DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS

There, there guys, before the brothers choke in apoplectic panic, shouldn't we calm down and study the basic principles laid down in the recent Judgements? (Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane) Basically the two Appeals decided by the House of Lords granted substantial maintenance payments to Mrs McFarlane basically £250K p.a for life and a lump sum/property settlement to Mrs Miller -£5m, out of her husband's £17.5M stash, even though they had only been married for two years.

In Mrs McFarlane's case, the principle (and rightly so in my view) was that she had given up a high flying career to look after their matrimonial home - for 18 years and hence was entitled to a reasonable standard of living. Bear in mind she was a trained teacher as well as a Solicitor and earned more than her husband at the onset of marriage, working as a City Solicitor, a career she sacrificed. She had initially been awarded £250K by the Court of Appeal for 5 years, which was overturned by the Lords. I believe the woman deserves every penny she's been awarded. This principle that a stay at home wife is an equal contributor to the marriage isn't new having been established in White v White. In addition the principle of maintenance based on future earnings was previously applied in Parlour v Parlour (Ray Parlour).

Mrs Miller however got £5M after 2 years of marriage (with no children) because, wait for it... she had entered into the marriage on the legitimate expectation of an improved standard of living. This might seem rather crass and one might deem her a gold-digging harpy, however wait one bare minute. Mr Miller accepted that he had encouraged her to abandon her career with Colgate-Palmolive and stay home for "play money" to maintain the kind of lifestyle "he could well afford". The bugger knew what the rules were simple as that, the woman had made herself clear as to what she expected and he agreed that he would satisfy (Marriage is after all a contract) . In addition the bounder ditched her after getting bored and hooked up with someone else, subsequently, she suffered a miscarriage. The undeniable fact is that In the thrall of his ego-tripping pursuit of the fair maiden he had dangled his cheque-book tantalisingly as a bait and she bit, so why complain?

There's now a lot of fear in the City, in Canary Wharf and in the Surrey suburbs by high flying Soul Brothers (of all races by the way) about the efficacy of a Pre-Nuptial agreement. Sorry, its not binding and only persuasive. Some might consider blind-trusts, well good luck to you, but the Tracing Jurisdiction of the High Court is one of the most potent in the world- say no more.

Succour is however at hand fellows, yes (I can smell the anticipation), these Judgements are by no means certain in terms of providing guidelines for settlement, it remains entirely subjective to the peculiar circumstances, hence there will certainly be more Appeals on the subject before the Lords Also, the House of Lords also determined that certain assets are not inclusive in the "pot", such as those acquired before the marriage or those for which there was no intention of joint involvement (unwieldy and confusing, though probably giving credence to the use of a Pre-Nuptial agreement). However thats the only good news, these cases now prescribe the Law. In short amount of maintenance is no longer determined by reasonable living expenses but by standards to which the spouse was accustomed and length of a marriage is no longer a determinant of a settlement. The other side is that the Law equally applies to men, who give up careers to look after the kids, while the Missus goes out to bring home the bacon. Small victory?