Online Chat

Email Us

Shortlisted lawyers


20 September 2016

Just over a week has passed since the sudden death of the musical pop icon Prince Rogers Nelson – commonly known as ‘Prince’- and a number of questions have emanated from his death, such as the Purple Rain star’s suspected prior health issues and the cause of his shock passing.

However, one question which resonates most prominently and holds importance over any other centres around the confirmed reports that Prince did not leave a Will and specifically who will inherit his vast fortune, estimated to be worth in the region of $800,000.00 (£551,781.00).

This net worth amount is expected to grow by millions of dollars with the increase in sales of Prince’s music and merchandise following his death. A large catalogue of unreleased music is expected to add to the sizable fortune.

Prince was one of relatively few recording artists to have possessed ownership of his master recordings and his own music publishing and therefore the heir(s) to his fortune will benefit from the future sales of his already issued music.

According to Minnesota law when an unmarried person with no children who dies without a Will, the parents, grandparents and siblings of the deceased inherit their wealth. Prince was pre-deceased by his parents, and half-brother Duane Nelson. He was married and divorced twice and leaves no children behind. It is believed his sister, Tyka Nelson, is his only living full blooded relative. The singer also has five living half-siblings and under Minnesota law surviving half-siblings are treated the same as full siblings, raising the possibility of a drawn-out family battle.

There are rumours that Prince wanted to leave his entire estate to the Jehovah Witnesses. However, to successfully contest the probate of an estate, it must be proved that the plaintiff is entitled to the entire or a portion of the estate by demonstrating that the deceased’s final, express intent was to bequeath what is claimed to the plaintiff. Only by producing a Will, or some other operative legal document, that names the plaintiff as a beneficiary can the plaintiff prove that he or she is entitled to the estate. The deceased’s alleged intent needs to be documented and verifiable.

Tyka has recently filed probate documents with the Carver County District Court in Minnesota, asking the court to name an affiliate of the Bremer Bank in St. Cloud, Minn., as the special administrator, saying that the bank had provided financial services to Prince and had knowledge of his business affairs. What is interesting to note is that the five half-siblings are listed as heirs to Prince’s estate.

Whether Prince intended to leave his estate to his sister and 5 half-siblings equally is a question we will never really know the answer to, one which highlights the importance of executing a valid Will to ensure the administration of your estate is distributed in accordance with your wishes.


Contact Oratto on 0845 3883765 to speak with an adviser or use our contact form to arrange a call-back.

Click here to return to the main Wills area.


20 September 2016

During my involvement with Dementia Awareness Week, I learnt that there are 850,000 people living with dementia in the UK and over 21 million people know someone affected by the condition – that’s 1 in 3 of the population whose lives are touched by this disease. My limited experience of people with dementia told me that they are “sufferers”, lonely and excluded by society.

But then I hear about Dementia Friends. Dementia Friends is a social action movement run by The Alzheimer’s Society that aims to give people an understanding of dementia, and the small things we can all do that could make a difference to people living with dementia in our communities. There are over 1.5 million Dementia Friends already in the UK.

After doing some investigation, I decided to become a Dementia Friend, which changed my understanding of Dementia completely. I learnt that dementia is not a natural part of the ageing process but a disease that attacks the brain. I also learnt that dementia is not just about losing your memory – it can affect any function of the brain. But the most important thing I learnt was that it is possible to live well with dementia. People with dementia are not sufferers, with a few adjustments and more understanding from the community where they live they can continue to live a positive life.

At the end of the session, you are asked how you will put your new knowledge into practice. I committed to become a Dementia Friends Champion, because I want other people to understand more about dementia, as the more of us who know a little bit more, the better life will be for the millions whose lives are touched by the disease.


20 September 2016

Over the last two decades or so, the increase in individuals choosing to live together without marrying has been the most dominant feature of family life in England and Wales.

Since the early 1990s, marriage and divorce have both generally been in decline. Just over half of all people in England and Wales over the age of 16 last year were married.

Cohabitation, meanwhile, has become much more common and, according to new figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), now accounts for one-in-eight of all couples (

Whilst it would be easy to interpret the data as demonstrating the anti-marriage sentiments of the population, I wish to strike a note of caution.

Just as no marriage or divorce is like another, no single narrative explains the state of flux in which British households currently find themselves.

It’s a view which my colleagues and I have formed from our voluminous and varied caseload, and it doesn’t just include instances in which marriages have imploded but also the way in which new and continuing partnerships – married or not – are being framed by those involved.

That reflects not only how attitudes differ from previous generations as to how couples regulate and formalise their relationships but how subtle shifts in the respective preferences of men and women influence patterns in remarriage and cohabitation.

For instance, one of the other recent trends has been the so-called ‘silver split’ – divorce involving middle-aged couples, frequently after their children have grown up and left the family home.

My colleagues and I have noticed something with echoes in the new ONS figures; namely, that men are more likely to remarry after their marriage ends. We have been told on numerous occasions that it’s down to their feeling in need of emotional or practical support provided by a spouse.

Women, on the other hand, seem more emboldened. They have a greater life expectancy than their male counterparts and are more willing to assert their independence instead of spending their remaining years in an unhappy marriage.

They are also more likely to have the means to support themselves, either because of divorce settlements which are based on more generous terms than those of previous generations or due to their professional advancement.

Having been able to stand on their own two feet, they are also more careful about compromising that position by entering a new marriage.

Doing so could result in their assets being claimed by a spouse on divorce and, as a result, jeopardise their future and that of their children. It’s one reason why prenuptial agreements are popular among women who choose to tie the knot for a second or even a third time.

Leaving aside the different factors contributing to this particular gender gap, it’s possible to see why the perceived headlong rush into cohabitation might not actually be the case for all.

Among quite a few age groups - including those aged between 30 to 34 (roughly the average age for marriages in England and Wales) and the middle-aged individuals who are also driving ‘silver divorces’ - marriage is actually on the increase.

Living together without marrying is also less popular year-on-year for those people in a range of age groups who’ve been married before.

That would seem to indicate a residual recognition of marriage’s virtues - if not on the grounds of romance, then certainly of the practical benefits compared to the lack of provision for unmarried couples who subsequently separate.

The dynamic in the British family home has certainly shifted but, in my experience, it’s always worth taking a closer look to see what’s really going on rather than taking simple explanations and statistics at face value.


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.


20 September 2016

There have arguably been many consequences of the evolution of divorce case law since the turn of the century.

Since a notable ruling in favour of Somerset farmer’s wife Pamela White in 2000, the details of collapsed marriages involving individuals who aren’t celebrities seem more interesting to media.

In addition, the way in which couples structure – or separate – their relationships has been informed by the practices in other, more notable cases.

For instance, prenuptial agreements have acquired more weight and proven considerably more popular following the 2010 Supreme Court decision to honour the document signed by German heiress Katrin Radmacher and her ex-husband.

An eye-catching but no less important development has been the way in which the concepts of ‘fairness’ and ‘need’ have been reinforced as critical in courts’ thinking about how assets are divided when husbands and wives part.

Headlines were generated by one case last week, in which a former model, Christina Estrada, was awarded a £75 million settlement from her billionaire former spouse. It has been described as the largest “needs award” ever made by an English divorce court. (

A second, anonymised decision, coincidentally handed down by the same judge, Mrs Justice Roberts, in the High Court’s Family Division only 48 hours before Ms Estrada’s, also underlined the importance of need (

Perhaps more importantly, it touched on how assets built up before a couple marry might be used to arrive at a settlement which is felt to be in the best interests of both.

The matter involved a businessman who married his wife in 2000 when he was in his late sixties and she was 51. She was divorced while he was a widower, having lost his first wife after 28 years of marriage.

Over the years, he had run nursing homes and bought a string of properties in central London. By the time that the couple decided to divorce, the couple were together worth just over £10 million.

She argued that she was entitled to a half-share of the overall joint pot, whereas he rejected that assertion, further claiming that she had “duped” him into marrying her, so that she might have a measure of “personal and financial security”.

As it turned out, the judge reckoned that it was fair that he kept 75 per cent of the overall assets with the remainder being, in part, recognition of the contribution which she had made to their marriage and his business.

In trying to effect a fair solution, the court decided to rely on some of the assets which the husband had amassed before their marriage.

Some people entertain an assumption that such possessions are beyond the scope of a divorce settlement – that anything owned before a couple ties the knot is not up for discussion.

That is, of course, not totally the case. As the judge made clear, the issue at the heart of the matter was that of the wife’s needs and not using pre-marital assets to generate a sum required to meet those needs would be unfair.

The husband’s argument is, in my experience, not unusual. However, the outcome in this case bears out what divorce courts generally regard as something of a fundamental rule: the needs of a less wealthy divorcing spouse trump all.

In the decade and a half since this couple married, prenuptial agreements have grown in frequency. They help establish who brings what to the marriage and provide a simple structure for asset division and one which, I believe, helps reduce the potential for debate or disagreement when bringing a marriage to a close.

As the couple in this case have discovered, arguing that someone is a dupe is both an emotional and factual exercise. Divorce – and the meeting of needs within it – comes down to rather more objective administration.


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.


15 September 2016

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.

loading image
This lawyer has been added to your shortlist