Divorce is an emotionally turbulent time for everyone involved. If the separating couple have children, then, naturally, they will remain the main priority when making arrangements, but there are so many other issues to be sorted out. And one of the main questions will be what will happen to the family home.
Deciding what will happen to a couple's property can be a major stumbling block in a separation because as well as almost certainly being the major financial asset in the relationship, it may also hold many emotional connotations – much more than mere bricks and mortar. Depending on what the catalyst for the relationship breakdown is, it may be a decision that has been thrust very suddenly upon the parties, and, for this reason alone, it's potentially unfair to just expect one partner to up sticks and move out.
Read more: Staying power - why moving out straight away is perhaps not the best idea
Marriage is a big part of life. Unfortunately, so is divorce.
With many UK couples separating (an estimated 42 per cent, in fact), prenuptial agreements – where a couple agrees prior to the wedding how their assets will be divided in the event of a divorce – seem like the smart choice, if not a little bit of an awkward subject to bring up with a prospective spouse.
Reports say that the rock star started dating his third wife, Orianne Cevey, again after moving to America to look after their children whilst she recovered from surgery on a slipped disc.
Complications in Ms Cevey’s surgery left her partially paralysed, so looking after their children – Matthew, 14, and Nicholas, 11 – would have been a struggle without help from their father.
Both the Daily Mail and the Express reported that the couple now hope to get married again.
Contrary to what many people may think, it is by no means unheard of for separated couples going through a divorce to reconcile either during the process or even once the divorce is complete. Some people worry that there is no going back after making the decision to initiate divorce, but it’s still possible for couples to rebuild their marriage even long after a divorce if they want to.
Phil Collins and Orianne Cevey did, in fact, complete the divorce process, which according to reports involved a £25 million financial settlement.
It is also possible to rescind or ‘cancel’ divorce proceedings at any time before the decree absolute – the final decree of divorce - is pronounced. The exact process for cancelling a divorce depends upon which stage in the divorce process the proceedings have reached. It is only once the final decree is pronounced that the proceedings cannot be cancelled if there is a change of heart.
If you want to rescind your divorce, I would advise you have the proceedings formally withdrawn or dismissed, rather than letting them lay dormant on the court file. This can usually be achieved with a straightforward ‘application by consent’.
Some people say they feel embarrassed about backtracking or changing their mind, or as though they have wasted the solicitor’s or court’s time, but this should never be a concern – for all the scary reputations about divorce lawyers, we actually love nothing better than a happy ending!
Contact Oratto on 0845 3883765 to speak with a family law adviser or use our contact form to arrange a call-back.
Click here to return to the main divorce and family law area.
A Supreme Court ruling allowed a former wife to make a claim for a share of the fortune amassed by her husband 30 years after they parted, as no binding consent order was made when they divorced.
Kathleen Wyatt was granted permission to lodge a belated claim against multi-millionaire Dale Vince, who made his fortune through a green energy company founded in the 1990s, which is said to be worth £57 million.
The couple met and married in 1981 and had a child in 1983, separating just one year later. The wife became a full time single parent with little income and had little contact with her ex-husband.
There is no time limit in the UK within which a spouse must seek an order for financial provision following a divorce, and in 2011 the wife put forward an application. This was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, and the application was taken to the Supreme Court to decide whether due consideration had been given to section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Ms Wyatt was granted permission by the Supreme Court to make a claim, and in June 2016, Dale Vince was ordered to pay his ex-wife a lump sum of £300,000. In response to the verdict, Vince stated that he felt there should be a time limit on when claims can be made.
It was certainly unusual to hear of a claim being made after all this time, but without a consent order in place, the opportunity remains open.
More people are thinking about pre or post nuptial agreements following media coverage of high profile cases where these have been involved, such as German heiress Katrin Radmacher. They are certainly a sensible option for anyone getting married, but they are for use at the start of the relationship to set out what you wish to have happen if things go wrong. They are not legally binding in the UK but will be a persuasive factor if both parties received independent legal advice at the time.
What's involved here is the way in which a divorce is finalised. Once you've reached agreement, you can get the court to make it legally binding by applying for what is known as a consent order, and that's what was missing in Wyatt and Vince's case.
A consent order confirms what has been agreed and can include details on how assets will be divided, including cash, property, pension funds and other investments, and can also include arrangements for maintenance payments, including child maintenance. Both parties have to agree and sign the draft consent order and a judge will consider the terms to see if they appear fair and reasonable, and if so will approve the agreement to make it legally binding.
Going through the process of obtaining a consent order should mean that both parties come out with a fair settlement and there will be no surprises some years down the line.
Contact Oratto on 0845 3883765 to speak with a family law adviser or use our contact form to arrange a call-back.
Click here to return to the main divorce and family law area.
In recent years, an increase in spouses of different nationalities battling to have their divorces heard in jurisdictions considered most likely to decide in their favour has given rise to a phenomenon known as “forum shopping”.
But it is another kind of shopping – online grocery shopping to be precise – that has been thrown into sharp relief by national news speculation on the looming divorce of one of the founders of the online grocery delivery firm, Ocado, Tim Steiner, and his wife of 16 years. Perhaps, they wonder, the divorce financial settlement will result in shares in the company changing hands.
According to various reports, Mr Steiner has filed for divorce on the grounds of his wife’s unreasonable behaviour, an assertion which she is said to be contesting.
One article, in The Times, has not only claimed that the dispute between the pair might adversely affect Ocado’s share price and image with customers but could force Mr Steiner to sell some of his stake to fund a settlement.
I believe that the issue might be fuelled by the very recent decision of a High Court judge that the founder of another online retailer, ASOS, should pay his ex-wife £70 million following their divorce (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3483635/Asos-founder-forced-pay-ex-wife-70MILLION.html).
The terms of that divorce financial settlement included deliberation on the division of shares in the fashion business.
Interest from the media and the money markets is not entirely misplaced. Just over a decade ago, the entrepreneur behind the French Connection store chain was forced to sell £38 million worth of shares in order to pay for his divorce (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jun/30/highstreetretailers).
However, as eager as the courts will be to see Mr and Mrs Steiner come to a resolution and move on with their lives, they will be keen to avoid destablilising a successful business, not least because it could be the principal means of paying for a divorce.
In a number of cases which we have been involved with, businessmen and women unable to fund a divorce from their own assets will establish if it’s possible to borrow money before having to liquidate some or all of their shares.
Leaving aside Mr Steiner’s personal circumstances, he might well have spoken to his fellow directors because they would see their own shareholding affected by any sale.
As well as meeting the priorities of need and fairness, the courts always want to foster creative and equitable solutions. In Tim Steiner’s divorce, it might be allowing him more time to raise the money to achieve a “clean break” settlement, if, of course, he’s not able to do that already.
Whether it is in relation to spouses who have made their money in retail or other industrial sectors, divorce does indeed have the ability to affect business, both in terms of shareholdings and turnover, not least because it can distract directors from the job of running a company.
It is something which people looking to start firms are becoming more conscious of – for instance, taking out pre-nuptial agreements to limit the impact of divorce on their commercial prospects. Whether checking out online or of a marriage, payment details are to be ignored at your peril.
Contact Oratto on 0845 3883765 to speak with a family law adviser or use our contact form to arrange a call-back.
Click here to return to the main divorce and family law area.
