Mr Charman has just lost his Court of Appeal Application to reduce his wife’s 38% share in the assets amassed during their marriage.
Not really surprising, surely, after a relationship which started when they were teenagers at school 37 years ago?
And yet the size of the 38% sends everyone reeling - £48 million!
Mr C believes he should get a much greater slice of the action because of his “extraordinary contribution”, and rails against what he sees as a lottery in big money divorce cases in the English courts. Mark Harper of Withers, his solicitor, has asked for a more predictable system so that London stops being the divorce capital of the world for wives seeking large settlements.
But I wonder if that would really be of benefit to his client?
Let’s take the Californian system of community of property – the general rule is each party gets half of the assets worked up during the course of the marriage.
On the one hand – this would put paid to gold-diggers seeking a quick settlement from a rich man after a short marriage.
But on the other hand – Mr Charman would have to get out his chequebook for the rest of his wife’s 50% settlement.
Perhaps he wouldn’t like clear cut rules after all...
Friday, 1 June 2007
Thursday, 26 April 2007
PAY NOW OR PAY FOREVER!
There was a great deal of fuss last week when an English Court refused a wife a share of her ex-husband’s future earnings on the basis that the couple had built up enough assets during the marriage to meet the wife’s future needs.
It was suggested that this meant that wives were going to receive less in future.
Frankly this is nonsense.
In the case of McFarlane v McFarlane the couple had a relatively small pot of £3 million, and it was agreed that there was insufficient capital to either compensate or provide for needs for the wife. It was on that basis that she received a share of future earnings, particularly as they were disproportionate to the previous earnings during the period in which both husband and wife had invested their time to building the husband’s career.
However in the recent case there was a much larger financial pot and the wife was able to receive a sum of £13 million in cash and assets. It was felt that this would definitely provide for her needs.
This is hardly surprising, and I suggest that it does no more than confirm that in big money cases, as in life, if you have got enough cash to pay up front you can do so, otherwise you will have to pay on the instalment method!
It was suggested that this meant that wives were going to receive less in future.
Frankly this is nonsense.
In the case of McFarlane v McFarlane the couple had a relatively small pot of £3 million, and it was agreed that there was insufficient capital to either compensate or provide for needs for the wife. It was on that basis that she received a share of future earnings, particularly as they were disproportionate to the previous earnings during the period in which both husband and wife had invested their time to building the husband’s career.
However in the recent case there was a much larger financial pot and the wife was able to receive a sum of £13 million in cash and assets. It was felt that this would definitely provide for her needs.
This is hardly surprising, and I suggest that it does no more than confirm that in big money cases, as in life, if you have got enough cash to pay up front you can do so, otherwise you will have to pay on the instalment method!
SPAIN AND PENSION SHARING
In a recent case the Court has accepted that a wife should be able to have her financial claims dealt with in England, although the divorce had originally taken place in Spain.
The wife particularly wanted this because of the difference between the law on pensions in the UK and Spain here, after a long marriage, an equal division of pensions is the norm on a pension sharing basis. Such an arrangement is not possible in Spain.
The Court allowed the wife’s application, but got it wrong entirely on the application of English law in the Spanish Courts. The Judge dealing with the case believed that the Spanish Courts would apply English law and therefore automatically the wife would receive a pension share.
On the basis of recent discussions with an English barrister colleague practicing in the Malaga area of Spain, I can confirm that this is completely untrue. In the first place although the Spanish Courts have to take law into account, many Spanish Judges simply refuse to make an order in respect of pensions.
In the second place, where they do make a pension sharing order, it can be almost impossible to enforce because it does not technically comply with the requirements of UK pension sharing legalisation.
This is an extremely important issue for couples who retire to Spain, where their only assets may well be the property in which they reside and the pension on which both of them live. If upon separation only the capital is divided and the pension remains in the hands of the husband, this can be a complete disaster for the wife.
It is worrying that the English Courts believe the propaganda of the Spanish legal system that they apply our law absolutely. It is difficult to see how they would do that, but in truth as ever it is down to the discretion of the Spanish Judge. As they are not used to any interference with pensions they are unwilling to make pension sharing orders even when an English Judge would probably do so.
The moral of the story is if you want a pension share – apply in England!
The wife particularly wanted this because of the difference between the law on pensions in the UK and Spain here, after a long marriage, an equal division of pensions is the norm on a pension sharing basis. Such an arrangement is not possible in Spain.
The Court allowed the wife’s application, but got it wrong entirely on the application of English law in the Spanish Courts. The Judge dealing with the case believed that the Spanish Courts would apply English law and therefore automatically the wife would receive a pension share.
On the basis of recent discussions with an English barrister colleague practicing in the Malaga area of Spain, I can confirm that this is completely untrue. In the first place although the Spanish Courts have to take law into account, many Spanish Judges simply refuse to make an order in respect of pensions.
In the second place, where they do make a pension sharing order, it can be almost impossible to enforce because it does not technically comply with the requirements of UK pension sharing legalisation.
This is an extremely important issue for couples who retire to Spain, where their only assets may well be the property in which they reside and the pension on which both of them live. If upon separation only the capital is divided and the pension remains in the hands of the husband, this can be a complete disaster for the wife.
It is worrying that the English Courts believe the propaganda of the Spanish legal system that they apply our law absolutely. It is difficult to see how they would do that, but in truth as ever it is down to the discretion of the Spanish Judge. As they are not used to any interference with pensions they are unwilling to make pension sharing orders even when an English Judge would probably do so.
The moral of the story is if you want a pension share – apply in England!
Friday, 6 April 2007
be careful what you wish for!
What would happen if we expected equal parenting?
Not just after separation as a matter of law, but during relationships as a matter of social norm?
What if the demands for Fathers 4 Justice actually came through – fifty percent care each – ALL THE TIME.
How many fathers would feel quite so free to skip off into the sunset with a new woman if they knew that they faced fifty percent care of their children – or a penalty of, say, twice times child support?
How many men would become a father in the first place?!
For this would have to relate to all parenting – not just committed relationships, but one night stands too? (only exceptions to be rape and incest – and they would have to pay four times child support).
What effect would this have on the divorce/separation/birth rate?
Answers and comments please.
Not just after separation as a matter of law, but during relationships as a matter of social norm?
What if the demands for Fathers 4 Justice actually came through – fifty percent care each – ALL THE TIME.
How many fathers would feel quite so free to skip off into the sunset with a new woman if they knew that they faced fifty percent care of their children – or a penalty of, say, twice times child support?
How many men would become a father in the first place?!
For this would have to relate to all parenting – not just committed relationships, but one night stands too? (only exceptions to be rape and incest – and they would have to pay four times child support).
What effect would this have on the divorce/separation/birth rate?
Answers and comments please.
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Hola Abramovich
www.marriagemakeover.co.uk
The lad paid up!
Or at least - that is what the Daily Express tells us.
If so – he is to be prized beyond rubies AT LAST a powerful man who recognises that his wife of 16 years, mother of his 5 children, partner in a marriage that began in her mother’s 2 bedroom flat without a rouble between them, has EARNED her share in the family fortunes. No dispute, no arrogant posturing, no assumption that he should have more because he’s the one who went to the office while she kept hearth, home and kids going – just a quiet, dignified separation of finances by agreement. Hallelujah!
And yet, inspite of headline cases, this is much more like real life than the legal fisticuffs we see in the papers. The vast majority of divorces settle by agreement – in the last 12 years I have only taken 6 before the Judge for a decision out of 100’s settled after negotiation. Divorce leads to 3 types of loss – a share of the assets, the costs of the lawyers, and last (but often the worst) the loss of focus and working ability for however long it takes to sort it out, which can of itself destroy a new business. Abramovitch has minimised his loss by retaining his privacy in Russian proceedings, coughing up the required sum, and doing it quietly and quickly. It’s only sad that such an apparently cooperative relationship should have ended up as a divorce at all – I wonder if they would have stayed together without the pressure of huge wealth and international jet set lifestyle? For most people, sitting down and discussing the facts and figures supporting their marriage before a suggestion of separation can be an opportunity to review their relationships, and manage it for more profit and pleasure in the future. Doing this every few years, just like a business making of 3 or 5 years plan, seems cold and calculated, but it gives a solid foundation so that each person has a chance to build a life which they want, rather than drift into resentment and boredom. I am sure the pace of Roman Abramovitch’s life meant that there could be no “drift”, but for the rest of us, we should use our willingness to talk to preserve our assets, lifestyle and loved ones future. Negotiate agreements within marriage – don’t wait until you have to do it in divorce!
The lad paid up!
Or at least - that is what the Daily Express tells us.
If so – he is to be prized beyond rubies AT LAST a powerful man who recognises that his wife of 16 years, mother of his 5 children, partner in a marriage that began in her mother’s 2 bedroom flat without a rouble between them, has EARNED her share in the family fortunes. No dispute, no arrogant posturing, no assumption that he should have more because he’s the one who went to the office while she kept hearth, home and kids going – just a quiet, dignified separation of finances by agreement. Hallelujah!
And yet, inspite of headline cases, this is much more like real life than the legal fisticuffs we see in the papers. The vast majority of divorces settle by agreement – in the last 12 years I have only taken 6 before the Judge for a decision out of 100’s settled after negotiation. Divorce leads to 3 types of loss – a share of the assets, the costs of the lawyers, and last (but often the worst) the loss of focus and working ability for however long it takes to sort it out, which can of itself destroy a new business. Abramovitch has minimised his loss by retaining his privacy in Russian proceedings, coughing up the required sum, and doing it quietly and quickly. It’s only sad that such an apparently cooperative relationship should have ended up as a divorce at all – I wonder if they would have stayed together without the pressure of huge wealth and international jet set lifestyle? For most people, sitting down and discussing the facts and figures supporting their marriage before a suggestion of separation can be an opportunity to review their relationships, and manage it for more profit and pleasure in the future. Doing this every few years, just like a business making of 3 or 5 years plan, seems cold and calculated, but it gives a solid foundation so that each person has a chance to build a life which they want, rather than drift into resentment and boredom. I am sure the pace of Roman Abramovitch’s life meant that there could be no “drift”, but for the rest of us, we should use our willingness to talk to preserve our assets, lifestyle and loved ones future. Negotiate agreements within marriage – don’t wait until you have to do it in divorce!
Monday, 5 March 2007
IS THE MARRIAGE BED-ROCKING ??
http://www.marriagemakeover.co.uk/
1 March 4th 2007
The Sunday Times asks is Britain splitting up over Marriage? The politicians are polarised – David Cameron advocates marriage as the bedrock of society and protector of children, whereas Tony Blair offers no such judgement but is prepared to pick up the pieces where things go wrong.
Are either of them right, or is this just political posturing? Does it, nevertheless, indicate a real problem with the image of the institution of marriage in Britain today?
I think it does.
The realities of any relationship between couples living together do not revolve around romance and happy ever after, rather they rely on realistic approaches to joint responsibilities money, children, housework, putting the cat out and all the other boring bits and pieces of day to day life.
Unfortunately marriage is much more identified with the boring bits than cohabitation, which many people seem to think is nearer to the footloose and fancy free world of the young free and single.
I suppose in a way that is true – if cohabiting couples have children, half of those couples will separate before the child is 5, whereas with married couples it is only 1 in 12 of the partnerships that breakdown in the same period.
In other words cohabitation is truly not as serious a commitment as marriage.
And that is very sad for the children who will have to cope with more likelihood of separation from one parent, and for a society where promotion of the single ideal, particularly for young men, is reflected constantly in the media.
If we are going to change anything and promote marriage as long lasting institution that people might want to be part of, then it has to be attractive.
That attraction can be dealt with in lots of ways – try tax and benefits for example. At the moment the system is weighted so that single parents receive more than couples, which seems to be completely antagonistic to the continuation of a relationship. If a young mum can tell her husband to get lost after a tiff in the knowledge that she will be just as well off without him due to tax credits and welfare benefits, she is much less likely to struggle on.
People have to want to opt in to marriage now because there is no longer a presumption that a couple should marry, even if they have children.
I would like to see more promotion of marriage through tax and benefit incentives, (for instance whatever happened to the transferable allowance promised to us by Nigel Lawson) perhaps David Cameron could think of one of his Tory predecessors when he starts to work out how he is going to do more than pay lip service to promotion of this idea.
And the other big one is giving support to people who are in marriage (or cohabiting and contemplating marriage) through services designed to prepare and nurture relationships. Long term marriages have huge benefits that are social, physical, emotional and financial for individuals. All of these benefits should be promoted and spelled out, and the government should pour money in to services that maintain, support and prepare people for marriage.
It needs to become fashionable for people to look at their marriage in the same way they look at a business or a project – as something which needs to be reviewed on a regular basis with all parties involved, having their opinions and aims listened to, and a new way forward agreed and implemented on a regular basis.
This would change the foundation of many family relationships, and give a bedrock solidity upon which they could build a much more interesting and exciting lifestyle because the basic details of their existence (like putting the cat out) had already been organised and did not need to be constantly monitored.
As a society we have historically praised those who invest their time in work, and yet individuals who do so and lose their marriage as a result can find themselves losing 50% of their assets and even income etc etc – such a loss would be unthinkable if it was to do with business, and yet in the breakdown of a marriage it is regarded as an almost unavoidable result of an emotional difference between husband and wife.
In so many cases this is simply not true. I have seen a great number of clients who understand more about their own position and that of their partner at the door of the divorce court than they ever did during the marriage itself (because of the machinery we have used to disclose financial, business and lifestyle issues). It is so sad for them to realise that if they had invested time in the relationship at an earlier stage, they might never have reached this point.
We need to promote the idea that relationships need preparation, honesty and support, and that those things are not boring. In reality they facilitate the fun which can follow in a relationship if there is no constant bickering or worrying or arguing about money or children or clash in careers. Marriages need preparation for solidity, and managed for harmony and fun to have a future.
If David Cameron wants to promote marriage he should think about this. Extra money and taxes is one thing, changing the culture is quite something else.
1 March 4th 2007
The Sunday Times asks is Britain splitting up over Marriage? The politicians are polarised – David Cameron advocates marriage as the bedrock of society and protector of children, whereas Tony Blair offers no such judgement but is prepared to pick up the pieces where things go wrong.
Are either of them right, or is this just political posturing? Does it, nevertheless, indicate a real problem with the image of the institution of marriage in Britain today?
I think it does.
The realities of any relationship between couples living together do not revolve around romance and happy ever after, rather they rely on realistic approaches to joint responsibilities money, children, housework, putting the cat out and all the other boring bits and pieces of day to day life.
Unfortunately marriage is much more identified with the boring bits than cohabitation, which many people seem to think is nearer to the footloose and fancy free world of the young free and single.
I suppose in a way that is true – if cohabiting couples have children, half of those couples will separate before the child is 5, whereas with married couples it is only 1 in 12 of the partnerships that breakdown in the same period.
In other words cohabitation is truly not as serious a commitment as marriage.
And that is very sad for the children who will have to cope with more likelihood of separation from one parent, and for a society where promotion of the single ideal, particularly for young men, is reflected constantly in the media.
If we are going to change anything and promote marriage as long lasting institution that people might want to be part of, then it has to be attractive.
That attraction can be dealt with in lots of ways – try tax and benefits for example. At the moment the system is weighted so that single parents receive more than couples, which seems to be completely antagonistic to the continuation of a relationship. If a young mum can tell her husband to get lost after a tiff in the knowledge that she will be just as well off without him due to tax credits and welfare benefits, she is much less likely to struggle on.
People have to want to opt in to marriage now because there is no longer a presumption that a couple should marry, even if they have children.
I would like to see more promotion of marriage through tax and benefit incentives, (for instance whatever happened to the transferable allowance promised to us by Nigel Lawson) perhaps David Cameron could think of one of his Tory predecessors when he starts to work out how he is going to do more than pay lip service to promotion of this idea.
And the other big one is giving support to people who are in marriage (or cohabiting and contemplating marriage) through services designed to prepare and nurture relationships. Long term marriages have huge benefits that are social, physical, emotional and financial for individuals. All of these benefits should be promoted and spelled out, and the government should pour money in to services that maintain, support and prepare people for marriage.
It needs to become fashionable for people to look at their marriage in the same way they look at a business or a project – as something which needs to be reviewed on a regular basis with all parties involved, having their opinions and aims listened to, and a new way forward agreed and implemented on a regular basis.
This would change the foundation of many family relationships, and give a bedrock solidity upon which they could build a much more interesting and exciting lifestyle because the basic details of their existence (like putting the cat out) had already been organised and did not need to be constantly monitored.
As a society we have historically praised those who invest their time in work, and yet individuals who do so and lose their marriage as a result can find themselves losing 50% of their assets and even income etc etc – such a loss would be unthinkable if it was to do with business, and yet in the breakdown of a marriage it is regarded as an almost unavoidable result of an emotional difference between husband and wife.
In so many cases this is simply not true. I have seen a great number of clients who understand more about their own position and that of their partner at the door of the divorce court than they ever did during the marriage itself (because of the machinery we have used to disclose financial, business and lifestyle issues). It is so sad for them to realise that if they had invested time in the relationship at an earlier stage, they might never have reached this point.
We need to promote the idea that relationships need preparation, honesty and support, and that those things are not boring. In reality they facilitate the fun which can follow in a relationship if there is no constant bickering or worrying or arguing about money or children or clash in careers. Marriages need preparation for solidity, and managed for harmony and fun to have a future.
If David Cameron wants to promote marriage he should think about this. Extra money and taxes is one thing, changing the culture is quite something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
