The resulting article, published in yesterday’s paper, offers some interesting points and highlights how the resulting raid on dwindled assets – particularly pensions and the marital home – can lead to a significant impact on the final payout.

For the full article click here – I’ve highlighted the main points below:

• Assets are generally divided 50:50, particularly if it has been a long marriage.
• Equity release is an option if one party wishes to stay in the home although it can often lead to a reduced payout.
• Pensions can be divided at source meaning one party need not rely upon the other to pay their share of the income generated.
• Your married couples’ state pension will revert to the single allowance and if for example the wife hasn’t built up sufficient National Insurance contributions then her payments would be significantly curtailed. However, the wife could apply to have her husband’s National Insurance record.

As I’ve said before, divorce in later life can be worse than a bereavement but to ensure it doesn’t rid you of your retirement dreams take the best advice, as the article says is to increase your own financial awareness so that if it does happen you at least know where you might stand.

Photo credit: maveric2003

I have found, however, that those who enter into such marriages are often oblivious to the financial consequences that can be incurred if the relationship breaks down at a later date. The risks are all the more acute when one party is much wealthier than the other.

Let’s put aside the dependency claim that the less wealthy party has against the other on that person’s death. Good legal advice should ensure that a carefully drafted will can avoid nasty claims between a dependent co-habitee – whether married or not – and the family of the deceased.

Instead, let’s consider what might happen in a worst case scenario, if the marriage breaks down. It’s a gloomy approach, I know, but it is worth bearing in mind that second marriages have a higher failure rate than first marriages. This may be because in some cases, a new spouse is unlikely to be warmly welcomed into the other’s family, giving rise to bitter arguments.

If the parties were simply cohabiting then, unlike on death, there is no entitlement to any form of provision. They go their separate ways, taking what belongs to each of them. A cohabitation agreement and trust declaration at the outset can sort out how asset and property division will occur in the event of a breakdown.

But what happens if they are married? The case of MD v D (2008) EWHC 1929 is a salutary reminder of the financial pitfalls of a short marriage between older couples.

The bare facts of this case: the wife was a newly qualified barrister, aged 48 when the couple married. The husband, aged 64, was a circuit judge nearing retirement.  The marriage lasted 4 ½ years. The husband had assets in his name of £562,272. The wife had £45,479. The family home, jointly owned, was worth £287,000 net of mortgage. The wife had paid some £110,000 into the house. Total assets came to around £895,000.  The wife had a small pension; the husband had a much larger pension and income from his judging, although this was due to end due to his age. The wife had a net income of £20,000 but argued her needs were £38,000. At first instance, representing herself, she appears to have sought 73 per cent of the assets, together with maintenance and pension provision.

The court awarded the wife all the net equity in the house to meet her housing needs, and maintenance totalling £45,000 over three years. Dissatisfied, the wife appealed, arguing that this was insufficient to meet her pension needs. The President of the Family Division awarded her an additional lump sum of £35,000, which gave her 41 per cent of the assets. It left the husband with 59 per cent together with his relatively modest pension and the earned income that was shortly to cease. The husband had already forfeited part of his pension, to give the wife a widow’s pension on his prior death. However, the wife’s decision to seek a divorce settlement meant that this benefit was lost to both of them.

To a lay person, was this a fair award after just 4 ½ years of marriage? The answer might be no, it isn’t. However, the law requires that both parties’ reasonable needs for the future are considered. As parties age, the ability to meet needs out of all the assets for the rest of their lives will be taken into account by the court. Those needs are likely to be substantial, far more so than if the marriage had foundered without children and after just 4½ years when the parties were younger.

So if you are thinking of marrying later in life, please take good legal advice before you do so.  You may also wish to consider a prenuptial agreement. As you know I’m not a fan of these, but  if you both receive independent and sound legal advice before signing, such an agreement could be upheld under English law. There are no guarantees though.

Are people who claim to enjoy “no strings attached” liaisons deluding themselves?

Is Britain in the grip of an adultery epidemic? Reading Angela Levin’s three-part investigation in The Daily Telegraph, you would think so.  Perhaps she is right. The newspaper provides positive advice to prevent it happening, and advice and tips on how to survive an affair. So all’s well then!

And yet, I wonder?

One client who came to see me was in no doubt that his wife was having an affair. The couple, both in their early 50s, led busy lives and their three children had all left home. The wife had a full-time job and over the previous six months, had become increasingly remote. Her behavior had deteriorated, and she had become argumentative, irrational and rude. He dreaded her presence, as she kept picking arguments and finding fault with him. My client told me he was utterly lost, and lonely in his marriage.

When he confronted his wife with his suspicions, she more or less confirmed them. In that he was fortunate – most people, when confronted about an illicit affair, will deny it.

So what remained of their marriage? I am afraid that for couples in this situation, the answer is “very little”.

My client saw no hope for his marriage. His trust and faith in his wife had shattered. He had no wish to “rebuild” his broken life with her.

The wife, too, had signaled the end of the partnership. She had no desire to sleep with her husband, or to share her life with him. She had emotionally and physically committed herself elsewhere.  She was being faithful and monogamous, but to another. An affair had ended this marriage – for good.

In my experience, an affair is a death knell for a marriage. In life, there is no realistic possibility of the positive, forward looking approach advocated in The Daily Telegraph.

 I don’t accept the argument that increasing numbers of us are seeking “no strings attached” (“NSA”) sexual liaisons. We are not animals mating to procreate. We have emotions, we need people, we need relationships and in a sexual relationship, we express our feelings in an intimate, physical way. Why do so with a stranger? What’s the point? Are these people who claim they enjoy NSA relationships deluding themselves? Are they – perhaps even unknowingly – looking for a partner amongst these strangers?

As I sat in my office, listening to my client, I thought of the many other clients I have listened to over the years. None of them have been able to cope for any length of time after learning of their partner’s adultery. They have endured their suspicions. But knowing of an affair effectively terminates a marriage.

Many times clients have told me that having tried to forget about an affair – their own or a spouse’s – they cannot, and neither can their partners. Regrets and recriminations can surface, even many years later. Their trust, fundamental to any partnership including marriage, has been demolished.

Although we are supposed to be living in the most modern of modern ages, I do not believe that humanity has changed. We may be better off materially, particularly in our fast moving Western world. We may lead healthier lives and live longer. However, in common with everyone else both now and in the past, our basic human instincts and our deepest feelings, emotions and passions remain wholly unchanged.

To try and excuse extra-marital sex as a mere symptom of unrest is delusional. As for the view that “no strings” adulterous relationships are acceptable, or can be cured with a good deal of positive effort by both spouses – if this was truly the case, divorce lawyers wouldn’t be nearly as busy as they are.