fbpx

Divorce – Fairly Dividing Marital Assets is Not a Blame Game

23rd February 2022 By

The question of who is to blame for the breakdown of a marriage is often uppermost in divorcees’ minds, but it is hardly ever relevant when it comes to fairly dividing up assets. The High Court made that point in the case of a husband who kept two families and for years conducted an affair under his wife’s nose.

During a marriage that lasted over 40 years and yielded three children, the husband achieved success in the retail and property sectors. For most of that time, he was enjoying a relationship with another woman, with whom he had two more children. He moved between his two families and, for at least 14 years prior to their separation, his wife lived with the knowledge of his double life.

In the light of that history, the wife understandably had no trust in the husband and felt unable to believe a word he said. The Court, however, emphasised that its role was not to express a view on where responsibility rested for the breakdown of the marriage but to achieve as fair a division of marital assets as possible.

Both of them could be criticised for their conduct of the proceedings: she had made numerous allegations of dishonesty and financial misbehaviour against him for which there was simply no evidence. He had insisted that the former matrimonial home, in which the wife lived, should be sold and had brought suspicion on himself by telling different people different things.

In order to achieve a clean break that was fair to both of them, the Court directed the husband to pay the wife a lump sum of £125,000. This would bring her total share of the assets, after debts were paid, to just over £900,000. He would be left with assets worth about £865,000. The Court noted that both of them were well into their sixties and that their financial position would have been significantly better had they not chosen to spend more than £600,000 between them fighting over the financial consequences of their divorce and other matters.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...