Judge criticises couple over “grotesquely” expensive divorce battle

A judge has criticised a couple for running up a bill of £1.5m just to decide where their divorce proceedings should be heard.

Property developer Jim Moore separated from his wife Kim in 2003. The family had previously moved to Spain so he wanted the divorce to be dealt with there. He offered his wife £6m plus property. However, she wanted the proceedings to be heard in England. When the High Court agreed that she should be allowed to do so her husband appealed.

However, his appeal failed prompting criticism for both parties from the judge. He said the battle over where the proceedings should take place was “lamentable and grotesque” and pointed out that English law would apply had the case gone ahead in Spain. He said the £1.5m bill was shocking.

This is an extreme case of course but illustrates how matters can get out of all proportion when couples start to confront each other during divorce rather than try to reach an amicable settlement.

Often it is better to seek mediation in these cases rather than stick rigidly to pursue the matter through the courts. Mediation can be far more economical as well as less stressful and damaging to the couple’s future relationship. This is particularly important in cases where children are involved and couples need to keep in contact to ensure amicable arrangements over such things as access and maintenance.

Please contact either Catherine Wenborn or Emma Rodgers if you would like more information about mediation and divorce proceedings.

Ex-wife won’t share in husband’s future earnings

Many men fear the odds are stacked against them when it comes to divorce but now a new High Court ruling has shifted the balance a little in their favour – at least in certain circumstances.

It follows the case of a couple who divorced after 20 years of marriage. The husband was a high-earning City banker; the wife was a teacher but took long breaks away from her career to look after their four children and accompany her husband when he was obliged to work abroad.

His career flourished and by the time the marriage broke up, the couple had amassed considerable wealth. She was awarded £13m, roughly half the couple’s joint assets, but also asked for a further £1.5m as a share of the husband’s future earnings.

However, the judge refused to make the award saying that the wife had been given an adequate lump sum to ensure a clean break and she should not expect a share of money he might earn in the future. Mr Justice Charles said the wife had been a teacher and so had not given up a career that would have been likely to provide substantial income.
He added that her contribution to his future earning potential was small because his high level of income was primarily based “on his talents, hard work and good fortune in pursuing his career.”

At first glance, the ruling may seem to be out step with the case last year of Kenneth McFarlane who was ordered to pay his ex-wife £250,000 a year for life. The key difference, however, is that the McFarlanes had not accumulated enough wealth to ensure a clean break.

Mr Justice Charles said that in this latest case, the wife’s £13m half share of the couple’s total assets at the time of separation would enable her to live in great comfort for the rest of her life and so there was no reason for her to share in her husband’s future earnings.

Each couple’s circumstances are different, of course, but this latest High Court ruling should go some way to allaying men’s fears that ex-wives will be given unrealistic or unjustified settlements by the courts.

We have many years experience representing both husbands and wives during divorce proceedings. Please contact Catherine Wenborn if you would like more details.

Co-habiting couples need more protection

A Nottingham solicitor is calling for changes in the law to provide greater equality in the way married and co-habiting couples are treated when their relationships break down.

Catherine Wenborn believes the current system would lead most lawyers to give conflicting advice to men and women involved in a committed relationship. “The message coming out of the courts is that women are better off getting married whereas men are better off staying single and simply co-habiting.”

High profile cases like that of business tycoon John Charman who was ordered to pay his ex-wife £48m illustrate how the courts are prepared to award generous settlements to women who are married yet there is hardly any protection for those who co-habit, even though they may have been with their partners for far longer than the duration of most marriages.

“Many women think they are automatically entitled to financial support from their partner if they break up but they are not. We come across cases where women have lived with a man for 20 years yet they end up with virtually nothing when the relationship breaks ups up or he dies without making a will.”

“Men can also lose out because unmarried fathers don’t necessarily have the same rights when it comes to access to children.

The Law Commission is currently considering the legal position of co-habiting couples.

Catherine Wenborn, who is head of family law at Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham, says it should increase protection for co-habitees as soon as possible, especially those who have lived together for several years.

There are currently more than four million people living together as couples without marrying in the UK.

Catherine Wenborn is head of the Family Department at Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham and can be contacted by telephoning 0115 988 6717 or emailing cwenborn@andersonssolicitors.co.uk. Catherine is available for interview to explain the difference between the legal rights of married couples and those of co-habiting couples.

Divorcees could be liable for ex-partner’s debts

Divorced couples who thought they had made a clean break could now find themselves liable for thousands of pounds of debt if their former spouse is declared bankrupt, lawyers have warned.

A landmark ruling in the High Court means they are no longer protected from their ex-partners creditors even when their divorce settlement was ordered by a court.

Catherine Wenborn, family law specialist at Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham, said the court ruling applies retrospectively so people who divorced up to five years ago could also be affected. The case involved David and Wendy Haines who had lived at a house near Stourport-on-Severn in Worcestershire.

They divorced in 2003 and Mrs Haines received the house as part of the settlement ordered by the court. When Mr Haines petitioned to be declared bankrupt two years later, the bankruptcy trustees took legal action to set aside the divorce settlement. The High Court ruled in their favour which means that Mrs Haines may have to give back her husband’s share in the house unless he can repay his debts in some other way, even though they divorced four years ago.

Catherine Wenborn says the ruling overturns the concept that divorce settlements ordered by the courts could not be overturned by bankruptcy proceedings.

“It’s bad news for people who thought they had made a clean break and it’s likely to have a major effect of future divorce settlements where there is a possibility of one partner going bankrupt.”

Catherine Wenborn is head of the Family Department at Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham and can be contacted by telephoning 0115 988 6717 or emailing cwenborn@andersonssolicitors.co.uk.

Co-habiting couples must protect their assets

Unmarried couples who buy a house together should not assume they would be entitled to an equal share of its sale value should their relationship break down. Catherine Wenborn explains how a House of Lords ruling should make co-habiting couples think twice about protecting their assets.

There are more than two million unmarried couples living together in the UK. Many of them have bought houses in their joint names and assume that they will be entitled to a half share of it should their relationship come to an end.

That is not necessarily the case as a ruling by the House of Lords has just illustrated. Barry Stack had lived with his partner Dehra Dowden for 27 years. They had four children and their house was in joint names but they had never married. When the couple separated Stack assumed he was entitled to 50% of the value of the house and the County Court agreed.

However, Dowden refused to accept this. She claimed the house should be split 65 – 35 in her favour because she had contributed far more in paying for the property. The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords ruled in her favour.

In giving the ruling, Lord Hope laid out some basic principles. If a property is bought in the name of just one of the co-habiting couple then the court will start from the position that it belongs to that person alone. Unlike with married couples, the other co-habiting partner would have to show why they were entitled to a share.

If the house is bought in both of their names then the court presumes that it belongs to them jointly. A partner who wanted more than 50% would have to provide a good argument as to why they were entitled to more.

That is exactly what Dehra Dowden was able to do. She was an electrical engineer and earned more than her partner who was a self-employed builder and decorator. Their first home together was bought in her name and she contributed more to the purchase price.

Their second home was bought in joint names using the proceeds from the sale of the first house. Dowden again contributed more than Stack in paying off the loan.

The Law Lords said this was an unusual case and that was why they were prepared to overlook the normal presumption that the proceeds from houses bought jointly should be divided equally.

This was partly because Dowden had contributed far more to paying for the property but also because of the way the couple had kept their finances separate throughout their relationship.
Lady Hale said: "There cannot be many unmarried couples who have lived together for as long as this, who have had four children together, and whose affairs have been kept as rigidly separate as this couple's affairs were kept. This is all strongly indicative that they did not intend their shares, even in the property which was put into both their names, to be equal."

The case has implications for all co-habiting couples who buy a house together. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, as in this case, the proceeds are likely to split 50-50. Couples who feel such a split would be unfair because one is contributing more than the other should agree in advance how the money should be divided and formalise that agreement with a declaration of trust. That would save any misunderstandings later, which may be particularly difficult to deal with amid the emotion of the relationship breaking up. It would also be wise to draw up a co-habitation or living together agreement covering all the couple’s financial arrangements and setting out what should happen in the event of a break-up.

If disagreements do occur once a relationship breaks down then it may prove expensive to pursue the matter through the courts. Dowden won her case but as Lady Hale pointed out, the “costs of pursuing the argument to this House will have been quite disproportionate”.

Catherine Wenborn is head of family law at Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham and can be contacted on 0115 988 6717.

Co-habiting couples must protect their assets

Unmarried couples who buy a house together should not assume they would be entitled to an equal share of its sale value should their relationship break down. Catherine Wenborn explains how a House of Lords ruling should make co-habiting couples think twice about protecting their assets.

There are more than two million unmarried couples living together in the UK. Many of them have bought houses in their joint names and assume that they will be entitled to a half share of it should their relationship come to an end.

That is not necessarily the case as a ruling by the House of Lords has just illustrated. Barry Stack had lived with his partner Dehra Dowden for 27 years. They had four children and their house was in joint names but they had never married. When the couple separated Stack assumed he was entitled to 50% of the value of the house and the County Court agreed.

However, Dowden refused to accept this. She claimed the house should be split 65 – 35 in her favour because she had contributed far more in paying for the property. The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords ruled in her favour.

In giving the ruling, Lord Hope laid out some basic principles. If a property is bought in the name of just one of the co-habiting couple then the court will start from the position that it belongs to that person alone. Unlike with married couples, the other co-habiting partner would have to show why they were entitled to a share.

If the house is bought in both of their names then the court presumes that it belongs to them jointly. A partner who wanted more than 50% would have to provide a good argument as to why they were entitled to more.

That is exactly what Dehra Dowden was able to do. She was an electrical engineer and earned more than her partner who was a self-employed builder and decorator. Their first home together was bought in her name and she contributed more to the purchase price.

Their second home was bought in joint names using the proceeds from the sale of the first house. Dowden again contributed more than Stack in paying off the loan.

The Law Lords said this was an unusual case and that was why they were prepared to overlook the normal presumption that the proceeds from houses bought jointly should be divided equally.

This was partly because Dowden had contributed far more to paying for the property but also because of the way the couple had kept their finances separate throughout their relationship.
Lady Hale said: "There cannot be many unmarried couples who have lived together for as long as this, who have had four children together, and whose affairs have been kept as rigidly separate as this couple's affairs were kept. This is all strongly indicative that they did not intend their shares, even in the property which was put into both their names, to be equal."

The case has implications for all co-habiting couples who buy a house together. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, as in this case, the proceeds are likely to split 50-50. Couples who feel such a split would be unfair because one is contributing more than the other should agree in advance how the money should be divided and formalise that agreement with a declaration of trust. That would save any misunderstandings later, which may be particularly difficult to deal with amid the emotion of the relationship breaking up. It would also be wise to draw up a co-habitation or living together agreement covering all the couple’s financial arrangements and setting out what should happen in the event of a break-up.

If disagreements do occur once a relationship breaks down then it may prove expensive to pursue the matter through the courts. Dowden won her case but as Lady Hale pointed out, the “costs of pursuing the argument to this House will have been quite disproportionate”.

Catherine Wenborn is head of family law at Andersons Solicitors in Nottingham and can be contacted on 0115 988 6717.