for the condition of that help to be a cohabitation agreement or a pre-nup. Cohabitation agreements and pre-nups are flexible and bespoke to the couple entering into the agreement. The agreement could say that the non-owning partner won’t have any claims at all on the property or it could say how the joint owners will share the equity in the house if they split up. For example, the agreement could say that mum and dad will be paid back their loan first, with interest, or that the partner whose parent’s provided the deposit will get a bigger percentage of the equity. The important point is that if the options on how to give or lend the deposit are explored and the options of how the couple will own a house are carefully considered and recorded there is far less chance of the family falling out with their son or daughter or their in-laws. Contact us If you would like to ask any questions about pre-nup or cohabitation agreements, please contact us. and take a look at our prices online.