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.

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.

What will I stand to get out of the matrimonial assets?

Posted on 15th December 2022 by McAlister Family Law

What will I stand to get out of the matrimonial assets?

With the United Kingdom on the cusp of a cost-of-living crisis and inflation at record highs, divorcing couples will likely face concerns now more than ever as to how finances are to be treated upon divorce. The biggest question on the minds of divorcing couples is often, ‘what will I stand to get out of the matrimonial assets?’ Here, Aaron Williams looks at what the court considers when looking at how to divide assets on divorce and how they aim to meet the ‘needs’ of each party involved.

So, what does the Court consider when looking at how to divide assets on divorce?

As with many things, there is no one size fits all answer to separating matrimonial assets. The principal aim of the court is to ensure that there is ‘fairness’. Unfortunately, fairness has a broad horizon in the context of family law, and it is largely left to the discretion of the judge as to the outcome of the matter.

The court has a duty to consider all circumstances of a case, this is done so using the principal piece of legislation in divorce; that of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, in particular the factors listed in section 25(2)(a) – (h) which can be found here: – https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18/section/25

The phrase ‘needs trumps all’ is often cited when assets are limited assets in matrimonial finance cases. The starting point in any matrimonial finance case is to consider an equal division of what has been built up by the parties during the marriage; however, an equal division of assets is not always appropriate in every case to achieve fairness.

So where does that leave separating couples? Well matters largely come down to the circumstances of the parties, the standard of living and the resources available to meet needs. What was enough to meet the needs of one household may not necessarily be enough to meet two.

When settling the matrimonial assets, there is no discrimination between separating couples regarding their respective roles in the relationship. For example, where one party has typically taken the breadwinner role, whilst the other party is the home maker, their roles are to be regarded as equal irrespective of what they have contributed financially.

So, how does the court implement section 25 of the matrimonial causes act?

When assessing how to separate who should have what proportion of the assets of the marriage, the first consideration of the court is that of the needs of any children.

The court then look to meeting the needs of both parties, principally looking to ensure that each person’s housing needs, and income needs are met.

Looking at the matter holistically the court will principally consider the financial needs, obligations, and responsibilities which each of the parties to the marriage have or is likely to have in the foreseeable future (s.25(2)(b) MCA 1973). The court will look at the general resources of the parties and will broadly separate the needs of parties into capital needs and income needs. Capital needs, is often that of significant single capital outlays, purchasing a property, furnishings, replacement car etc. Income needs is that of the day-to-day costs that parties require on a monthly basis to live.

When trying to determine whether the parties have the means to meet these needs, the court will consider Income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future. Commonly referred to as the financial disclosure process, the parties are expected to provide ‘full and frank’ financial disclosure. This includes determining through the assistance of expert evidence or agreeing by consent, the value of any assets owned by the parties, including property, businesses, trust assets, chattels, and pensions. The court will also need to ascertain the parties’ respective incomes, whether they have to capacity to increase their income, receive a bonus etc. The process ultimately aims to ensure that no stone is left unturned.

With all this in consideration the court has a great deal of flexibility to in their approach to financial settlement, which in turn allows the court to ensure (as far as possible) that an outcome reached is fair to both parties, and that neither party nor dependent children are left in need. However, this level of flexibility also carries its own disadvantages as it can be difficult for parties to envisage how a judge may determine the respective parties’ needs.

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

Kanye to pay $200,000 / month in child maintenance. What lessons can be learned from the settlements of the ultra-rich?

Posted on 2nd December 20222nd December 2022 by McAlister Family Law

Kanye to pay $200,000 / month in child maintenance. What lessons can be learned from the settlements of the ultra-rich?

In the long line of staggering elements of Kanye West’s most tumultuous year, him agreeing to pay a $200,000 (around £165,000) a month settlement to his ex-wife, Kim Kardashian, for child support, is not even the most surprising or jaw-dropping. Here, Michael Compston discusses how this figure was decided upon and what lessons can be learned from the settlements of the ultra-ultra-rich for the remainder of society.

Before we begin, let’s look at some background. West, or Ye as he now likes to be known, is 45 and Kardashian is 42. They married in 2014 and divorced in 2022, being married for some 8 years. The couple happily had four children together, North (9), Saint (6), Chicago (4) and Psalm (2).

For starters, West and Kardashian have agreed to there being no spousal maintenance being paid to either. This, given their extraordinary wealth – both being estimated as being worth at least $1billion individually in the last twelve months, though West’s current status may be “just” that of a 9-figure millionaire – is perhaps not surprising. What they have agreed is for West to pay the sum of $200,000 a month to Kardashian for child support.

The concept of child support, or child maintenance in England & Wales, is one whereby one parent pays a monthly sum to the other parent to ‘support’ or ‘maintain’ the children. The use of the word ‘maintain’ is perhaps more helpful in understanding what the concept of child support actually is. The children must be maintained in the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to. It is most commonly paid by the parent with whom the children spend less time, though in the West v Kardashian case the arrangements in the US case for the children are seemingly shared. The mechanism by which a court would consider maintenance is paid is found under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, though most separating couples will use the maintenance calculator on the Child Maintenance Service website.

In some cases where the ultra-ultra-rich are not concerned, this might extend to items such as ballet lessons, horse riding, art workshops etc. If the couple used to holiday abroad twice a year, then the children should still be able to do so upon divorce, if it can be afforded. Divorce should not be a reason why a child is not able to continue to take part in the activities that they enjoyed when the family lived together all under one roof.

In cases of the West children, the activities are slightly more extravagant. They will not be staying at chain hotels but staying at the most luxurious accommodation worldwide. It is not uncommon for either parent to fly by private jet; those tickets do not come cheap even for the uber-wealthy. The elder children have become accustomed to that lifestyle and would not be expected to have to go without, irrespective of how detached from the norm we may consider that to be. As a family very much in the “A-List”, there are security costs to ensure their safety. All of this has a cost, even to the billionaires.

Schooling is often a big factor. As part of financial settlements upon divorce in England and Wales, the court can make specific school fees orders that ensure a child is kept in the level of education to which they have become accustomed. The West children all attend a fee-paying school and if this was being dealt with in England and Wales it would not be expected to stop attending that school, or a school of similar standing especially as they progress from elementary (primary) to high (secondary) school, because of their parent’s divorce. It is understood that the couple have agreed to share the school fees, which will have been factored into the $200,000 a month payment; not only this, but college funds will need to have been carefully considered for all four.

West and Kardashian have, perhaps sensibly, avoided the need for a trial by reaching a settlement. This is behaviour that would be encouraged regardless of the parties’ wealth and behaviour that we would encourage in those individuals struggling to reach an agreement. By avoiding the trial, they have avoided the considerable expense and emotional difficulty of having their finances and activities laid bare in front a judge, before a decision is made without necessarily having their agreement.

The same principle applies in the ‘real world’, In England and Wales if you attend a final hearing on finances, you are handing over the power to make decisions to a Judge. Negotiations beforehand may result in an outcome that, whilst not ticking every box, might just be a better settlement for both, rather than risk a Judge falling closer to the opponent’s side of the spectrum than yours.

West’s 2022 has been chaotic, to say the least. He has lost a number of endorsements as a result of anti-semitic rants and has been suspended from Twitter. Mega companies such as Adidas and Balenciaga have cut all ties with him. This will no doubt impact his finances for years to come and it may be that the $200,000 a month payment to Kardashian is unaffordable in the future. West will need to bring the matter back to court and provide sufficient evidence that his means have dwindled to the extent he cannot pay the sum agreed. The same principle operates in any settlement in England and Wales; if there is a material change in the financial circumstance of the paying party, then it is only fair that a reassessment be considered. A party cannot simply choose not to work or not be employed to an appropriate standard to try and frustrate the other parent; it is unlikely that if the case was being dealt with over here we would see West stacking shelves in a supermarket any time soon, as he would be accused of failing to maximise his earning potential.

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

The legitimacy of Court-Appointed ‘Experts’ in parental alienation cases

Posted on 18th October 202224th January 2023 by McAlister Family Law

The legitimacy of Court-Appointed ‘Experts’ in parental alienation cases

Ruth Hetherington, Partner and Head of the Private Children Team at McAlister Family Law, and a Specialist in Children matters welcomes the announcement that the President of the Family Courts, Sir Andrew McFarlane will be overseeing an Appeal later this month in which issues of parental alienation and the use of experts will hopefully be reviewed.

What is parental alienation?

Parental alienation has been a hot topic for many years now. There is no legal definition of parental alienation, but the concept has evolved through cases that are heard in the Family Courts. Cafcass, the independent body appointed by the Court, defines parental alienation as ‘when a child’s resistance/hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by one parent’.

In my experience sadly, it is becoming a very common feature in cases where parents have separated and one parent, whether directly or indirectly, displays to a child or children unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent.

What are the repercussions of parental alienation?

In such cases the relationship between parent and child can be lost altogether and the courts have been struggling to deal with such cases as quite often the alienation can be subtle, difficult to identify and can take place over several months if not years.

I have acted for both parents and children in these types of situations and I have seen first-hand the harm that children suffer as a result, which can be long term and affect children in developing healthy relationships themselves.

From my point of view trying to establish that parental alienation exists is a difficult task and as such the Courts have allowed Experts (generally Psychologists) to be appointed to assist in evaluating negative behaviours.

The use of Experts in cases of suspected parental alienation.

In the case that is to be overseen by the President of the Family Courts, Sir Andrew McFarlane, later this month, the qualifications of the Expert who was appointed, will be under scrutiny. The Expert believed parental alienation had taken place, but there is concern from the Court that this Expert may not have been appropriately qualified and was not regulated by any professional body.

In my opinion the regulation of court appointed Experts is something that needs to be addressed urgently. Therefore, the announcement of this Appeal is very much welcomed, and I sincerely hope that the concept of “parental alienation” is also addressed. Although professionals who deal with matters such as these have their own working hypothesis, there needs to be clear guidance given to both professionals, parents and anyone who cares for children about how the Court will deal with cases where a parent/carer of children behaviour is not what it should be.

What needs to change?

Parental alienation can have detrimental effects on a child’s mental health and wellbeing, right into adulthood. It is my view that parents/carers need to have their children at the forefront of their minds in everything that they say and do, to protect them from what will be a sad and upsetting experience of their parents separating. It is sometimes hard for parents to hide their own feelings and as a result they lose sight of the fact that their children will pick up on their parent’s behaviours.

In my opinion children often get outlooked when ‘battle lines’ are drawn between the parents, and it is for these reasons that the Court will be assisted by an Expert. The Court’s paramount consideration is always the welfare of the children, and it is therefore understandable that the need for the Court to be guided by Experts is sometimes required.

Final thoughts

It is my hope that as awareness is raised around the detrimental impact parental alienation can have on the whole family, particularly on the children, we will get to a point where the use of Experts will be evaluated and scrutinised to ensure that the Expert is right for that particular family, appropriately qualified and only used where absolutely necessary.

It is crucial for any parent who has concerns over child arrangements, or feels they are victim to parental alienation, to instruct a lawyer who is highly specialised in children matters. This will ensure that that all matters can be addressed and will ensure that the child’s welfare is at the heart of any decision that a parent may take, which will ultimately inform the Court’s overall final decision for the arrangements of any child.