The Arbitration Alternative

The Financial Times has reported on an arbitration scheme that is attracting interest from super-rich couples. The scheme allows the divorcing couple to argue over their financial settlement in private rather than in the full glare of the media.

Arbitration is another alternative to court proceedings. It is a process where an independent third party considers the arguments of the divorcing couple and makes a decision that resolves the dispute. The arbitrator is independent. In most cases the arbitrator's decision is legally binding on both sides. Any decision can be enforced in court if necessary.

As is the case with mediation and collaborative law, the divorcing couple must be willing to enter into the process. Arbitration takes place in private. Only the couple are present with the arbitrator. 

Arbitration has a number of advantages. It is intended to be less expensive, less formal, faster and more flexible than court, so the rules of evidence are not as strict. The divorcing couple can usually have a say in how they want the hearing to be conducted. 

However, arbitration is not suitable for everyone and specialist advice should be sought as to what is going to be the best method of reaching a resolution of financial matters.

For more advice on divorce follow our family law blog or follow us on Twitter@Divorce_experts.

When Divorcing Couples Go To War!

It is not always the obvious items such as houses and pensions that couples argue over when they divorce. Sometimes seemingly trivial items can become the focus of their dispute. Fiona Wood, a partner specialising in family law at Pannone, is quoted today in an article in the Manchester Evening News about these disputes.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/professionals/s/1490399_when-divorcing-couples-go-to-war

For more advice on divorce follow our family law blog or follow us on Twitter@Divorce_experts.

No Second Bites At The Cherry On Divorce

The New York Times has reported this week that New York's highest court has refused to allow a husband to make a second financial claim against his ex-wife because a large percentage  of the assets he kept as part of their divorce settlement dropped significantly in value, as they were invested in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scheme. The husband and wife agreed to divide their $13.5 million equally, when they divorced in 2006. The husband kept most of the $5.4 million invested in the Ponzi Scheme, which later became worthless. The court did not think it was appropriate to reopen the matter once a financial order had been made within the divorce proceedings.

The English courts have the same approach to this matter. Once a financial order has been made within divorce proceedings it is very diffiicult to convince a Judge to reopen the issue. The current recession has led to several cases where former spouses have tried to reopen their financial settlement because assets have suddenly dropped significantly in value. In 2009 the Court of Appeal rejected Mr Myerson's request to reopen his financial settlement on the basis that the majority of the assets he retained in the divorce settlement were shares in a company which fell in value from £2.99 to £0.27 per share.

For more advice on divorce follow our family law blog or follow us on Twitter@Divorce_experts.

Rise in International child flee cases

A Report out this week by Lord Justice Thorpe, chief of the Office of the Head of International Family Justice (a body set up to try and ensure that courts in Britain and abroad work together where necessary), has confirmed the significant rise in child abduction cases in England and Wales.

This is where a parent flees with their child to a different country, without the other’s permission.

In 2007 there were 27 children caught up in such cases. This figure increased to 180 in 2011; and is set to rise even further to 240 this year.

Reasons for the increase in such international disputes are thought to be immigration; the increasing ease of travel; and the rising number of families where at least one parent has links to another country.  65 per cent of children born in London in 2010 have one foreign parent.  This creates ‘the potential for significant future growth’ in these cases as described by Lord Justice Thorpe.

The introduction of child passports by the previous Labour government was hoped to stop parents taking children abroad in defiance of court orders or the other parent.  However, these statistics suggest that this aim has not been realised.

It is understood that the rising number of these cases mostly involve eastern European countries. The report mentions that in Europe most cases involve children taken to or from Germany and Poland.

We understand the distress and anxiety of losing your child and will take immediate action to track them down through the appropriate legal channels.  For more information and advice from a child abduction specialist call us on 0800 840 4929. We are available to take your call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Also, follow our family law blog or follow us on Twitter @Divorce_experts.

CSA forced to pay up for mistake

The Herald recently reported that the Child Support Agency (CSA) has paid the legal fees of a father which were incurred by him in disputing repeated demands by the CSA, where those demands were subsequently found to be mistaken.

The CSA claimed that Henry Roy owed £8,000. They pursued Mr Roy twice through the courts before it was found that his liability was limited to just £1,000.

The CSA has admitted that the case was mishandled and will pay £1,700 towards Mr Roy’s costs.

Whilst the reimbursement of his legal fees undoubtedly goes some way towards redressing Mr Roy’s experience, it does not address the misery and stress suffered by Mr Roy during a time when he says that he was made to feel like a criminal.

This is a very unusual outcome and should not be taken as the norm. It does, however, highlight the difficulties experienced by individuals when the CSA gets it wrong.  

I am frequently contacted by individuals who claim that the CSA has made an error in its assessment but pursues the individual regardless. Mr Roy was fortunate to take good legal advice but often this can be disproportionate to the sums in question (public funding (“legal aid”) is not available and individuals must therefore pay privately).

Read more advice on our family law blog or follow us on Twitter @Divorce_experts.

Faultless divorce ?

A leading family law judge, Sir Nicholas Wall has said that he can "see no good arguments against no fault divorce".

Under current law the only ground for divorce is to demonstrate that the marriage has irretrievably broken down by relying upon one of five facts. Two of the facts are fault based being either unreasonable behaviour or adultery and the remaining three facts require a period of separation of at least two years. This means that unless the parties are prepared to wait for a period of two years following separation one spouse has to rely upon the behaviour or adultery of the other  to get a divorce .

Sir Nicholas has said that the current legislation had "its roots in history" when divorce was a "matter of social status". He has suggested that this is no longer the case.

It remains to be seen whether the law will be changed and whether "no fault divorce" will have any impact upon divorcing couples reaching financial settlements.

For more advice on divorce following our family law blog or follow us on Twitter @Divorce_experts.

Cohabitation Agreements: How Romantic!

Recently, we have experienced an influx of enquiries from female clients wanting advice about not only pre-nuptial agreements but also cohabitation agreements.

According to the Daily Mail, there is evidence that more women than ever are becoming independently wealthy. Women aged between 22 and 29 are earning more on average per hour than men of the same age. As a result there is a generation of women who are potentially going to have more to lose financially as a result of a relationship ending. Not surprisingly these women want to know exactly what could happen to their finances if their relationship ends.

There is a common misconception that after a couple have lived together for say 6 months they automatically acquire rights against each other. This is not the case. If you cohabit with someone and the relationship ends  the only legal claims you are able to make currently are against the family home or for child support.

Cohabitation agreements are therefore a way that an couples are able to decide what should happen if their relationship ends. The agreement can incorporate whatever the couple wishes to stipulate from how the equity in the house is to be divided to who gets the pet. We strongly recommend that legal advice is obtained in relation to any agreement to avoid difficulties in future.

For more divorce or separation advice read our family law blog or follow us on Twitter @Divorce_experts