Karen Wallace

why you need a financial order
/

They Think It’s All Over …  Actually, No It Isn’t or Why you Need a Financial Order on your Divorce

Karen Wallace
Karen Wallace
Head of Family Department
Stafford Young Jones

The Minister says to the Groom/Bride:

 N, will you take N to be your wife/husband?

Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honour and protect her/him and, forsaking all others, be faithful to her/him as long as you both shall live? (The Marriage Service  © The Archbishop’s Council 2016)

Many of us will be familiar with these words from the traditional church wedding service.

When we say “I will” in response, and then go on to make the traditional vows about having and holding, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer and so on, most people don’t realise that they are also saying, and under the Matrimonial Causes Act, if we get divorced we are obligated to continue to financially support each other and can make claims against each other for capital, income and pensions at any time until the court says those claims are dismissed.

It’s not as romantic as, ‘til death us do part, but I wonder how much grief would be saved if people understood that they are both taking on these responsibilities when those vows are made?

Those claims, for capital, income and pensions, relate to the assets that have been built up during the marriage as a result of contributions both people made to the relationship.

The courts don’t discriminate between types of contribution so a wife who has stayed home to raise the children has contributed as much as a husband who went out to work and earned the money to pay the mortgage.  But what I am concerned with here are the words “until the court says those claims are dismissed.”

If you are divorcing right now you may find that there are complicated issues to resolve about finances – who is to get what out of the house, what happens about pensions, the division of a business.

If you have a lawyer advising you and you reach an agreement with your ex, it will be strongly recommended that a Financial Remedy Order (“FRO”) is drawn up.  In these circumstances it will be applied for by consent, so these orders are often called “consent orders”.

If you go to court and a judge decides it all for you, you will get a FRO automatically as part of the decision process.

All FROs, made by consent or otherwise, are made by judges, so that they are binding and enforceable, meaning that if either of you try to go back on the deal, the other can go back to court and make you do what you are supposed to.  They always include “dismissal clauses”, which explicitly say that neither of you can claim anything else from the other in the future.

why you need a financial order
What if you don’t really have any assets to divide

But what if you reach agreement with your ex by some other route, such as mediation?  Or what if you don’t really have any assets to divide, or you sort it all out between you and there is no hassle about anything?  Surely the decree absolute will take care of it?  You don’t need to go to the bother of getting a FRO then, do you?

Well yes, actually, you do.  Getting your decree absolute only confirms that you are divorced.  Those claims for capital, income and pensions don’t go away until a judge specifically says they do.  If you marry again then you can’t make claims – but if your ex doesn’t remarry they can still claim from you at any time in the future – unless and until a judge has said they can’t.

You might think that you don’t have very much and you will probably carry on not having very much, and neither will your ex, but what happens if they fall ill or have an accident and can’t work anymore, so have even less than they do now, or you win the Lottery?  Those sorts of circumstances throw a whole new light on it, and suddenly, even years later, you could find yourself facing a claim.

That’s exactly what happened in the case of Wyatt v Vince [2016] EWHC 1368 (FAM).

The case made the headlines a year or two ago when Mr Vince tried to say that Ms Wyatt wasn’t entitled to make a claim because of a 19 year delay, but the Supreme Court said that she could.

Her claim has recently been resolved by agreement and she was awarded £300,000 plus some money towards the costs of the Supreme Court hearings.  The judge approving their agreement said he was satisfied that it was reasonable for Ms Wyatt to receive a modest award following the breakdown of the marriage.

I expect you are wondering why she waited so long to make her claim.  Well, they married in 1981 and had one child.  They separated in 1984 and divorced in 1992.

During the marriage they lived a New Age traveller lifestyle; after they separated Mr Vince continued living as a traveller for several years; Ms Wyatt also lived as a traveller with their child, and in homeless shelters and eventually in a council property.  A classic case of a couple with not very much at all who probably saw no reason to go to the trouble and expense of getting a FRO.

What changed was that years later Mr Vince became a highly successful green energy tycoon worth £57m, while Ms Wyatt continued to live in her council property, suffering with various health problems.

The amount they eventually agreed she should receive was only about 0.05% of his overall wealth, and her claim was an uphill struggle; but nevertheless she still got something, over 19 years after they divorced, when it could never be said that she had made even the slightest contribution to the assets Mr Vince had built up.

And it was all because they never asked a judge to dismiss their claims against each other when they got divorced.  A great opportunity for Ms Wyatt, not so much for Mr Vince who, as you might imagine, is a bit cross about it all.

So that is why lawyers recommend that you have a FRO dismissing all claims, so that you both have the certainty for the future that neither of you can bring any claims against the other in later years.

A FRO means that the agreement you have reached is binding: neither of you can go back on any deal you may have made in mediation; and neither of you can go back on a promise between the two of you to leave each other’s finances alone.

FROs are bespoke technical documents that are tailored to your individual circumstances, and usually you will need a lawyer to write it up for you.  But if your circumstances change later in life and you hit a jackpot, you may find that it was a very worthwhile investment – and it really will all be over.

divorce lawyer
/

How To Spot A Divorce Lawyer Who Is Getting More Out Of Your Divorce Than You Are

Karen Wallace
Karen Wallace
Head of Family Department
Stafford Young Jones

“For the [guild of lawyers], their work is very much what it is for all lawyers, which is to say, doing things slowly for a lot of money“ – Terry Pratchett

Let’s face it, lawyers have a bad reputation.  They are pedantic, argumentative, use ten words when two will do, and they charge a fortune – and that’s the good ones!

The trouble is that lawyers know that the devil is in the detail – cases are won and lost on the interpretation of words, and a big feature of the law is how it is interpreted.

They know that if they get this wrong, or miss a crucial point, they can be sued, and rightly so.  One reason lawyers charge the fees they do is because of their massive insurance premiums.

I’ll let you into a secret – the reason lawyers are so cautious is because they are terrified of being sued.  So while they want to give you a good service, they also go to great lengths to avoid a law suit.  Even the wording I am using in this article has to be carefully considered because of a reference to a real case.

Family lawyers are no different.  In some respects they are worse because the work they do is personal and packed full of emotion – people who are divorcing are fragile and emotional – and the outcome they get for their clients will impact the rest of their lives.  So there is a lot at stake.  Emotional fragile people who don’t get what they want are likely to sue, or at least complain.

Human nature being what it is, just as probate lawyers are happy when there’s a cold winter, certain family lawyers can be happy when they meet one half of a warring couple because they see an opportunity to make money.

Family law is undergoing massive changes.

The focus on mediation, trying to get families to sort out their issues without going to court, means that family law is not as lucrative as it used to be, and yet, lawyers still need to perform and meet their billing targets.

As a member of Resolution I am firmly committed to doing all I can to take the heat out of the situation so that even if a court hearing is needed the process is still polite, respectful and as amicable as possible.  But sadly there are some lawyers who see a warring couple and take the opportunity to up the ante, inflame a bad situation to make it worse –  so that they can make more money.

I came across a very blatant example of this recently.  I was consulted by a wife who had been separated from her husband for a number of years.  He had been working abroad and so saw his children only sporadically – but they had been able to make those arrangements themselves with no problem.

He had recently lost his job so had returned to the UK and now wanted to establish a more stable, fortnightly contact regime with two children who are pre- and mid-teens.  I was contacted by his lawyer about specific contact arrangements, intent on convincing me that my client was refusing contact.  This was far from the case.  My client was willing to encourage whatever contact the children wanted, but she knew that, given their own activities, social lives and opinions, they were only going to want to see him about once a month.

divorce lawyer
Is your divorce lawyer not listening?

It would have been the easiest thing in the world for me to have responded in kind, but I resisted the temptation.

I told the lawyer that this was not a discussion for us to be having.  This was not a newly separated couple who were so highly conflicted that they needed their lawyers to micromanage their contact arrangements.  These were not children who were so young that they couldn’t decide for or speak for themselves.

I made it clear that I was not going to get involved in protracted correspondence when this couple were perfectly capable of speaking to each other and to the children to sort it all out for themselves.

In relation to financial issues, this same couple have already done their basic deal.  She has capital, he has pensions: no further intervention is needed, and they are both happy with that arrangement.  Yet this lawyer was still suggesting full disclosure when all they need is a simple order that says neither person can make a claim against the other in the future.

Because I too am cautious, I have asked my client to sign a disclaimer confirming that she understands that as there has been no disclosure I have not been able to advise her on whether the agreement they have reached is fair, and that she understands that if she later finds out he had assets she didn’t know about, she can’t make a claim against them.

She is happy to sign this because she knows he doesn’t have anything else and even if he did, she doesn’t want it.  But again it would have been very easy to agree that full disclosure was required, just to check, and let’s take a few months over it and write some expensive snotty letters in the meantime.

This strikes me as a classic case of a lawyer trying to get more out of their client’s divorce than the client is getting.

How can you tell if that is happening to you?  Well, here are some things to look for:

  • Are you being asked to produce all of your bank statements and documents even though you know all about your ex’s finances and have reached a deal you are happy with?
  • Is your lawyer insisting on fighting small points you don’t really care about?
  • Is your lawyer telling you not to speak to your ex even though both of you are quite comfortable doing so?
  • Are you being encouraged to start court proceedings when you still want to try to negotiate?
  • Is your lawyer not listening to you?

As with anything in life, listen to your gut.  If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t.  If you are being advised to do something you are uncomfortable with, don’t do it.

A fundamental rule of the solicitor/client relationship is that the lawyer advises, you instruct.  In other words the lawyer is there to do what you want them to do, having first explained the law and the legal repercussions of whatever options may be available to you so that you can make an informed decision.

Divorce is a stressful time.  Sometimes you need someone to be a buffer between you and your ex because you simply can’t handle them anymore.

Lawyers are great for that, but it is important to remember that it is your agenda, not the lawyer’s, and if you are finding that your agenda has fallen by the wayside, don’t be afraid to say, ‘thank you but goodbye’, and find someone else who will put your needs, and your pocket, first.

About Karen

Karen Wallace qualified as a solicitor in 1993 and has practiced Family Law throughout her career, initially as part of a general litigation practice and then specialising from 2004. 

As a divorced parent she has considerable insight into the issues faced by divorcing couples.  Karen uses this insight to help a wide range of families successfully through the legal maze of divorce with as little expense and trauma as possible – www.syjlaw.co.uk

 wallacek@syjlaw.co.uk