You may remember that I recently looked at the case of a Mr and Mrs Bokor-Ingram. I examined the Mesher order to which the wife had agreed; at the time, she did not know that Mr Bokor-Ingram’s finances were a lot healthier than she had been led to believe. After discovering that her husband had been negotiating a better-paid job at the time of the split, Mrs Bokor-Ingram took her husband back to court. She argued that if she had known the truth, she would never have agreed to the Mesher arrangement in relation to the couple’s former marital home. The case went as far as the Court of Appeal; Mrs Bokor-Ingram finally settled out of court, with the BBC reporting that the ownership of the house would be transferred to her in full.

Although that case is now closed, there has now been a further development. It’s an interesting one and, since my post about Mesher and Martin orders has become one of this blog’s most popular pages, I’d like to share it with you and find out what you think.

When I first wrote about this case, I focused upon the Mesher order because I was not happy that the husband had, in effect, been allowed to get away with his non-disclosure. When the case was heard in the High Court the judge, Mr Justice Charles, found that its outcome was not prejudiced by the husband’s failure to disclose that he had a lucrative employment contract in the offing. He appears to have concluded that because the proposed contract was unsigned, it should not have been disclosed.

The Court of Appeal has now taken the unusual step of giving Mr Justice Charles’ judgment a red light, even though this case had settled before they heard it. This public judgment was published on 26 May. I view it as a robust and salutary reminder to practitioners and clients, that full and frank disclosure must always be made. Read it, and you will see that they make no bones about this. Continue reading »

I was recently asked by The Daily Telegraph to offer my guidance on how couples might divorce without using up all their falling wealth in these harsher times.

I have included below a summary of my tips. You can read the full feature here.

• Move swiftly.
• Get your timing right.
• Make interim arrangements for paying bills.
• Save, don’t splurge.
• Consider using a collaborative lawyer.
• Look out for deliberately low offers and valuations.
• Always remember to keep valuing assets
• Cash is king in a recession
• Avoid Mesher orders.
• Know what to do if your spouse goes bankrupt.

Photo credit: Alan Cleaver.

This morning, I carried out a number of file reviews and noted that increasing numbers of our UK clients have been unable to sell their homes. Divorce is stressful enough as it is, but in many cases property must be sold and the couple’s finances split before the divorce can be finalised. The houses in question don’t fall into any one category. They range from fabulous estates and overseas villas to family homes in which the parties continue to live together, because they can’t afford to live anywhere else.

Also this week I was contacted by a journalist at The Independent, who wished to gauge my views about the latest Budget. (You can read the article here.) It was doom and gloom as far as I could see. Clearly, the revival of the housing market is at the forefront of the Chancellor’s mind.

So I was intrigued to read about some new, property-based incentives to divorce in Spain. According to The Daily Telegraph, innovative Spanish agents have come up with some creative ideas to kick-start the plummeting property market there:

The latest offer from a property company in Huelva province in southwestern Spain promises a free divorce lawyer to couples who buy one of their three bedroom houses for 68,000 euros (£61,000). The deal by Geimsa realtors hopes to capitalise on the number of married couples delaying divorce proceedings because they cannot afford to set up new homes in the current economic climate.

“A divorce is very expensive,” said Vanesa Contioso of Geimsa. “So we are offering new clients the free use of our lawyers to handle the process”.

Now isn’t that an offer you can’t refuse? It doesn’t only apply to divorcing couples, either. The story continues: Continue reading »

From the Guardian’s comment is free blog, 07/04/2009.

Brian Myerson should abandon his bid for his £9.5m divorce settlement to be set aside, but he’s a risk-taker.

By Marilyn Stowe

The City tycoon Brian Myerson has been pilloried in the press after failing to convince the court of appeal to set aside the £9.5m divorce settlement that he must pay out to his former wife. He argues that the economic downturn has “rendered his divorce settlement unfair”, because it will now leave him half a million pounds out of pocket.

In truth I feel a little sorry for Myerson. As a family lawyer, I have encountered many men of his ilk. They are sharp-suited, high-flying Big Boys: fabulously confident, fabulously wealthy and fabulously successful. They play hard – and they always play to win.  Continue reading >

Now that Brian Myerson’s economic circumstances are transformed, he has tried, and failed, to overturn his original financial agreement.

Ingrid and Brian Myerson have recently hit the headlines. Brian Myerson is a fund manager who – needless to say – is going through tough times. His former wife Ingrid is a sculptor. Their divorce is at the head of a queue of cases and financial deals completed on the cusp of the world’s financial meltdown, when people like Mr Myerson were still seen as “masters of the universe”. His economic circumstances have since transformed and he wanted to unravel the original deal.

When the deal was agreed, Brian was doing quite well, having accrued assets in the region of £26m. The value of his shares in the company which he ran amounted to £15m. It is not reported what his annual income was, but I would wager that it was more than £1m a year.

Brian and Ingrid were married for 26 years. It was therefore a lengthy marriage, and Ingrid almost certainly had a claim to half of the assets. She may also have had a claim to a substantial part of Bryin’s annual income. I suspect that Ingrid sought financial security, and that Brian expected that his company would continue to make considerable amounts of money. Perhaps he did not like the prospect of having to pay out a significant percentage of his future income to Ingrid.

Capitalisation of maintenance

So this is what they did. Brian handed over to Ingrid the couple’s London home and a property in South Africa. He agreed to hand over a second property in South Africa (but hasn’t done so yet), and also agreed to pay her a lump sum of £9.5m cash, in instalments, over four years. He has already paid £7m of this, so £2.5m remains owing. Brian kept all of the shares in his company. In short, the wife received 47% of the assets and the husband kept 53% of the assets. As part of the deal, Ingrid also agreed to terminate her maintenance claims against Brian; this process is known as ‘capitalisation of maintenance‘.

This must have seemed like a pretty good deal for Brian Myerson at the time: he was left with the riskier assets but his wife kept fewer than 50% of the overall assets and he was poised to keep all of his future income.

What has happened since?

Continue reading »

The effects of the economic turbulence are laid out for all to see. This weekend I attended one of Yorkshire’s big charity balls. Last year there were no spare tables, and guests overflowed into additional halls. The ladies present were immaculately groomed and decked with twinkling jewels. Money streamed across the “casino” tables and glasses were filled with champagne. A spectacular raffle raised an extraordinary sum. This year that ball was a very different occasion, and it was sad to see. The raffle prizes raised little more than a few hundred pounds; the corporate tables taken by Yorkshire’s high flyers were few and far between.

To date, no client has told me that the current economic woes have been the direct cause of their divorce. What I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, is that the nature of divorce settlements is vastly changing. With households’ assets and incomes vastly reduced, a “clean break divorce” is now much less likely for many couples.

I think it is true that, just as unhappy wives married to wealthy men chose to divorce when times were good, unhappy husbands are now observing the downturn in their wealth – and deciding that if they are going to seek a divorce, now is as good a time as any.

However, I fear that with the credit crunch in full swing, a “cheap divorce” could end up costing these high-flyers Continue reading »