Category: FINANCES

What can we learn from the Bezos divorce?

Are there lessons we can take from the recent divorce of Amazon billionaires Jeff and Mackenzie Bezos?

The divorce was finalised with little fanfare by a Washington area judge in the first week of July. Mackenzie Bezos exited the marriage with 4% of Amazon stock, worth an estimated $38 billion. That’s a huge amount, but considerably less than the 50 per cent stake in the couple’s vast assets to which she was legally entitled.

Some commentators have argued that with such wealth ‘each dollar means less and that can turn down the emotional thermometer’ of divorce. But even so history is littered with drawn out and contentious high value separations.

Admired

The Bezos’ are to be admired for the way they maintained their dignity as they move on after 25 years of marriage.

From the start they seem to have had an agreed path in mind. In January the news of their divorce was announced from their individual Twitter accounts. They both stressed they would continue as ‘parents and friends’.

As we know through experience, that is frequently the intention but it’s not always how it pans out.

Six months later and the divorce is done with no public sign of acrimony.

So, what did the Bezos’ do well?

Keep it private

Very few real details of the divorce have entered the public domain, and virtually nothing has come from the former couple themselves.

While not everyone’s divorce is going to make front page news, that doesn’t mean there won’t be outside interest. Family, friends and work colleagues may well press for detail on what’s happening. However, it makes sense to keep that information in the hands of those who really need to know.

Certainly, sharing social media updates on the finer details of your finances and personal arrangements during a split is not to be recommended.

So, be mindful of who and what you tell if you don’t want people openly discussing your private affairs. This can add another strain to an already difficult situation.

Leave the children out of it

In many high-profile splits we are presented with images of one or other partner being the ‘perfect parent’. Though the Bezos’ have four offspring, there was clearly a deliberate attempt to ‘keep them out of it’ and we couldn’t agree more.

Give children only the information they need – what is happening, what to expect and who is living where. Protect them from the stuff that is nothing to do with them such as who did what to whom; they are not your confidante.

Reassure them that it’s not their fault and where possible maintain a relationship with your ex for their benefit. That’s a hard one, we know, but where it’s appropriate you should be cordial and treat each other with respect.

Divorce is never easy, but kids usually adapt to change better than adults and bearing witness to a well-handled separation is a powerful life lesson.

Keep emotions in check

Another hard one but allowing the emotion to take over and influence your decision-making is unlikely to be of benefit in the long run.

We can’t know how the Bezos’ behaved behind closed doors but the image they present – cool, calm and collected –  suggests they remained focussed on the process. That’s a factor that helps in ensuring an early resolution of all the issues.

In any negotiation it’s sound advice to stay neutral. Don’t get wound up by details that do not impact on your overall goal. Taking your anger and frustration into a meeting means you’ve already lost.

Plan your financial future

While the sums involved meant neither party was ever going to go short, there will still have been some pretty detailed thought about their financial lives AD (After Divorce). Mackenzie, for instance, announced she would be giving half her wealth to charitable causes. That’s not a decision to be taken lightly no matter how much you’ve got.

Having a plan for life AD helps to inform important decisions. These might include what will happen to your share of the money from the sale of the family home or the splitting of a business or other investments.

Most couples pool their resources and one person usually assumes responsibility for the management of the funds involved.  If that wasn’t you, the future AD can feel daunting, but it presents the opportunity to action your own choices. The keys to that are good advice and sound planning.

So, whilst you may not be in the world’s top one per cent of richest people the keys to  a successful divorce are the same – keep it private, keep the kids out of it, keep a hold on those emotions and have a plan……always have a plan.



Addiction ruins relationships, take it from my experience

Addiction and controlling behaviour can ruin relationships. Jonathan Edgeley knows the story from both sides.

Behavioural health advisor Jonathan Edgeley is uniquely qualified to help people beat their addictions and guide their families through the turmoil of dysfunctional relationships.

As a teenager filled with fear, inadequacy and self-loathing he began looking for other activities to fulfil his inquisitive mind and channel his insatiable appetite to change how he felt. At secondary school he found a new world of drink and drugs that would take his life on a rollercoaster ride of highs and ultimate lows.

Throughout his 20s, while outwardly successful professionally, his life was spiralling out of control.

Finally, after an intervention from his father, he accepted that he needed help and so started the long road to recovery. That journey began in 2006 and four years ago Jonathan decided to put his own experiences of addiction to good use helping others.

Self-destructive

He said: “I grew up in a world where money was deemed a token of success and well-being. If you were wealthy you were well.  I watched my mother and father’s marriage break down due to alcoholism on my mother’s side which had a devastating effect catapulting my already self-destructive behaviour to another level.

“My mother and father eventually divorced and my mother began to drink more heavily.  Sadly, four years ago my mother died due to drinking. The loss of my mother hit me like a train

“However in her death she provided me with the greatest gift. The evidence I needed – alcohol kills. I had stopped, and other people can too. I just needed to get the message out that recovery is possible.

“What enables me to connect with a family or somebody who’s got an addiction, is the fact that I am an addict. I am in recovery, I have been there and I know the route out.

“I’ve been through the whole process of having to go through treatment, and the run-up to that, and how bad things had to get in order for me to actually realise that I’d got a very serious illness.

“I can talk to people about that and explain how my life spiralled out of control, and how I’ve managed to gain a degree of power over it. I have experienced relapsed. I’ve experienced marriage, children, births, deaths – all of those things in recovery. The takeaway from this is I didn’t have to use mind or mood altering substances to get through it.

Emotional mood swings

Jonathan’s work now involves him linking with family lawyers. They call on his expertise and experience when a problem is identified and a family member needs professional help. The situation has typically got to the stage of wanting to leave a loved one because of their drinking, emotional mood swings or volatility or the children are suffering and at risk of psychological trauma.

The work is much easier if the person concerned is open to help.  In that scenario Jonathan will talk to those involved to get background and understand their situation in granular detail before putting together a tailored pathway to meet their needs, including therapies.

Jonathan added: “When I have that conversation with their families and loved ones, I can really connect with them. Meeting them where they are at that particular point and help them make some realisations and compassionately guide them throughout the process.

“I can connect with somebody who says, ‘this guy gets it’. What I’m able to do is go in at a different level completely from, say, a GP.

“I can say something like ‘I understand, you’re all right, you’re safe, you are going to be ok. I’ve been where you’ve been. I want to help because I’m sure that you don’t want to live the life that you are living now. Would you agree?’

“And often, they will say ‘no, I don’t. But I’m petrified of doing something about it because I’m not quite sure how it’s going to end up. What I know for certain while I’m using drugs or I’m drinking is what the outcome is going to be. I get high, I drink, I forget’.”

Rebuild relationships

The best-case scenario is the person receives the help they need and the partner and family members are willing to try to rebuild relationships with professional guidance.

But frequently those with the addiction are not prepared to accept they have a problem that needs tackling. The family concerned may then have to go through an emotional and often painful process that includes an intervention.

Jonathan said: “You know, this is the dark side of the addiction. The disease is so powerful that it wants to keep you in its grip. The important thing is that an intervention is approached with love and compassion. The family often require a degree of education to help them understand that addiction is a disease not a choice.

“I know all of these things and feel all these emotions going on. Whatever the addiction might be, it changes how they feel. And they’re scared of these feelings coming very powerfully back when they stop taking drink or drugs, or whatever it is they’re doing.

“And, it is really, really sad but that’s where it goes. So, if you can imagine that the people on the receiving end of that, the children, the wives, the husbands, the family members, the fathers, the mothers, all of these other people that are witnessing somebody who is in the grips of an addiction.

“They see they are slowly killing themselves. But that person is in such denial, people around them feel quite powerless to do anything.

Enabling behaviour

“They don’t know how to approach it; they don’t know what to say. They’re fearful that they push them further away, they are fearful that they may then leave. They are fearful that they may then carry on drinking or taking drugs and die early.

“This enabling behaviour unfortunately is pushing the loved one further into their addiction and supporting their using. This has to stop, as it can lead to further upset and ultimately death.

“All of these things have got a counter-argument to them. It is a positive counter-argument, that if you don’t do something, they are going to die anyway. If we don’t do something now, then this thing will only get worse.

“I’ve never seen anybody get better without clinical or therapeutic intervention to help them overcome their issues.”

The second part of this interview Intervention: How do you help someone who doesn’t believe they have a problem? will be published shortly.

 

Jonathan Edgeley is the Founder of Montrose Advisory which offers independent support and guidance to families seeking a solution to a behavioural health problem. He takes a family through the complex world of addiction and mental healthcare and creates robust care pathways to meet their loved one’s specific needs, circumstances and budget.

Without divorce support I could have lost my child

One mum’s divorce process experience and how she was helped by Merrick’s #AccessUs initiative which makes legal advice affordable for those on limited incomes

“I’d never been in a position where I could afford a solicitor, which is why four years on from separating I’d not actually started the divorce.

“I’d taken on the house and debts so there was very little extra cash at the end of the month.

Divorce solicitor

“I had spoken to a solicitor locally and been charged £80 for a basic 20-minute consultation and I thought after ‘how am I going to be able to afford this?’

“But things were getting pretty contentious. I needed to get a resolution.

“I needed to be able to stand up for myself and I finally did and that was only with the support of Merrick, I wouldn’t have to been able to do it otherwise.

“It was my boss who recommended I talk to Amanda. She was very personable, very friendly but super professional. She went through everything on the phone and said Merrick had an initiative for which I qualified and where the charges would be in line with legal aid rates.

“That was music to my ears. I knew I could manage that.

Eventually I would have backed down

“Without this I would have been in the position where I was backed into a corner and gone along with what was said. I get quite emotional about it all and I think eventually I would have backed down.

“I don’t think I could have represented myself, I find the whole process quite intimidating. I’ve had to go to court and it really makes me anxious. Without representation I don’t think I would have done it.

“I could have been in a position where – as dramatic as it sounds – I could have lost my child.

“I would have had to give in because without #AccessUs financially I couldn’t have fought it and I can’t represent myself in that kind of situation.

“You still get access to proper legal advice from a qualified divorce solicitor. It’s been amazing to have that.

“To go into that court situation where I felt immediately intimidated and terrified and to have someone sat there speaking for me was just an absolute godsend. I couldn’t have got through it without them.

“It’s like having a friend on the end of the phone. They have really helped me through.

“I don’t know how people represent themselves now there is such limited access to Legal Aid. How you would go through this without some access to legal support?

I couldn’t have seen a future

“I just look at what it could have been like. Things could have been completely different and so much worse. We are coming out of it now and things are normalising.

“I couldn’t have seen a future without the support Amanda and Gabrielle have given me, so I’m very grateful for everything they’ve done. I’ve not got any fear of the process now because I’ve got good people on my side and I can manage it.”

“If you leave it to hang over you, it’s never going to get resolved. It’s just always that issue that you can never move on from.

“I’ve moved forward a hell of a lot. I feel a lot more confident in myself and a lot happier with the direction things are going. The future doesn’t look so bleak to me.”

Read more about #AccessUs

Can we help you? Contact us on (0161) 838 5410 or email info@merrick-solicitors.com

Why we all need to support Justice Week

Those working in family law can see on a daily basis that all is not well in the legal world.

Monday sees the launch of Justice Week, a way of ensuring those problems are highlighted to a much wider audience.

Justice Week is a new initiative setup by the three legal professional bodies. The Law Society, the Bar Council and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) argue that many parts of the system are at breaking point. And now is the time to make a strong case for why they are fundamental to society.

It’s more than five years since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) came in to force. It brought wholesale changes to the legal aid system for family law.

It removed that vital financial assistance for so many people. Now, to end a marriage and sort out financial and familial affairs, most must be prepared to pay. The alternative is to represent themselves.

2017 figures show the proportion of family law cases before the courts in England & Wales where neither party had legal representation was 36%, up by 19% in just four years.

Justice Week: October 29 – November 2

In an unusual move this month, a leading family judge spoke out highlighting the difficulties faced by these ‘litigants in person’ because of legal aid cuts.

His Honour Judge Stephen Wildblood QC, the most senior family court judge at Bristol Civil Justice Centre told the BBC.

“If anyone watching this can imagine themselves in court faced with somebody that they once loved on the other side of the court, supported by a barrister, and they are on their own, then I think the point answers itself. It is very difficult indeed for them.”

Problems are not confined to family law. The chronicling of issues felt at our criminal courts have been turned into a best-seller by The Secret Barrister.

Only by getting the effects of what’s happening out to this wider audience is there hope of change.

Until this issue becomes widely recognised by society as whole it can be minimised as simply the legal profession moaning about its lot.

Campaigners want to at least restore funding for early legal advice. The Ministry of Justice is due to publish its review of LASPO by the end of the year.

Justice Week runs until Friday November 2.  We’ll be taking part to highlight the issues and be part of a much-needed conversation about solutions.

We’ve previously written about the changes to legal aid – ‘The erosions to this system have been gradual but ultimately seismic.

#JusticeWeek18

 

Manchester and proud for 30 years

#TOMs awards

Are you proud of where you work? I know I am.

It’s not often we think about that but last week Merrick was fortunate enough to be nominated in the family law category of this year’s Talk of Manchester awards #TOMs.

And this week marks the 30th anniversary of my working life in Manchester.  It was 3 October 1988 when as a rookie lawyer I joined the firm of Grover Smith & Moss to complete my articles.

It seems like a lifetime ago, but also like it was only yesterday.

The Manchester of those earlier years was undoubtedly a northern city with some clout.

Together we have since gratefully survived the three bomb attacks (at my desk for the first two) and Madchester.  We have commiserated the failed Olympic bid and celebrated the Commonwealth Games.  And always United during the downs as well as the ups!

Upwards and outwards

Today the city has become an economic juggernaut that continually spreads upwards and outwards.  A fact that is clearly reflected in this year’s 30+ categories and 250+ #TOMs nominations.

Some of the sector industries included weren’t around three decades ago, never mind the individual companies that are shortlisted.

Given the challenges currently faced by lots of businesses I am particularly struck by the ‘entrepreneurs’ sections. Firstly, because it’s such a burgeoning collection. A quick Google search throws up profiles of people doing great in advertising, fashion, technology, travel and many other areas.

Secondly, the award for Female Entrepreneur of the Year. We all know girls are the equal of boys, right, but sometimes we have to work harder and shout that bit louder to get ourselves noticed.

Perhaps no surprise then that Manchester is a city brimming with excellent female businesswomen; the legal sector particularly enjoying more than its fair share. But even so it’s always nice when those achievements are recognised.

So as someone proud to call Manchester home and who has a long working relationship with the city, I’d like to say, you’re simply the best!

And to those women whose business acumen has been recognised in the #TOMs this year it’s a helluva big bravo from me. There’s more of you around than 30 years ago and I’ll definitely be raising a glass to that on awards night in December!

 

Amanda J Merrick
Principal

Ruling on civil partnerships welcomed

The millions of people in a co-habiting relationship should have an alternative to marriage to protect their rights.

So we welcome today’s Supreme Court ruling that a heterosexual couple were discriminated against by not being allowed a civil partnership.

The UK’s highest court unanimously allowed an appeal by Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41.

They were prevented from having a civil partnership because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says only same-sex couples are eligible.

The judges granted a declaration that the 2004 Act was “incompatible” with human rights laws on discrimination and the right to a private and family life.

Merrick principal Amanda Merrick said: “It’s only right that this option is opened up to all couples.

“There are more than three million co-habiting couple families in the UK and it will be very interesting to see what happens next.

Government action needed

“The court was scathing on the Government’s failure to address the issue and we can only hope now for the required action.

“Undoubtedly within the millions of co-habitees there will be many others who, for whatever reason, do not wish to get married but would like their relationship legally recognised.”

She said there is a lack of legal protection for co-habitees and many myths surrounding their ‘rights’.

She added: “A high proportion of the population believe that if you cohabit with another person for long enough you will become their ‘common law’ spouse, with the same rights as if you were married. This is simply not true.

“There is no such thing as a common law marriage. No length of cohabitation will make you your partner’s ‘spouse’.

“Similarly, many co-habitees live in a property owned by their partner. They do not acquire any interest in the property simply by living there.

“When a marriage or civil partnership is dissolved, they would have an automatic right to seek a share of the other party’s property. Additionally, on death there would be inheritance rights.

“No such rights exist for co-habitees. As a result, it is quite possible on the death of the property owner or when cohabitation breaks down for the non-owning party to be left homeless.

“It’s only right and fair that the Government now takes note of the Supreme Court’s judgement and acts to level the legal playing field as soon as possible.”

Tolerance of discrimination on civil partnership

In today’s judgement, Lord Kerr said the Government did not seek to justify the difference in treatment between same sex and different sex couples.

He added: “To the contrary, it accepts that the difference cannot be justified.”

What the Government sought was “tolerance of the discrimination while it sorts out how to deal with it”.

He concluded: “That cannot be characterised as a legitimate aim.”

Lord Kerr said it was “salutary to recall that a declaration of incompatibility does not oblige the Government or Parliament to do anything”.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, who have two daughters aged nine months and two, had claimed the Government’s position was “incompatible with equality law”.

The court was told they had a deep-rooted ideological objection to what they saw as the historical patriarchy of marriage.

Previously the Court of Appeal had agreed the couple had established a potential violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to discrimination, taken with Article 8, which refers to respect for private and family life.

But, by a majority of two to one, the judges said the interference was justified by the Government’s policy of “wait and evaluate”.

Some 16 months later the Supreme Court decided the Government’s time is up.

 

Don’t struggle alone with financial information

Alison Porter, Managing Director of PennyWise Consultants, with some sage advice on how to get to grips with household finances in divorce.

Alison Porter: divorce finances
financial advice divorce

Financial stresses in divorce

Some of the most stressful situations we encounter in life are marriage, moving home, divorce and death.

During a divorce it is likely you will encounter two of these at once – divorce and moving home.

Divorce in isolation can be stressful, frightening, lonely, painful and heart-breaking enough, never mind having to move house as well. It is not something you want to do alone.

Some years ago, I managed a removal company. We provided a bespoke service and alleviated stress through providing an efficient, reliable and professional service.  Now, at PennyWise Consultants, we apply the same principles in helping our clients navigate the expenditure and income needs sections of their Form Es.

Filling in a Form E

For those who haven’t come across a Form E, it is the document which both spouses are required to complete if either applies to court about financial matters. It is a detailed document used to set out information about your financial position.

It is also frequently used by solicitors as the means of providing financial information when there are no court proceedings, as it ensures that both people give the same level of detail about their position.

PennyWise Consultants provide clients with an analysis and/or budget for their Form E.

With our considerable experience in this sector, we achieve outstanding results that consistently help secure our clients’ future financial security. Historically our budgets have been adopted by judges because they are clear, detailed, factual and impartial.

There are many aspects to consider when preparing for the financial element of divorce proceedings and it is important to be informed and in control of one’s finances.  Once you feel in control, you will also feel empowered and less panic-stricken, certain in the knowledge that you have completed your Form E to properly reflect your needs.

10 things to consider when approaching financial proceedings/settlement
  1. Gain access to and put in order all bank and credit card statements issued to you, or on your behalf, in the past 12 months.
  2. Also, start annotating your bank and credit card statements. You think you will remember what you bought in a given department store, but when it comes to analysing a year’s worth of expenditure you won’t.  Whatever the money was spent on it will need to be allocated to a category in your Form E.
  3. If this is not possible and you do not have access to any financial statements, start making a detailed list of your weekly expenditure. It doesn’t matter how insignificant the purchase might seem. For example, a medium Costa Coffee latte a day, five days a week, 48 weeks of the year equals £588!
  4. Cash withdrawals need to be allocated to categories in your Form E. Keep a note of what you spend your cash on.  Every penny.
  5. Make a list of the utility companies providing services to your home, e.g. gas, electricity, telephone, broadband etc. If possible, make copies of a year’s statements.
  6. If you pay your spouse’s or partner’s credit card bill, keep track of the amounts.
  7. When you have joint bank and/or credit card accounts with your spouse/partner start annotating their expenditure. It will make it quicker and easier to separate out later.
  8. If you are feeling dejected and depressed don’t stop your usual spending; it will affect your Form E expenditure analysis.
  9. Equally, do not start inflating your expenditure. You will be found out!
  10. If you are separated and the only adult over 18 in your household, contact your local council tax office and request a 25% discount. Some councils will backdate this to the date of separation. Refunds are always welcome!
There is no need to go through the divorce finances process alone

Our service is suitable for you if:

  • Your partner has submitted an inflated budget.
  • You think the budget you have created is insufficient and will not provide you with proper financial security.
  • Your partner is denying you access to financial statements.
  • You wish to secure adequate interim maintenance.
  • You believe you should be reimbursed for money your partner spent inappropriately.

If you would like some help, please call our friendly team on 01531 640988 or email us at info@pennywiseconsultants.co.uk

More on finances in divorce.

Pennywise logo

Why Prince Harry and Meghan should consider a pre-nup

St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should embrace a modern marriage trend and sign a pre-nuptial agreement before stepping down the aisle at Windsor Castle.

That’s the view of leading family lawyer Edward Boydell who said pre-nuptial agreements that specify what will happen to income and assets in the event of a marriage ending have increased dramatically in recent years.

There has been speculation the couple might have one drawn up as both have experienced the aftermath of divorce. Princess Diana and Prince Charles split when Harry was 11 and Ms Markle’s parents when she was six. Her own first marriage ended after just two years.

Many observers insist it’s not the ‘royal way’. But Mr Boydell, barrister and head of the family finance team at London’s Pump Court Chambers, says there are many reasons why it would make sense.

Edward Boydell says royals should consider a pre-nup

Pump Court Chambers’ Edward Boydell

 

Mr Boydell told Merrick Solicitors: “It’s a really good idea for people with complicated lives and complicated finances to have thought through what they would want if the marriage ended, rather than having to battle for it at that time.

“I would say of all the young couples getting married this year Harry and Meghan have the most complications. Of course, we all wish them a long and happy marriage but being a thoroughly modern young couple, they may well have taken steps along this line.”

Pre-nups no guarantee, but…

There is no absolute guarantee that a pre-nuptial agreement will determine the financial provision made at the end of a marriage. But since precedent set in 2010, a pre-nup can significantly improve the case of anyone relying on it.

Mr Boydell said: “Up until that point they had been viewed with distaste and were seen as rather anti-marriage. Since 2010 there have been thousands signed.”

The starting point for the division of finances in divorce is generally equality of property and assets.

However, 21st century relationships come in various shapes and sizes meaning that no one solution fits all. With people living and working longer many families reflect not one, but two or more significant relationships.

So how can a ‘pre-nup’ help?
  • It can ringfence assets which have, for example, been built up in a family over generations.
  • It can look to safeguard assets for dependents from a previous relationship.
  • Where both parties are established financially, it can set out terms for any sharing of their existing and future wealth.
  • It can short-circuit expensive litigation following separation

But Mr Boydell said finances aren’t the only concern. Often it is the arrival of children and planning their futures that is also uppermost in people’s minds.

Mr Boydell said: “Sometimes where the couple are going to live can be an issue. They may meet and marry in London, but part of the agreement is they live overseas within, say, five years.

“In the case of the royal couple, there could be thought as to where any future offspring should be raised given Ms Markle’s American roots.”

Have Meghan Markle and Prince Harry discussed a pre-nup?

Looking ahead: The happy couple

 

In marriages in later years the only provision might be around future care needs. Favourite pets also figure highly on some people’s list of concerns.

Mr Boydell said: “I had a case where both parties brought dogs into the marriage. The pre-nup stated that in the event of divorce they each kept their own dog. The marriage didn’t last and that’s exactly what happened.”

Challenging a pre-nup

If the pre-nup is entered into properly it leaves limited room for challenge. Common grounds for doing so have been if the pre-nup was unfair from the outset, a party didn’t have good, or any, legal advice or there wasn’t full disclosure of assets.

Mr Boydell said there was now a greater challenge around ‘need’. This may be because separating couples frequently enjoy greater financial wealth during the course of the marriage than at the time of their wedding.

He said: “We are seeing more attacks based on need. For example, ‘the agreement signed doesn’t now meet my needs because we have since lived for many years in a £5m house’.”

Neither are pre-nups the preserve of the fabulously wealthy. Though Mr Boydell said often they were used when both people bring assets into the marriage, there were also many occasions when there is a relative in the background keen to protect the family wealth.

He said: “If the family want to hand over assets at some stage during their life they may also want to make sure it can’t land up in the hands of some ne’er do well son-in-law or daughter-in-law.”

With the countdown on to May 19 the royal couple have probably left it too late if they haven’t yet signed a pre-nup.

Mr Boydell said: “The venue is booked, Meghan’s family have their plane tickets, the guests have been invited. There would be enormous pressure to sign an agreement now which would run the risk of causing duress. These things must therefore be done in plenty of time before a wedding.”

Pre-nups aren’t romantic

Amanda Merrick echoed this sentiment.

She said: “Pre-nuptial agreements are not romantic. They force a challenging discussion about issues many would prefer to ignore at a time when the focus is ‘til death do us part rather than divorce.”

Amanda Merrick on pre-nup agreements

Amanda Merrick

 

She advocates time and space well in advance of the big day to allow for proper consideration. This gives any agreement the best chance of holding good in the face of a subsequent relationship breakdown.

Miss Merrick added: “Lack of financial compatibility has long been cited as one of the most common reasons couples break-up.  Meaningful discussions in anticipation of a pre-nuptial agreement can therefore provide an opportunity for a much-needed dialogue.”

 

 ‘Marriage is fragile.  Financial harmony is critical for validation, freedom, power, respect, security and happiness.  Couples must realise the great importance that money has in their relationships and learn to define guidelines for money management’
Washburn, Carolyn and Darlene Christensen. 2008. Financial harmony: A key component of successful marriage relationship

 

Royal photo By Mark Jones [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

COURT HAD TO JAIL CONTEMPT OF COURT OCTOGENARIAN AFTER 7-YEAR DIVORCE CASE

access to justice | Merrick Solicitors
A judge had no choice but to jail an 83-year-old after he spent years deliberately frustrating the courts, according to a barrister in the divorce case.
The sentencing of millionaire property developer John Hart created media headlines earlier this month. The pensioner was given 14 months for contempt of court after repeatedly refusing to hand over business documents following his long-running divorce case.
Judge Stephen Wildblood QC took the unusual step of handing down a prison sentence after describing Mr Hart as an “exceptionally poor and untruthful witness”.
The judge said he had made every attempt to stop the contempt reaching crisis point but “orders of the court and the rule of law must be observed”.
In June 2015, four years after divorce proceedings began, Mr Hart was ordered to hand over £3.5m of their £9.4m wealth to his wife of 24 years, Karen Hart. As part of that she was also awarded his shares in Drakestown Properties Limited – a company owning two estates of industrial units in the West Midlands.
The shares were transferred, making her the owner of the company. But Mr Hart had “done his utmost to frustrate her ability to run it efficiently and effectively” as he “bitterly resents” that the company had been transferred to his former wife, said the judge.
After delaying the transfer, Hart and his staff “stripped out” management records, leaving behind only two bank statements and a collection of licences and leases.
Mr Hart was ordered on two occasions, in February and July 2016, to provide information to his ex-wife, but failed to co-operate, leaving Mrs Hart with difficulties in her management of the company.

Frustrate the courts

Judge Wildblood said: “This is a man who has received repeated warnings already that he must comply with court orders and he has chosen, repeatedly, not to do so.”
After being sentenced, Mr Hart is now on bail pending appeal on April 18.
Barrister Peter Mitchell has represented Mrs Hart since 2014 and believes the court was left with no alternative action.
Mr Mitchell told Merrick Solicitors: “A jail sentence following civil contempt is rare as is the jailing of an octogenarian. Therefore this makes for a very unusual case. But Mr Hart has been an exceptionally difficult litigant. He has done everything possible to frustrate the courts over many years.”
The judge praised Mr Hart’s ex-wife for being “exceptionally patient” in the proceedings and Mr Mitchell said she took no pleasure from his plight.
He said: “She was upset, she wasn’t looking for her ex-husband to go to jail. But she has had to fight him every step of the way. Three years after finishing litigation he’s still making it impossible for her to move on with her life.”
Barrister Peter Mitchell

Barrister Peter Mitchell

Mr Mitchell said despite the judge’s strong stance he did not believe courts were getting tougher on those who try to block justice.
He said: “There have always been a corpus of litigants who are as difficult as they can be. It is incredibly frustrating for the courts because it is unnecessary.
Mr Mitchell, of London’s 29 Bedford Row Chambers, said: “It is both professionally challenging and extremely interesting, I’ve never been in a case like this before.”

Loss of relationship

The judge, sitting at the High Court in Bristol, said prison would have a “marked effect” on Mr Hart. He added: “Mr Hart has not only lost some of the money which he holds so dear, but he has also experienced the loss of his relationship with his former wife and children.
“From the upbeat, proud and canny businessman that I first saw three years ago, he is now an isolated and sad man seemingly unable to enjoy for his remaining years the millions of pounds that he still owns.”
Commenting on the case, Amanda Merrick, principal at Merrick Solicitors, said the parties involved had the means to fight on until justice was done. That would not be the case for the majority who found themselves in a similar position.
She said: “In most cases there aren’t the assets to justify a protracted fight.  In these circumstances when faced with attempts by one party to avoid the other’s claims, commerciality often dictates defeat before a fair and proper outcome can be achieved.
“These incidences are only going to increase as the decision-making process becomes more stream-lined to accommodate a system that is failing for want of proper funding.”
The judge said the ”unnecessarily protracted litigation” had placed an immense burden on public funds in terms of court time and this would continue as a result of Mr Hart’s incarceration.
Miss Merrick added: “Perhaps this case should now encourage a more robust approach by the courts at a much earlier stage in financial remedy proceedings, particularly when faced with an obviously recalcitrant litigant like Mr Hart.
“Obligations regarding disclosure and compliance with court orders are fundamental to the Family Court’s decision-making process.
“To those parties who think the rules don’t apply to them the message should surely be loud and clear from the outset, not after nearly seven years of litigation.”