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.

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

Posted on 16th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

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.

We cannot agree on counselling for our child – What will the court decide?

Posted on 12th January 202312th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

We cannot agree on counselling for our child – What will the court decide?

According to statistics, nearly one in 10 children and young people are affected by a mental health problem. The good news is that there is now more awareness of this issue and a number of resources available to children and young people who may be suffering. Here, Melissa Jones looks at what the court can decide if parents cannot agree on counselling for their child?

Understandably, separation and divorce can be a difficult and anxious time for children. They might feel confused and believe they need to “pick sides”. They might also believe that the separation of their parents is “their fault” and might be feeling guilty.

Where does this leave you?

Decisions on a child attending counselling would fall under the umbrella of medical decisions. If you both agree, then great, they would attend counselling. If only one parent agrees, this does not necessarily mean that the counselling should go ahead and with such important decisions is not advisable to act unilaterally. This issue should be agreed upon by all of those with parental responsibility for the child(ren).

What is Parental Responsibility?

Under section 3 (1) of the Children Act 1989 “parental responsibility” means all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.

What application do I need to make?

In the absence consent from all those who hold parental responsibility, a parent may wish to apply to the court for a Specific Issue Order, for the court’s permission to enable them to make decisions about the child in the absence of the other parent’s consent.

The application that would need to be made comes under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 and is for a specific issue application; to specifically address what is the best interests of the children’s education and medical matters. Within the proceedings evidence shall be put forward by both parents to set out how their proposal is in the children’s best interests.

However, prior to making an application, the court would encourage the parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution, to see if matters can be resolved. It may be that if you have spoken to a medical professional or a GP who highly recommends that the child or children attend counselling then you may be better assisted in your discussions with the other parent or in any application to the court.

Most importantly it would be best to understand why the other parent objects to the child(ren) attending counselling. Perhaps they need more information first or would like to speak to the counsellor themselves either on their own or jointly with you.

What will the court decide?

If matters relating to a child’s medical care are put before the Court, the matter then becomes a question of what is best for the child and not what is best for the parents. The Court’s primary consideration will be the needs of the child and will have regard to the Welfare Checklist (s.1 (3) CA 1989) when reaching their decisions. Arguably attending Counselling for the child might be in the child’s best interest and a vital resource to help them deal with their mental health issues. Conversely, it might not be necessary for the child to attend counselling and it may be considered intrusive and invasive given their age, characteristics and understanding. It is of course a balancing act.

Can I not just take them to counselling anyway?

However, if one parent has taken matters in their own hands and begins the process of making medical decisions without the other parents’ consent, that would not be perceived well by the court. In fact, if you choose to ignore the other parent’s views or objections, then they in turn could make an application to the family court to prevent you from making the child(ren) available for counselling. This also comes under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 and would be for a prohibited steps order; to prohibit the child(ren) from attending counselling.

In all cases and at all times parents are strongly encouraged not just to communicate their wishes, but to co parent effectively for the best interests of their children.

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

Resource: https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/young-people-stats.html#riskfactors

How will I get a fair divorce settlement if my ex hides their assets?

Posted on 5th January 20235th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

How will I get a fair divorce settlement if my ex hides their assets?

A common worry that those divorcing have is that their ex will hide assets to prevent them receiving a fair divorce settlement. Thankfully most people who get divorced are honest about their financial circumstances, but what if they are not? Here, Partner Fiona Wood discusses what you can do to if you suspect your spouse is hiding assets throughout financial settlements.

Before a financial settlement is negotiated it is usual for both spouses to give full financial disclosure, confirming all their assets, company interests, pensions, incomes and liabilities. Documentation needs to be provided to support what they state their financial circumstances are, including bank statements for all accounts for at least the last 12 months. If assets have not been disclosed it is often possible to prove this from the documents that have been provided, such as regular transfers from one bank account to another account that has not been disclosed.

Sometimes people give assets to friends or family, shortly before they divorce, in an attempt to exclude them from the divorce settlement. If an asset has been transferred to another person at an undervalue within a period of three years before the divorce, the onus is on the person who did this to prove that it was a legitimate transfer that was not done to reduce their ex’s financial claims. If they cannot prove this, a judge can overturn the transfer, or they can add the amount that has been lost back into the matrimonial pot.

If you are genuinely concerned that your ex is about to give away an asset or transfer it out of the country, you can apply to court for a freezing order. You need good evidence that this is about to happen, to successfully obtain a freezing order, but it is an order that can be made in court proceedings.

Sometimes one spouse has complicated finances, often of an international nature, and their ex is concerned that they will not provide a true picture of their assets. In this scenario you can do some research yourself, looking at Companies House and at the Land Registry in the UK, both of which are accessible to the public, and their equivalents in some other countries. I had a case where one spouse failed to disclose a property that he purchased in Florida, but as there is a public land registry in Florida, we were able to show that they owned this property.

There are also professionals who specialise in assets tracing, on an international scale, who use all legal means available to track down assets owned in the UK and across the world. Even if they cannot locate specific assets, they may be able to provide enough information to enable you to convince a judge that there are hidden assets and that this should be taken into account within the divorce settlement.

If you are concerned about your ex hiding assets to reduce your financial claims on divorce, there are several ways in which you can investigate this and there are legal remedies available to you if it transpires that they have done this or they are about to do this.

Understandably Judges are very unimpressed by those who do try to hide assets. There are likely to be cost orders made against them. Also, as Judges have a broad discretion when it comes to deciding what a fair financial settlement is, so the judge may order that they receive a less generous settlement than they would have received if they had not tried to hide assets.

If you have already obtained a financial settlement, but it comes to light that your ex failed to disclose some of their assets whilst you were negotiating that settlement, the financial settlement can be reopened. There are significant consequences for those who try to hide assets. Don’t do it!

If you are affected by any of the issues raised here, please get in touch today. We are here to help.

Emotional affairs, is it cheating?

Posted on 22nd December 2022 by McAlister Family Law

Emotional affairs, is it cheating?

Emotional affairs, some people don’t count it as cheating and others do. With no physical relationship in an emotional affair, how do family lawyers view it and is it grounds for a divorce? Here, Frances Bentley explores emotional affairs, questions if they should be classed as cheating, and explains whether it is grounds for a divorce.

There has been a lot of focus recently on emotional affairs and what they mean. Some people believe it doesn’t count as cheating because there is no physical relationship with somebody else. Some people think it is worse because that person is becoming emotionally reliant on somebody else, rather than their own partner or spouse.

An emotional affair is bond between two people which mimics or matches the closeness of a romantic relationship but isn’t physical. There has been a survey completed In the USA which concluded that 35% of women and 45% of men had admitted having an emotional affair before.

So why do emotional affairs happen in the first place?

It does raise a question as to whether there is a wider problem within the marriage. There could have been a breakdown in communication, it could be the result of not spending enough time together, or there could be a general lack of happiness within a marriage. Recent reports have looked at emotional affairs and asked some people to comment on their experiences and the impact. Here is what they said:

“It’s now been 6 months and I love him”

“My emotional affair is coming to an end after 2 years. I am feeling sad and pensive”

“I miss my emotional affair now that it’s gone…I feel so alone”.

It is clear that an emotional affair can put incredible strains on a marriage, and even lead to marriage breakdown leading to divorce.

What about Divorce and the Law?

Before the divorce law changed in April 2022, as family lawyers we saw clients who thought that their partner having an emotional affair constituted “adultery”. To them, their spouse having an emotional relationship with someone else had caused their marriage to break down. However, under the old law an affair could only count as adultery if there had been a sexual relationship and if that sexual relationship was with a person of the opposite sex.

This was sometimes a devastating discovery for both individuals whose partner had an emotional affair or had engaged in a same sex sexual relationship. The law came under fire for being completely outdated (and rightly so). We had to advise our clients that rather than the affair being labelled as adultery, they would have to rely on it being “unreasonable behaviour”. Understandably, to them didn’t feel like it carried the same recognition of the affair that had caused the marriage to break down. Adultery and unreasonable behaviour petitions were plagued with issues; more often than not it would result in the other party refusing to accept or admit the behaviour, toing and froing on the wording of divorce petitions, animosity and a feeling of complete lack of control over the process for person applying.

In April 2022 the old divorce law was completely abolished, with the “facts” needing to be relied on (such as adultery and unreasonable behaviour) being removed.

A person applying for a divorce now needs to simply confirm within the divorce application that the marriage has “irretrievably broken down”. There is no need to worry about the other person refusing to accept the behaviour happened or refusing to admit it (which often left a person bringing the divorce having no recognition of why the marriage had broken down).

Although the new divorce application doesn’t require an explanation of what caused the marriage breakdown, the law being simplified now means that individuals who have been on the other side of any affair (whether that be an emotional affair or a physical affair) can relatively simply make a divorce application and confirm there has been “irretrievable breakdown” as a result of the affair. It now allows them an element of control over the divorce process which for many, was much needed.

If you are affected by any of the issues raised here, please get in touch today. We are here to help.

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

Posted on 16th November 202224th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

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.