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.

My Spouse Has Hidden Assets – What Can I Do?

Separating from a spouse can be daunting and overwhelming, especially when there are children and financial matters to consider. Most people hope to have a respectful and amicable divorce but what do you do if you suspect or know your spouse is trying (or has succeeded) in moving or hiding assets? You are likely to be very worried and be wondering what your options are. Here Brigid O’Malley discusses the role that hidden assets can play on a divorce and what you can do if you find yourself in this situation.

How are financial matters dealt with upon divorce?

The court will take into consideration a number of factors when determining what a fair financial settlement should be. Those factors are set out in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (1973). The first consideration is the welfare of any children of the family and the remaining factors will be considered by the Court in order to determine what is a fair distribution of the marital assets in order to meet the needs of both parties. The starting point is an equal (50/50) division of the assets.

It is important to note that each party has a duty to provide full and frank disclosure of their assets, income and liabilities in financial remedy proceedings. This means each party has a legal obligation to be honest and disclose everything they own. This is an ongoing duty throughout the proceedings.

It may be that your fears are alleviated after considering your spouse’s disclosure and they have indeed disclosed all assets you believe they have. However, it may also become apparent from considering the disclosure filed in the case by your spouse that they have moved assets or not disclosed certain items. In such circumstances the Court can:

Make costs orders for your spouse to pay your legal costs.
Make a “Search Order” to discover what assets your spouse has but this is expensive and not a frequently used order of the court.

What can I do if my spouse has hidden assets – how will the Court determine a fair settlement?

The court can draw something called an Adverse Inference if the evidence filed in the case strongly demonstrates one party has not complied with their duty of full and frank disclosure. Effectively, a court may be able to determine one party has failed to disclose all their assets and the settlement awarded would be reflective of this.

Depending upon the facts of each individual case, the allegations made, and the evidence filed, the Court can do a number of things:

Make an Order to set aside the transaction.
Make an Order to add the asset back into the asset pot for division.
Treat the asset as being back in the asset pot, and belonging to your spouse, and adjusting the settlement accordingly.

In order to grant an order to set aside a transaction the court has to be satisfied that your spouse deliberately took steps to try and defeat your claim and that if the transaction was to be set aside you would be granted financial relief, or a different financial remedy order would be made.

The court can “add back” funds to the asset pot if they are satisfied your spouse has recklessly spent money or disposed of funds. This will effectively mean the monies are put back into the asset pot for division.

Sometimes, even if the court is satisfied the transaction was completed in order to dissipate/reduce the assets, an order to set aside that transaction or an order for the asset to be “added back” to the pot will not be made. This might be where there are enough assets in the case meaning a fair order can be made, without the need to set aside the specific transaction.

What can I do if I think my spouse may be about to transfer or hide assets?

If this is the case, an application can be made to Court for a Freezing Order which an injunction to prevent the disposition of an asset or assets. This application can be made urgently if there is evidence that a transfer is imminent. Therefore, you may need to act quickly, and we would encourage you to get immediate legal advice.

If your spouse has already taken steps and disposed of assets, then the Court may grant Orders to either set aside those transactions or “add back” the funds to the asset pot for division.

All of these actions require careful consideration of the allegations, the evidence and the relief that may be sought. Applications of this nature can be expensive, but it is vital you obtain advice immediately if you are concerned your spouse may have hidden or disposed of assets or be in the process of doing this. It may be that an urgent application is needed and the sooner you act, the better.