BUSINESS - IRWIN MITCHELL
PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS JUST HOW BINDING ARE THEY?
As with many aspects of family law there are misconceptions and myths. For example, the myth of the “common-law spouse”. Living together for a certain period does not automatically give people the same rights as a married couple. Also, the “quickie divorce” – there’s no such thing as that either, whatever the media may tell us.
In a world of misinformation and “fake news” it’s understandable that people don’t know much about the realities of pre-nups. Not so very long ago they were considered unromantic, and reserved for Hollywood A-listers.
This is no longer the case. If done “right” pre-nups can be incredibly useful and can avoid the acrimony and uncertainty that come from the end of a marriage.
Sarah Balfour
Sarah Balfour is a Partner in the Birmingham team at Irwin Mitchell Private Wealth. She is passionate about pre and post-nups and has spent the last 13 years advising the region’s families on how to approach these sorts of agreements. Here she discusses the common question, are pre or post-nups worth the paper they are written on.
It’s now 8 years since the case of Radmacher was heard by the Supreme Court. This was the case that changed the landscape in relation to prenuptial agreements - and yet I’m still often asked “is a pre-nup worth the paper it’s written on?”
And I answer, “Yes, a pre-nup can often carry a lot of weight. But it depends what it says and how it was entered into….”
If a couple divorces without a pre-nup (or a post-nup – which is an agreement reached after the date of the marriage), the court has a very broad discretion to make financial orders. It can, for example, transfer properties from one person to the other, order the sale of a business or home and/or split pensions between the couple. It can order lifelong maintenance payments to be made from one person to the other. In coming to what it considers to be the right outcome, the court takes into account all the resources available. This can include inheritances, whether these came in before the marriage, during it, or after separation. What the court believes to be the right outcome, might not be not what either party would have chosen.
A pre or post-nup allows a couple to exercise autonomy and to set the boundaries. As long as each party comes out with enough to meet their needs, they can agree to protect things like family businesses or inheritances. A couple can also agree a clean break i.e. that the financial ties between them come to an end.
For a pre-nup to carry weight both people have to enter into it freely; they each have to take their own legal advice and the agreement has to fall within the parameters of overall fairness. It can’t therefore provide that one person gets everything and the other receives nothing.
The court will not uphold a pre-nup which is so clearly unfair that it leaves one party in financial dire straits. A judge might instead alter the pre-nup to ensure there is a fair outcome, but this award might still be less generous than if there had been no pre-nup at all. The court is generally prepared to respect the fact that the parties have chosen to have their own agreement, and it tries not to trespass on this any more than is strictly necessary.
If you need legal advice, contact Sarah Balfour Direct Dial on 0121 214 5451or 0370 1500 100 Extension: 5451
sarah.balfour@
irwinmitchell.com
@IMFamilyLaw
www.irwinmitchell.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
