It’s a common misconception that a Decree Absolute in a divorce means the end of financial matters between former partners. Unfortunately, this leads to a series of problems. While a Decree Absolute does confirm your divorce, it can still leave the door open to your former partner to make a financial claim against you…
Even though your divorce has been confirmed with a Decree Absolute, there are still things that you need to be aware following the official end of your marriage. Unfortunately, we’ve seen all too often that one party or the other falls foul of a claim against assets of finances.
The most common post Decree Absolute scenario
The most common scenario we come across post Decree Absolute is that any amicable agreement made between a couple regarding assets and finances is not made legally binding. We’re always delighted when a couple has reached an agreement among themselves.
However, what can be frustrating is that after coming to a verbal or written agreement no initiative is taken to make the agreement legally binding.
For example, one party may agree that the other can remain in the matrimonial home until a child reaches the age of 18. Both parties could agree that the house is transferred to the other party once the child completes their education.
However, despite this agreement, both parties fail to get a consent order that’s approved by the family court, which outlines exactly what was agreed.
In the absence of a consent order, the party not living in the matrimonial home is left in an awkward and difficult position when their child turns 18. With no legally binding order in place, there is no guarantee that any verbal or written agreement will be upheld.
Having a consent order would have prevented this scenario. The court would have had the power to order the transfer of the property and given the party not living in the matrimonial home, the security they needed.
Financial claims following a Decree Absolute
Financial matters are another area where, if not settled correctly, can lead to claims from a former partner.
One such scenario we regularly come across is when one party purchases a new property with a new partner and a former spouse reaches out to discuss financial arrangements. It often doesn’t cross an individual’s mind that there remains the possibility that a claim can remain open after a Decree Absolute.
In this scenario, any amicable agreement that was reached should have been approved by a court within a consent order. Within that order a ‘clean break direction’ should be included so that former couples can no longer make a claim against each other.
Relations could sour
While you may have reached an amicable agreement initially over finances and assets, things can change. It’s not unheard of for a divorce to become bitter, with one or both of you retracting any previous agreement, which changes the outlook and proceedings.
Meanwhile, at the time of your divorce, you may have had no assets or finances worth discussing. However, a large inheritance – whether financial or an asset – or winning the lottery, could be claimed against by your former partner.
Take the case of Glen and Nicola Briers, in which Ms Briers successfully secured £2.7 million of her ex-husband’s £55 million fortune 10 years after their divorce. In the years after their marriage ended, Mr Briers had amassed a fortune through a sports and street-wear business.
However, during their marriage Mr Briers had worked as a teacher before starting the business in the 1980s. By the time the couple split in 2002 – after 18 years of marriage – the business was turning over £1 million a year.
Following the divorce, Ms Briers was given a lump sum of £150,000 to pay off the mortgage on the family home – worth £750,000 – which she kept. She was also paid a £10,000 annual salary, plus child maintenance.
Mr Briers kept the business, which at the time was estimated to be worth more than £10 million. Upon learning this, Ms Briers returned for a bigger cut. The judge ruled that Mr Briers had played down his wealth and therefore awarded Ms Briers a £1.6 million lump sum and 25% of Mr Briers pension.
Ms Briers made a claim against her ex-husband on the basis that they had never formally dismissed their financial claims against each other.
Leave A Comment