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.

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

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.

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

No Fault Divorce – the Good, the Bad, and the Neutral

Posted on 7th January 202218th March 2022 by McAlister Family Law

No Fault Divorce – the Good, the Bad, and the Neutral

Our managing partner, Amanda McAlister, recently appeared on BBC Morning Live discussing what the incoming no fault divorce law is and what it will mean for couples that are currently considering a divorce.

In this blog, Heather Lucy, Solicitor at McAlister Family Law, discusses the pros and cons of the new law in more depth.

People considering divorce are often surprised to hear that, in most circumstances, there will need to be an element of ‘blame’ to begin proceedings immediately. The current legislation says that a marriage will only be dissolved on its ‘irretrievable breakdown’ which must be evidenced with one of five facts

Unreasonable behaviour – assigns blame
Adultery – assigns blame
Desertion – very rare and now archaic
Two years’ separation with consent – does not assign blame but stops the divorcing couple moving forward
Five years’ separation (no consent needed) – does not assign blame but more time in limbo

Many people wanting to divorce want the change to happen as soon as possible and to get through this time of their life in as pain-free a manner as possible. Practitioners and campaigners have been calling for no-fault divorce for many years and it is set to soon become a reality. But what does it actually mean and what are the consequences?

What’s happening?

There is to be a reform to the law on the breakdown of marriages for the first time since 1973. Splitting couples will no longer need to evidence the ‘irretrievable breakdown’ of the marriage but can, instead, just give a statement to the court to say that the marriage has broken down irretrievably – there is no need to pick one of the five factors above. Couples will also be able to jointly petition for divorce for the first time.

The new law is due to come into place in April 2022 though it was initially scheduled for June 2021.

The Good

Less hostility – this helps with avoid souring relations between the divorcing couple. Often there are financial matters to sort out and children to co-parent. Splitting up is never pleasant but it can be achieved amicably and no-fault divorce is likely to help this.
Less likely to end up in court – currently, divorces can be contested and this can lead to very expensive and protracted proceedings. Fortunately, this is rare but the risk is removed with no-fault divorce except in exceptional circumstances.
More cost-effective – there will need to be less correspondence between solicitors attempting to agree a divorce petition that is palatable to both people. This will save costs.

The Bad

Some people fear that this amendment to the law will make it too easy to get divorced and it detracts from the sanctity of marriage. This is combatted by a minimum timescale of 6 months from submission to final order.
It is not clear whether the government will be ready for the law to come into effect in April 2022 so anyone waiting for the introduction of no-fault divorce cannot be certain of when they can divorce.

And the…neutral

People seeking legal advice on divorce often assume that assigning blame to one party will give them an advantage when sorting out their finances. This is very rarely the case so the introduction of no-fault divorce will not make a difference.

If you are thinking about divorce and want to discuss your options, including whether waiting for the new rules to come into force, please do not hesitate to contact us.