New recruit at Andersons Solicitors

Nottingham law firm Andersons Solicitors strengthens its Family Law Department with the appointment of Angela Maxfield. Angela is Accredited by Resolution as a specialist in complex financial and property matters, preparing and presenting cases in court - money and property and Children law, Previously Angela was at Northampton Solicitors Turner Coulston.

She has over 15 years' experience in providing proactive advice to medium and high net worth individuals on all aspects of divorce and separation including; finances, pensions, property and children contact disputes. Angela also advises clients on Cohabitation Agreements and Pre-nuptial Agreements both of which are becoming ever more popular.

Andrew Kelly, Managing Partner comments "Angela is an excellent addition to the Family department. Her appointment shows our commitment to offering clients the very best legal solutions".

Angela comments " It's a fantastic opportunioty. I'm thrilled to have joined the esteablished Family Department here at Anderson Solicitors"

Mediation can help reduce the stress of divorce

The government has announced that all divorcing couples will have to consider mediation before they are allowed to go to court to resolve any disputes. Angela Maxfield looks at how mediation can help reduce the stress and cost of separation.

Divorce proceedings often descend into bitter in-fighting and recriminations with everything from money, the children and the kitchen sink being dragged into the battle.

Now the Government, with the backing of many family lawyers, wants to promote a more civilised approach. From 6th April onwards, all divorcing couples will have to consider mediation before they are allowed to proceed to court.

Mediation is an informal process in which a trained mediator helps the couple to resolve difficult issues amicably. It is usually quicker and cheaper than going through the courts.

The mediator, such as a solicitor, can arrange meetings on neutral premises. The mediator's role is to act as a facilitator to help the couple share information and reach an agreement. It is not to offer advice or favour one side or the other. The approach is non-confrontational.

Mediation can be particularly helpful when a couple want to put the interests of their children first yet find it difficult to reach agreement. If they can find an amicable solution that is fair to both sides then there is a chance that they may remain on good terms after the divorce.

This can be enormously helpful as they may need to retain a good working relationship for many years to come for the sake of their children.

The same principle applies to other arrangements that have to be made when couples separate. They may have to sell their home so the proceeds can be divided between them. They may also have to reach agreements about their investments, their property and even their pensions.

It is better if these issues can be resolved in a civilised way that is fair to both sides rather than have a solution imposed upon them by a court.

Mediation sessions may take place over several months so neither side has to be rushed into decisions.

Once the couple reach agreement, the mediator will record it in two summaries. Both husband and wife should then give those summaries to their respective solicitors so they can form the basis of a consent order.

Mediation may bot be suitable for everyone but for thousands of couples it has already provided a way to reduce the stress and heartache to a minimum.

For more information on mediation please contact Angela Maxfield on 0115 947 0641.

Get ready for the age of a pre-nup

Pre nuptial agreements could soon become an integral part of marriage following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. Sarah Perkins explains why these seemingly unromantic documents are now becoming more popular.

If we ignore the romantic elements of relationships for a moment - difficult though that may be - then pre-nuptial agreements are perfectly straightforward and sensible contracts.

They simple set out in advance what should happen if the marriage ends in divorce. They can cover a wide range of topics but mostly they describe how the couple's money should be divided if the worst came to the worst.

Until now, many couples have shield away from drawing up a pre-nup because they weren't always legally enforceable in the UK, unlike other countries such as United States.

British courts could take them into account but the judge wasn't bound by them. However, the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of the wealthy heiress Katrin Radmacher has put pre-nups on a much firmer footing.

Ms Radmacher and her former husband Nicolas Granatino had drawn up a pre-nup which said that if they divorced, then neither would make a claim on the other's wealth.

However, when the couple separated, Mr Granatino tried to get the courts to disregard the agreement and award him a share of his former wife's fortune. The Supreme Court ruled against him and in doing so, made it clear that courts should uphold pre-nups unless there were reasons for not doing so.

Such reasons could include cases where the husband or wife deliberately withheld information about their wealth when the pre-nup was being drafted.

Otherwise, however, as long as the pre-nups are fair and properly drawn up then they are likely to be enforced from now on.

It's an important ruling, not just for wealthy couples, but also for thousands of people who may not consider themselves wealthy but who still have interests they need to protect.

An obvious example would be people who are marrying for a second time. They may be in their forties or fifties and have built up successful businesses or substantial savings.

They may also have children and feel the need to protect their inheritance. A pre-nup agreement can prevent any difficulties occurring if the marriage doesn't work out.

Younger couples can also benefit, especially if one is much wealthier than the other.

Some couples have been holding off making a pre-nup because they wanted to see the outcome of the Radmacher case. Now they know that pre-nups are likely to be enforced, they are coming forward with more confidence.

Pre-nups may never be acceptable to the incurable romantics among us, but for those who temper romance with a streak or realism, they can provide a sense of security and peace of mind.

Indeed, most couples who draw up pre-nups say it strengthens their relationship to know that they have been adult enough to discuss such matters and face them openly.

Then they can relax and enjoy a happy marriage in which, hopefully, the pre-nup will never be needed.

For more information or to draw up a pre-nup please contact Sarah Perkins on 0115 988 6718 or email sperkins@andersonssolicitors.co.uk

You pay all the mortgage and still lose half your house!

Cohabiting couples are often very hazy about their financial arrangements - as one woman found to her cost when her former partner won a share of her house even though they'd been separated for 17 years, Sarah Perkins explains the problems.

Everything seem rosy when couples move in together and of course we like to believe it will remain that way.

Unfortunately, the reality can often be a very different story and a case before the Court of Appeal highlights the problems that can arise.

It involved a couple who bought a house in 1985 in joint names. The woman had provided the deposit and the mortgage payments were shared.

The man moved out in 1993 when the couple separated. The woman remained in the house with their two children and made all the mortgage payments herself.

Twelve years later, the man asked for his share of the property. The woman responded by saying it was her home. She had paid the mortgage and maintenance bills so how could it not be hers? The court eventually decided on a 90/10 split in her favor as a way of recognising that although she had paid the lion's share, the man had also contributed a little for the first few years.

However, that ruling has now been overturned by the Court pf Appeal. It held that the property had been bought in joint names. That had created joint beneficial interests and the couple had not done anything to change that when they separated.

The passage of time alone was not enough to displace the man's claim to a half share, even though the woman had settled all the bills.

If the couple had intended that his interest should diminish after separation then they should have taken steps to make that happen. They did not do so.

The court added the advice the couples buying a home together should consider what would happen if they were to separate.

It's not entirely surprising that in the rush to get out of a failed relationship, cohabiting couples may cut corners to reach an early settlement. Unfortunately, overlooking the legal details can cause heartache and prove very costly further down the line.

For more information please contact Sarah Perkins on 0115 988 6718.

With this pre-nup I thee wed

Nine Supreme Court justices are currently considering a bitter dispute between a divorced couple that could settle once and for all whether pre-nuptial agreements can be legally binding. Sarah Perkins examines the growing appeal of pre-nups and the value they may have in the future.

There's no doubting the growing popularity of pre-nuptial agreements now that people tend to marry later when they're a little more worldly wise and have a lot more wealth to protect.

It's not just married couples. Cohabiting couples are also drawing up similar agreements and the latest news from America is that they're also becoming popular with dating couples.

People clearly want to protect themselves but how valuable are these pre-nups? In America and most of Europe they tend to be legally binding but in the UK the position is less clear. Until recently, the courts would certainly take them into account in the event of a dispute but would disregard them if the judge thought it appropriate.

This could happen if there were compelling reasons to doubt their viability. Doubts might arise if one party signed without getting proper legal advice or if someone failed to disclose all their assets when the contract was being drawn up. Getting someone to sign under pressure, such as the day before the wedding, would also be considered dubious.

The status of pre-nups took a major leap forward with the latest high profile case before the courts, that of wealthy German heiress Katrin Radmachr and her former husband, Nicolas Granatino, who is French. When they married they drew up a pre-nup saying that he would not make a claim on her money if they ended up divorcing.

The High Court decided that it would be unfair to hold Mr Granatino to the pre-nup agreement and awarded him £5.8m from Miss Radmacher's fortune.

However, that ruling was then overturned by the Court of Appeal which cut the payment to £1m - a figure Miss Radmacher was prepared to accept. In giving his judgement after the hearing, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was becoming "increasingly unrealistic" for courts to disregard pre-nups. He believed that a "carefully fashioned contract" could provide a valuable alternative to the "stress, anxiety and expense" of going to court.

"There are many instances in which mature couples. perhaps each contemplating a second marriage, wish to regulate the future enjoyment of their assets and perhaps protect the interests of the children of their earlier marriages upon dissolution of a second marriage."

That ruling put pre-nups on a much stronger footing but now Mr Granatino has taken his case to the Supreme Court. He says he didn't know the full extent of his former wife's wealth when he signed the pre-nup and will suffer personal hardship if the agreement is upheld.

His lawyers argued that the Court of Appeal had created a revolutionary piece of legislation instead of applying existing case law. Miss Radmacher's counsel countered by saying that the court should uphold the principle "that people should not easily be able to escape their bargains".

The issue can evoke strong feelings on both sides but now that it's reached the highest court in the land we Can look forward to some clarity at last. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, its ruling will be final and have serious implications for pre-nups in the future.

If Miss Radmacher wins the case then pre-nups will have to be taken far more seriously by the courts and be considered legally binding, unless there are strong reasons to doubt their validity.

If Mr Granatino wins then the position will be less clear, but hopefully the court ill give some guidance when giving its judgment which will clarify the situation for the future.

The judgment is being reserved to a later date.

For more information please contact Sarah Perkins - family law expert on 0115 947 0641.

The law offers new hope to ‘heroic’ grandparents

Family breakdowns mean that grandparents sometimes have to suffer the heartache of being denied contact with their grandchildren. Now a Supreme Court ruling together with new legislation could help ease some of the pain, as Sarah Perkins explains.

It's a surprise to some people but grandparents have no automatic right to have contact with their children.

This means they can face a difficult battle if a family breakdown means they are denied access by a son or daughter-in-law or even in some cases by their own children.

Thankfully, help is in hand, both in the form of a recent landmark court case and proposed new legislation outlined by the Government in 'Support for All - the Families and Relationships Green Paper'.

Ministers want to make it easier for grandparents - described as "unsung heroes" by Children's minister Ed Balls - to seek contact with their grandchildren. As the law stands now, they have to get permission from a court before they can even start to make an application for contact.

The proposed new measures would remove that hurdle making the process easier.

Court action ought to be a last resort, of course. The first step should be to approach the parent who's being obstructive and try to reach an agreement. This can be difficult if they are feeling bitter after the break-up of a relationship but in time, most people will realise the value of their child having contact with the grandparents.

If that doens't work then mediation with the help of an independent mediator might help. However, both sides have to agree so it may not always be suitable.

Legal action may then become necessary, although there's a good chance the problem could still be resolved before you get to court. Once the application is made, family advisory officers from court agency CAFCASS may be appointed to examine welfare issues and prepare a report.

These reports are often strong enough to persuade the obstructive parent that contact would be good for their child. If not, the matter is likely to be decided by the court, who usually follow the recommendations of the CAFCASS officer.

If the court decides in favour of contact with the granparents then the parents will have to comply.

There was also good news for grandparents when the Supreme Court rules that a four-year-old boy should live with his grandmother rather than his father.

The boy's parents seperated before he was borb and he had lived all his life with his grandmother. Three years later, the father applied for a residence other. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a child's welfare must take precedence over the interests of the biological parents.

Lord Kerr said: "He has lived virtually all of his young life with his grandmother. He has naturally formed a strong bond with her. There is reason to apprehend that, if the bond is broken, his current stability will be threatened."

Each case must be taken on its individual maerits, of course, but this ruling together with the Green Papre should give granparents confidence that the tide is turning in their favour and that their role in their grandchildren's lives is highly valued.

For more information please contact Sarah Perkins on 0115 988 6718.

Pre-nups are for everyone – not just the rich

A wealthy heiress has just won a legal battle to protect her fortune from her former husband. Sarah Perkins examines how the landmark ruling on pre-nuptial agreements could now have a major impact on less well-off couples – especially those marrying for a second time.

Pre-nuptial agreements are becoming increasingly popular although they only tend to hit the headlines when rich or famous couples divorce.

The latest example involves the wealthy German heiress Katrin Radmacher and her former husband, Nicolas Granatino, who is French. When they married they drew up a pre-nup saying that he would not make a claim on her money if they ended up divorcing.

The pre-nup would have been enforceable in their native Germany and France but they married in England, where historically the legal position has been less certain.

Under English Law pre-nups are taken into account by the Court but they are not legally binding. This has led to some debate as to their value, especially last year after the High Court decided that it would be unfair to hold Mr Granatino to the pre-nup agreement and awarded him £5.8m from Miss Radmacher’s fortune.

However, that ruling has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal which has cut the payment to £1m – a figure Miss Radmacher was happy to accept. In giving his judgment after the hearing, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was becoming “increasingly unrealistic” for the court to disregard pre-nups and that a “carefully fashioned contract” could provide a valuable alternative to the “stress, anxiety and expense” of going to court in divorce proceedings.

The uncertainty about pre-nups will remain until parliament clarifies the law within a new Statute but in the meantime, this ruling by the Court of Appeal means they are far more likely to be followed. The case has major implications, not just for the wealthy but for millions of ordinary couples as well, as Lord Justice Thorpe was keen to point out.

“There are many instances in which mature couples, perhaps each contemplating a second marriage, wish to regulate the future enjoyment of their assets and perhaps to protect the interests of the children of their earlier marriages upon dissolution of a second marriage.”

The Court of Appeal ruling will influence future divorce settlements with the presumption being that pre-nups should be enforced unless there are compelling reasons to doubt their validity. Such doubts might arise if one party signed without getting proper legal advice or if someone failed to disclose all their assets when the contract was being drawn up.

The ruling means that couples can feel more confident that their wishes and intentions will be followed. This is of particular value to those in second or subsequent marriages who may be far from rich but may still have built up considerable assets such as a home or small business which they may want to protect.

Some may regard pre-nups as unromantic but with so many marriages failing these days, many people just don’t want take any risks. In fact, couples who make such arrangements say it strengthens their relationship to know that they have been able to discuss and agree on important issues that could affect their future.

Sarah Perkins is a Solicitor in the Family Department at Andersons Solicitors she can be contacted on 0115 988 6718 or by emailing: sperkins@andersonssolicitors.co.uk