A three minute marriage – How soon can I get divorced?

Posted on 12th October 2023 by McAlister Family Law

A three minute marriage – How soon can I get divorced?

Rumours are circulating online about a couple in Kuwait who were married for a grand total of three minutes. Here, McAlister Family Law’s Heather Lucy looks at how this can happen and whether it would be legally possible in England and Wales.

A three-minute marriage? How is that possible? Apparently, the couple were married in front of a judge and, when they were leaving the courtroom, the bride stumbled. Instead of helping her, the groom mocked her, and the (rightfully?) angry bride asked the court to immediately bring their marriage to an end. The judge agreed and their marriage was dissolved. This may be an urban legend being spread on the internet, but it does pose the question of whether it would be possible to do the same in England and Wales.

In England and Wales, it is not possible to make an application for divorce until you have been married for 12 months. You then have to wait a further 20 weeks from when the court issues your application to become eligible for a conditional order which is the next step in bringing your marriage to an end. This cooling off period may feel unnecessary if you separated less than a year into your marriage but it is almost impossible to dispense with it.

The conditional order is a key step in your divorce. It means that the court are satisfied that you and your partner can be divorced (and you are able to apply for the final order 6 weeks and a day later), and it allows them to make orders about financial matters. This is often a key concern for people who are separating, and they are keen to have the certainty of a final order in place.

If you split up with your partner before a year has passed, then either one of you (or both of you together) might choose to apply to the court for a judicial separation order. These orders are also sometimes sought by people who may not want to divorce for religious reasons but who do want to separate.

It is key to note that a judicial separation order is different to a divorce. One important point is that being judicially separated does not mean that you are legally single and therefore you cannot remarry. Further, a divorce will impact any pre-existing wills and is relevant to the order of inheritance under intestacy laws, but you are still married if you are judicially separated so you will need to think carefully about reviewing your will.

If you judicially separate from your partner, you can apply to the court for a financial order. The range of powers open to the court differs from those available under divorce. The court cannot make a Pension Sharing Order if you are judicially separated and there can be no ‘clean break’ in respect of your finances. You can record that you and your partner intend to get divorced after a year has elapsed and that there should be a clean break order then, but this is not binding.

If you have been married for less than a year and want to legally separate from your partner, then it would be sensible to speak to a specialist family lawyer who can discuss your individual circumstances with you and set out your options moving forward.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with expert legal advice. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Molly Mae and Tommy Fury get engaged – but what if they broke up?

Posted on 5th October 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Molly Mae and Tommy Fury get engaged – but what if they broke up?

Former Love Island contestants, Molly-Mae Hague and Tommy Fury have recently announced their engagement. The pair met on Love Island in 2019 and have been going strong ever since. But what happens if they break up? Here, Weronika Husejko looks at what a separation looks like legally, and what would happen with their daughter Bambi.

As many will know from their Instagram accounts, they have lived together for some time now, pretty much since their exit from Love Island in 2019. They also had their first child together at the beginning of this year, a baby girl called Bambi.

Whilst the happy couple are probably making wedding plans for their big day as we speak, you may wonder- what would happen if they broke up before they tied the knot?

The rules that apply to engaged couples are generally the same as those which apply to cohabiting couples upon separation. This means that they could not make a financial remedy claim under the same legislation that married couples usually would, that being the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

TOLATA

In terms of any property that the pair own together, any disputes in relation to this would be treated as a “ToLATA” claim. This is because the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 is the legislation which deals with disputes relating to the ownership of property or land.

In a situation where the property was purchased by both of them and it is clear from the title deeds how the property is held, there is less scope for dispute. However, if one of their names are not on the title deeds, it can become more complicated and will depend upon a number of facts.

Schedule 1

As the pair also have a child, Bambi, they may also be able to make an application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

This legislation allows separated parents to apply for various orders for the benefit of the child. This type of application is usually made by the parent with whom the child lives- so say if Bambi lived with Molly-Mae, she may apply for various orders under Schedule 1, depending on their respective financial circumstances of course.

Molly-Mae may be able to apply for the following orders on behalf of their daughter:-

Periodical payments
Secured periodical payments
Lump sum
Settlement of property
Transfer of property

Other avenues

There are actually some other pieces of legislation which provide engaged/ formerly engaged couples with certain rights. One example is that a fiancé may be able to claim a beneficial interest in property owned by their former fiancé albeit this would only apply in limited circumstances e.g., if the non-owning fiancé had made a contribution to substantially improving the property.

In summary, Molly-Mae and Tommy have various legal avenues they may be able to pursue if they did split during their engagement however, they would be very much dependent upon their individual financial circumstances.

Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner – What happens when parents disagree?

Posted on 25th September 202325th September 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner – What happens when parents disagree?

Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner locked in relocation battle over their children. Here, McAlister Family Law Solicitor Nicola Bradley looks at what happens when parents disagree on which country their children should live in?

Game of Thrones star, Sophie Turner, and her pop-star husband, Joe Jonas, are currently going through a very public and increasingly acrimonious divorce. To add to their troubles, the pair are now engaged in a very heated court battle over the arrangements for their one year old and three year old daughters. It has been widely reported that Turner and Jonas cannot agree on where the children will live; Turner allegedly claims that Jonas has “abducted” the girls and is wrongfully retaining them in America, whilst a representative for Jonas has hit back with claims that the use of the word “abduction” is a serious abuse of the legal system and entirely misleading in the circumstances.

It can often be very difficult for parents to navigate the arrangements for children when a marriage or relationship comes to an end, but these problems are magnified when the dispute is over which country the children should live in.

In the first instance, parents should always try to sit down and talk this issue through in the hope that an agreement can be reached. In Turner and Jonas’ case, Turner argues that the pair had already agreed that the children would reside in the UK and that Jonas has since resiled from this by keeping the children in America and refusing to hand over their passports.

In circumstances where an agreement has broken down or where you cannot reach agreement, the parent wishing to relocate will need to apply for a Court Order allowing them to do so and permitting them to take the children with them. When making this decision, the paramount consideration of the Court will be the welfare of the children and whether a relocation would be in their best interests. When making this decision, the Court will have mind to a number of factors including but not limited to:-

the motivation of the parent making the application
whether the practical proposals have been well researched and investigated
The reasons for the other parent’s opposition to the relocation
The effect granting or not granting relocation would have on the children’s relationship with either their parents and their respective families

The Court will also take into the children’s wishes and feelings, so far as they can be ascertained. The older a child is, the more weight and emphasis will be placed on what they want to do and what they feel is right for them.

It is important to remember that neither parent can make a unilateral decision to take the children to another country. If one parent takes the children out of the jurisdiction without the expressed permission of the other parent, this amounts to abduction and emergency orders can be obtained for the summary return of the children to this country. Similarly, if you are concerned that the children are at risk of being taken out of the jurisdiction by the other parent, emergency orders can be sought to prevent this from happening.

I’m getting a divorce – Will I get support from my employer?

Posted on 14th September 2023 by McAlister Family Law

I’m getting a divorce – Will I get support from my employer?

Going through a divorce is undoubtedly one of the most difficult things a person can experience. Going through a divorce whilst also working however can seem an impossible task. Here, Weronika Husejko looks at the pressure on divorcing couples and explores how employers are providing support to their divorcing employees.

Most people suffer from an extreme amount of stress when separating from their spouse, the breakdown of the marriage being a significant change to their life. In addition to coping with the emotional side of the break-up, spouses must also deal with the practical side, to formalise the separation, which can be overwhelming.

The majority of separating spouses have financial ties, such as jointly owned property, which will need to be divided. One of the toughest parts of a divorce is usually when the couple must make a decision as to how these assets should be divided, particularly in cases where there are not enough to meet both spouses’ needs.

Dealing with these types of financial matters upon separation is challenging and emotionally draining, particularly for those who end up in Court proceedings, due to their time consuming and costly nature. For example, those in Court proceedings are usually required to comply with several Court directions, including attending Court hearings, which is a stressful experience in itself.

A divorce is therefore very demanding and as a result, it is not uncommon for employees experiencing a marital breakdown to feel torn between their job and their divorce, this often having a detrimental effect on their mental health. Historically speaking this has been something which most employees have unfortunately been expected to endure.

The BBC have however recently reported that some companies are beginning to introduce and build policies which are intended to help their employees in navigating a divorce.

By way of example, some companies are offering benefits such as: –

Paid time off to attend things such as solicitors’ meetings or mediation.
Flexible working arrangements
Access to emotional and mental health support
Access to legal advice

There are also organisations in the UK which are trying to promote more family-friendly policies like those mentioned above to help those going through the breakdown of a relationship. For example, the Positive Parenting Alliance have called for a separation to be recognised as a ‘life event’ by employers in HR policies and have also suggested that employees going through a separation should be offered support by way of counselling if needed.

Tesco is one of the first large companies in the UK to provide their employees with this type of support, as recommended by the Positive Parenting Alliance.

In summary, whether you get any support from your employer during your divorce will be dependent upon their specific company policy, so you may wish to consider speaking to your HR department about the options available to you.

It does seem that there is a shift happening with more companies recognising the difficulties involved in a marital breakdown. In my view, this is a positive shift which also demonstrates an increasing awareness of the importance of mental health generally, which will hopefully result in more people receiving the support they need during what is a very difficult time.

Will Britney Spears be protected by prenup in third divorce?

Posted on 17th August 2023 by McAlister Family Law

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

News of Britney Spears’ pending divorce from her third husband, Sam Asghari, has been widely reported in the press. Sadly, only a year after their wedding, their marriage appears to be over, with Sam filing for divorce in Los Angeles. Here, McAlister Family Law’s Divorce and Finance Partner, Fiona Wood, looks at the divorce application and questions if Britney’s prenup will protect her.

It is understood that Sam has asked the court to provide him with “spousal support”, which is maintenance from Britney to meet Sam’s income needs whilst they sort out their divorce, and for her to provide him with money to pay his legal fees.

These applications made by Sam to the US court are the equivalent of making an application for interim maintenance and for a Legal Services Payment Order in England. If one spouse cannot meet their reasonable income needs during the divorce and the other spouse can afford to fund these, a judge can order the wealthier spouse to pay interim maintenance to the other spouse until a financial settlement is reached in their divorce.

It is also possible in England to make an application to court that your spouse provide you with money to fund your ongoing legal fees – known as a Legal Services Payment Order. To make this application successfully you have to show that you cannot afford to fund your own legal fees, you cannot obtain a commercial loan from two lenders to fund your legal fees and that your spouse can afford to pay them.

It is reported that Britney and Sam signed a prenuptial agreement before their wedding, to protect the wealth that Britney accumulated before they married. Under Californian Law the prenuptial agreement is thought to be “ironclad”. However, there is speculation that Sam will try to renegotiate the terms of the prenuptial agreement by threatening to release embarrassing information about Britney.

The law in England regarding prenuptial agreements is different to that in other countries, but they are still an important way of protecting assets if you divorce. Here a prenuptial agreement is not automatically binding if a couple divorce. It is an important factor that the court will take into account when consider a fair financial settlement. The reported cases show that as long as both spouse’s needs can be met, the divorce court is likely to uphold the terms of their prenuptial agreement or if it does not fully uphold it, the presence of the prenuptial agreement will reduce the settlement received by one spouse from what they would have received if no prenuptial agreement had been signed.

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

Posted on 3rd August 2023 by McAlister Family Law

I’m getting divorced, do I have to go to Court?

Separating from your spouse and getting divorced can be a very difficult and stressful experience for many reasons. You will probably have many questions. Here, Weronika Husejko takes a closer look at one of our most frequently asked questions by those about to go through the divorce process – do I have to go to Court?

In terms of the divorce itself, it is very rare that you will have to attend Court. The new ‘no fault’ divorce procedure does not allow for your spouse to dispute the divorce generally, unless they do not agree that the Court has jurisdiction or that the marriage was valid. This was not the case previously.

Prior to the no fault divorce procedure, the spouse applying for the divorce could apply for a Costs Order against the other spouse, effectively asking the Court that an Order is made that they pay all of their divorce costs. This was another reason for dispute in the past. However, the Court will now only make Costs Orders in divorce proceedings in very rare circumstances. As a result, there are now fewer opportunities for dispute in divorce proceedings, which significantly reduces the chance of any Court attendance.

When you are going through a divorce, the financial element is usually dealt with separately. Many couples are able to negotiate and reach a financial settlement outside of the Court arena e.g. via solicitors, mediation or between themselves. This would usually mean that you do not have to attend Court, unless you are already in Court proceedings at the time that you reach the agreement. When a financial settlement is reached in this way, a Consent Order reflecting your agreement can be submitted to the Court alongside a form which summarises your respective financial positions. The Court will usually consider this type of application on paper in the couple’s absence. They may request that the couple attend Court in rare circumstances, for example, if they have serious concerns regarding the proposed division of the assets.

If one spouse makes an application to the Court for a financial remedy order, (this is an application asking the court to deal with the financial aspects of their divorce), this may result in both spouses having to attend Court. This is the most common reason for Court attendance generally within a divorce. This is because when financial remedy Court proceedings are issued, the case will automatically be listed for a ‘First Appointment’. This is an administrative hearing. However, more frequently these days, the need for this type of hearing is circumvented by the spouses agreeing the ‘directions’ which are needed to move the case forward e.g. the instruction of a surveyor to value a property.

The second hearing is the ‘Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment’. This is a negotiation hearing whereby both spouses will usually attend Court with their legal representatives. If the spouses do not reach an agreement at this hearing, the case will be listed for a ‘Final Hearing’, whereby they will have to attend Court to give evidence. However, this is less common as most cases settle at the negotiation hearing.

The short answer is that you do not necessarily have to attend Court in order to get a divorce. Whilst it is not always possible to avoid Court proceedings, divorcing couples are generally encouraged to try to reach an agreement outside of the Court arena. The best outcome in a divorce is arguably a financial settlement which the couple have agreed, as opposed to a decision which has been imposed upon them by a Judge.

Forced Marriage Protection Orders, what are they and who can apply for one?

Posted on 28th June 202328th June 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Forced Marriage Protection Orders, what are they and who can apply for one?

A marriage should always be someone’s choice, but sometimes people are forced into marriage. In his latest blog for McAlister Family Law, Sereyvudd Pheanouk looks at Forced Marriage Protection Orders and explains who can apply for one.

What is a Forced Marriage?

A forced marriage is where one or both parties do not, or cannot, consent to the marriage.

Forced marriages can occur with anyone from all backgrounds, nationalities, males and females, and does not just happen to young people, but adults as well. Forced marriages are not to be confused with arranged marriages, in which both parties have a say and agree to the union.

Forced Marriage Protection Orders

The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 provides the Court the ability to grant Force Marriage Protection Orders (FMPO) to protect the victim from coming into any further harm, in relation to the forced marriage.

An FMPO acts as a deterrent for perpetrators to approach the victim, similar to a non-molestation order or injunction. The purpose of the FMPO is to protect the victim from being forced to marry; however, it can also restrict the perpetrator from doing certain acts such as taking the victim out of the country, making marriage arrangements, contacting the victim directly/indirectly, and it can protect the victim from violence.

Powers of arrest can be attached to the order and if breached, the perpetrator could face imprisonment under contempt of Court.

Who can apply for a FMPO?

You can apply for an FMPO if you are:

Being forced into a marriage; or
Already in a forced marriage

A relevant third party of any victim with permission from the Court can make an application for a FMPO on their behalf.

Local Authorities can also apply for a FMPO on behalf of the victim if they consider the victim to be vulnerable or under 18.

An FMPO can be made without notice; however, this is on a case by case basis. This means that the respondent will not be notified that an application for an FMPO has been made. The respondent will receive notice once an order has been granted.

There is no court fee for making an application and legal aid is available for applications subject to a means test.

If you or someone you know is affected by the issues raised in this blog post, we can provide you with advice and assist you in applying for an FMPO. For more information, please get in touch with our specialist team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Should we open a joint account?

Posted on 22nd June 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Should we open a joint account?

There are lots of decisions to make during a relationship and perhaps even more so when parties begin cohabiting. One of the questions which sometimes comes up is whether or not you should have a joint bank account with your partner? Here, Lisa Brown looks at what a joint account means from the perspective of couples, the bank, and family law.

This is obviously a personal decision and can vary between couples. It can be helpful from a practical point of view if you have a lot of joint expenditure, but it would be sensible to agree some ground rules about usage and how much each party is expected to contribute from the outset.

From the bank’s perspective, for example, if one party were to run up a large overdraft on a joint account, they would still generally consider that to a joint liability. Similarly, from a family law point of view if a cohabiting couple are separating the starting point would be that assets are divided as they are held legally so any savings in a joint account should be shared equally, and any joint borrowing should be borne equally.

To have some clarity between you, it might be sensible to have a cohabitation agreement which can deal with how any assets would be divided on separation (including any joint accounts) and also, if you wish, how outgoings will be met during the relationship.

These agreements are not currently 100% binding, but they are very useful and are becoming more and more popular.

What about if you are married?

Lots of married couples have joint accounts but it is not a pre-requisite, and some choose not to.

Back in February Chloe Madeley hit the headlines when she revealed that she went back to work 8 weeks after giving birth citing the fact that she doesn’t have a joint account with her husband, James Haskell (and presumably that in effect they both financially support themselves).

Whilst obviously it is for every individual couple to decide on their own financial arrangements during their relationship this statement does give the impression that simply because there is no joint account there is no financial links or accountability between Chloe and James.

This is not the case for married couples or those in civil partnerships. The legal starting point is quite different to couples who simply live together. When you enter into a marriage or civil partnership you immediately gain the ability to make a wide range of financial claims against your partner (and likewise they have those claims against you).

If your marriage or civil partnership were to come to an end and you cannot agree how assets should be divided, then the court has the power to divide them between you in line with the factors set out in Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act. These factors include (amongst other things) the assets and income of each party, length of the relationship and the contributions you have each made.

The court is not bound to consider monies in a joint account joint nor monies in one person’s sole name as money to be retained solely by them.

There can, however, be circumstances where it is relevant where monies have been held. For example, if one party had received an inheritance the court may be more minded to exclude that from any settlement if it had always been kept separate in a sole account.

If you or somebody you know wants to understand their legal position better whether they are cohabiting, thinking about cohabiting, engaged or married they should contact one of our specialist family lawyers today.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning forced marriage, please get in touch with our team at hello@mcalisterfamilylaw.co.uk

Three’s a crowd – The financial implications of being in a throuple

Posted on 30th March 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Three’s a crowd – The financial implications of being in a throuple

There has been a recent celebrity trend for being in a throuple, with familiar names such as David Haye, Brooklyn Beckham, and Selena Gomez all partaking in the trend. Here, Lisa Brown looks at what it means to be in a throuple and what it means from a financial perspective.

So, what is a throuple?

A throuple is, put simply, a romantic relationship between three people. It can take various forms. Each party may be equally involved or there may be a primary relationship between two of them.

What does it mean legally?

Polyamourous relationships are not recognised legally in the England and Wales. You can only marry or enter into a civil partnership with one person at a time. If you were to marry more than one person outside of the England and Wales, then this would be considered void and can be annulled.

This means that in the eyes of the law, a throuple either lives as cohabiting partners, or two members of the throuple are married or in a civil partnership in a more formal legal relationship compared to the third party of the throuple.

What is the difference from a financial perspective?

Cohabiting couples in England and Wales do not currently have any special protection or rights against each other. Despite popular belief there is no such thing as a “common law marriage” and this remains the case no matter how long the relationship lasts.

What this means is that somebody could be in a 20-year relationship with an extremely wealthy person (or persons) and still exit with nothing.

The starting point for a cohabiting relationship is that you each simply retain what is legally in your name when the relationship ends.

Whilst exiting with what you brought in might seem fair for Una Healey when leaving a relatively short relationship with David Haye and Sian Osbourne, it does very much depend on the circumstances.

With marriage and civil partnerships not an option for all three people at the same time, the only other option for them to consider would be a cohabitation agreement to set out the intention should the relationship/s break down. Cohabitation agreements can be very useful tools although they are not 100% legally binding.

What if two people in the couple get married or enter into a civil partnership?

Should two parties of the throuple decide to legally marry or enter a civil partnership, it would significantly alter the legal relationship between those two individuals, and they would each have potential financial claims against the other for property to be transferred, lump sums to be paid, pensions to be shared and spousal maintenance.

Within a throuple this would mean that the person not in the marriage is in a significantly different position to the other two. This could be a big disadvantage but, in certain circumstances, it may also be an advantage. For example, if the member not in the marriage were significantly wealthier than the other two, they may not want to be exposed to the potential claims that being married brings.

What about children?

Where there are children in a relationship there is also a possibility of one parent making a financial claim on their behalf against the other parent under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

These types of claims are limited to needs of the child and can include provision of a home (usually until child is 18 or 21), lump sums to meet specific needs and maintenance.

Whether a claim under Schedule 1 is worth making will be dependent on the circumstances including the financial resources of the parents and the care arrangements for the child or children.

If you or somebody you know wants to understand their legal position better whether they are in a couple, throuple, cohabiting, thinking about cohabiting, engaged or married they should contact one of our specialist family lawyers today.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning divorce or family law, please get in touch with our team at McAlister Family Law.

Do people go into marriage with their eyes wide open?

Posted on 9th March 2023 by McAlister Family Law

Do people go into marriage with their eyes wide open?

When people get married, it’s a whirlwind of romance, excitement and planning the big day. The average modern wedding takes about 11 months to plan, over 528 hours (22 whole days). But how much do the to-be-weds understand about the legal and financial implications of marriage? Here, Frances Bentley looks at how couples can go into marriage with their eyes wide open.

Being in the process of planning my own wedding, I can certainly believe the amount of time that goes into it. It is hard not to get swept up in planning the actual wedding day, and sometimes there is a much lesser focus on what marriage actually means after the big day.

As a divorce lawyer, when clients come to me, they say that they did not understand or appreciate the legal and financial implications of marriage when going into it. It begs the question as to whether there should be more education about it before people get married.

It might seem obvious that marriage means a sharing of each other’s lives, hopefully forever, so maybe it isn’t needed. However, if things don’t work out, a lot of people don’t often understand what would actually happen to their finances on divorce. Maybe it isn’t the most romantic thing to think or talk about before you get married, but actually understanding and knowing the implications might mean that people are going into marriage with their eyes open.

I think it is really healthy to have that conversation and so people know where they stand. In my view, it doesn’t undermine the fact that the plan is to stay together forever, and of course that is what the aim is. I actually think it is a bit of a red flag if your future spouse reacts badly to that conversation.

So how can you protect yourself financially if you are getting married?

One way that couples that are to be married can protect their financial position in the event of a future separation is to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement (or a post nuptial agreement if they are already married).

Nuptial agreements can detail what is going to happen with finances in the event of future divorce and whether, for example, one person’s inheritance, or assets brought into the marriage are to be “ringfenced” from any future division of assets on divorce. It allows both people entering into the marriage with knowledge of the other’s financial position and some clarity.

Whilst nuptial agreements are not technically legally binding in England and Wales, they are being upheld much more by the courts and are persuasive, as long as they have been entered into procedurally correctly, both parties have taken legal advice, and are considered to be “fair” to both parties. They can also be reviewed throughout the marriage to take into account any changes in circumstances and ensure that they remain to be “fair”.

On a divorce, the starting point legally or finances is a 50/50 division of all assets. The court would then look at whether or not that is fair, and whether there should be a departure from that starting point, taking into account a number of factors. The factors include what the parties or any children “need” financially, what contributions have been made prior to, during and after the marriage, the standard of living enjoyed amongst other factors, one being whether there has been any pre-nuptial agreement entered into and whether that should be upheld.

The court will look at what is fair and reasonable, in all of the circumstances of the case, and if, the pre-nuptial agreement remains to be fair and reasonable, it is very likely to be upheld and assets brought into the marriage are likely to be protected. It does therefore offer protection and clarity and an understanding of the other person’s financial position before the marriage.

If you need advice on this topic, or any other matters concerning divorce or family law, please get in touch with our team at McAlister Family Law.