Noel Gallagher and Sara MacDonald to divorce after 22 years – Does the length of marriage matter?

Noel Gallagher and Sara MacDonald to divorce after 22 years – Does the length of marriage matter?

Noel Gallagher, Manchester born former Oasis member, and his wife, Sara MacDonald have announced that they are to divorce following a marriage of 22 years. Here Weronika Husejko looks at how the length of a marriage can impact divorce proceedings.

The former couple married in 2011, having begun their relationship in 2001. They have two children together, Donovan, aged 15 and Sonny aged 12, both of whom are still dependent.

It is a commonly queried whether the length of a marriage has any relevance within a divorce financial settlement. The short answer to this question would be yes.

When a Judge considers a financial settlement, they must consider section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Section 25, amongst other things, specifies that a Judge must in particular have regard to the duration of the couples’ marriage.

What does this mean in practice? 

Generally speaking, a marriage usually falls into one of three brackets, that being either a short term, medium term or long term marriage.

A short term marriage would usually be considered to be one of up to 5 years. It should be noted however that a couple cannot divorce until they have been married for a minimum of 1 year. It is more likely that the financial settlement in a short term marriage will take into consideration pre acquired assets. A “clean break” may be considered to be more appropriate in these circumstances. However, this may not always be the case, especially if there are dependent children involved, in which case the focus would be on ensuring that the children’s needs are met.

A medium term marriage would generally be viewed as around 10 years.

Noel and Sara’s marriage would most likely be considered to be a long marriage on the basis that they began living together around 2001, their marriage being a total of 22 years. This is because a period of cohabitation that moves seamlessly into marriage will also be taken into account by the Courts, when considering the length of the marriage.

A longer marriage of this nature can often be more complex when it comes to the financial settlement. The Courts may take a different approach when dividing matrimonial assets in this type of case, compared to that of a short or medium term marriage. By way of example, it is far less likely for the Court to consider Noel and Sara’s respective contributions to the marriage.  As a result, it may be that there will be an equal division of assets, unless it is necessary to move away from a 50-50 split to meet the need of one of the spouses.

It may be that Noel and Sara have a pre nuptial agreement, in which case this may be taken into consideration by the Courts, and therefore may have an impact upon the overall financial settlement.

In any event, the Court’s  primary interest in their case will be in ensuring that the needs of both Donovan and Sonny are met.

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

Love is blind… but what if it’s short?

Love is blind… but what if it’s short?

With both Nick Thompson & Danielle Ruhl (Love is Blind season 2) and Mackenzie Scott & Dan Jewett (the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos and her new husband) set to divorce, the topic of short marriages is one that is bound to be on their minds. Both couples married in 2021 and are in the process of bringing their marriages to a legal end.  Here, Heather Lucy looks at how the length of a marriage may affect how assets are split upon divorce.

Both of the couples named above are based in the US but those thinking of divorce in England and Wales may be wondering whether the length of their marriage might impact their potential financial settlements on divorce.

There are no hard and fast rules, or formulas, that state how assets should be divided on divorce. The starting point for the court is that the assets should be divided equally, but they will then consider if there are reasons for moving away from an equal split, for example if assets are considered to be non-matrimonial, such as inherited assets or potentially assets acquired before the marriage. The court will also look at whether each person’s needs would be met by an even split. In making their decision, the court looks at the factors in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which is a checklist of what they should consider. The primary consideration will be the welfare of any children of the marriage and other factors include the couple’s ages and the standard of living during the marriage. The latter would likely bode well for Mr Jewett if he were divorcing in England and Wales considering Ms Scott’s circa $34 billion net worth.

One of the factors to be considered under the Section 25 checklist is the length of the marriage. For the purposes of divorce, any time spent living together immediately prior to the marriage is added to the length of time since ‘I do’ to work out the length of the relationship.  There are no set definitions of ‘long marriages’ or ‘short marriages’. Marriages of 10 + years may be seen to be in the ‘long marriage’ territory and one lasting 5 years or less is generally seen to fit the description of a short marriage.

Spouses in a long marriage are seen to have more financial interconnectedness and their assets are more likely to be considered ‘mingled’. This means that the court is more likely to be persuaded that an equal division of the assets is the right approach.

If spouses in a short marriage have no children and are both earning, the court may decide that it is fair to move away from splitting their assets down the middle and instead try return each person to the financial position they were in prior to the marriage. This is made even more likely if the couple had kept their finances separate during the marriage. It is also more likely that divorcing spouses will be able to ‘ring-fence’ assets/property they have brought to the marriage which means that they are kept out of the ‘pot’ being divided.  The court will also heavily favour a ‘clean break’ if the marriage was short, if there are no young children, as they will want to cut financial ties between the divorcing couple. This means that it is unlikely that regular payments from one person to the other (maintenance) would be ordered, though it is not impossible.

It is important to remember that the court will look at what each person needs.  You might have a short marriage and have no children but, if a move away from equality would mean the other person cannot meet this housing and income needs, the court are unlikely to be persuaded that an equal division of the assets is not the right course of action.

Married at First Sight UK – Are they really married and does it matter?

Married at First Sight UK – Are they really married and does it matter?

Married at First Sight first hit TV screens in 2015 and for the first 5 series the couples were legally married. However, after adopting the Australian (more entertaining) format last year the couples no longer get legally married. Here,  Lisa Brown looks at the implications involved with marrying a stranger and what the law requires of legally married couples.

Nevertheless, much has been made in the recent series (7) about the fact that the parties are “married”. It all starts with the individuals dropping the bombshell on their loved ones that they are getting “married to a stranger” and when Whitney and Matt coupled up the criticism came thick and fast based on the fact that they were “married” to other people.

For the purposes of the show perhaps it doesn’t matter because the point is that they buy into the principle but legally it makes a very big difference.

Being married is a change to your legal status and if things don’t work out you have to apply to the court to either have that marriage annulled or get divorced.

Further, when couples get married, they gain the ability to make a financial claim against the other person under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

One of the peculiarities of the law as it stands is that a couple could live together for 25 years but not be able to make a financial claim against each other (save in limited circumstances) but somebody can get legally married at first sight, never live together and divorce as soon as they can and they would be able to make a claim. That claim could include property being transferred to them, a share of the other’s pension, a lump sum of money being paid and /or monthly sums being paid (spousal maintenance).

In “Married At First Sight” circumstances the reality is that it is unlikely that such a claim would be particularly fruitful and generally the expectation would be that they would exit the marriage with what they brought in but the ability to do it remains.

The Matrimonial Causes Act sets out at section 25 a checklist of factors which are taken into account when deciding the outcome of a financial claim. One of those factors is the duration of the marriage but there are a number of others and the family court has a wide discretion.

Whilst not relevant to the Married At First Sight couples it is also worth knowing that the court will generally “run in” periods of seamless cohabitation prior to the marriage when considering the length. So, if, as in the above example, you lived together for 25 years and then you got married it is likely that the court would consider it to be a long marriage even if you separated just weeks after the actual marriage. This scenario could make a huge difference to the financial outcome of a case.

Arguably, most couples getting married are largely ignorant of the changes they are entering into from a legal perspective and Married At First Sight doesn’t assist with this (not least because no matter what they say the couples aren’t actually married). Some people may also think they have rights they do not because they have lived together for a certain period of time, but no such rights exist and “common law marriage” is a myth.

Whilst not the most romantic thought people should consider their legal status in their relationship and the impact that this can have to ensure that they are properly protected and have a full understanding.

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.

MCALISTER HQ LOCATION:

Bass Warehouse
4 Castle Street
M3 4LZ

HOW CAN WE HELP?
HOW CAN WE HELP?

If your enquiry is urgent please call

+44 (0)333 202 6433