Latest Articles on Divorce and Your Rights

Going through a divorce is a major life event at any age, but when you decide to end your marriage in later life the financial implications can be significantly more complex. If you have been married for a long time, you are likely to have accumulated a considerable number of assets, starting with the family home. But dividing up financial assets doesn’t end there: pensions and retirement plans will also come into play. Matrimonial property The passage of time can sometimes make it tricky to establish which assets are jointly owned (i.e. ‘matrimonial property’) and which ones were brought into the marriage by one party. For example, if one partner brings with them an inherited property, and 10 years into the marriage that property is extended, and those extensions are paid for jointly, this would be viewed and calculated differently to a family home bought by both parties (even if only one spouse pays the mortgage). Pensions Deciding how pension investments will be apportioned between the parties is a crucial factor in divorce arrangements. Not only must you establish who gets what, but also when they get it. Failing to consider pension assets at the time of divorce could have financial ramifications going forward. Dividing pensions: the options There are various ways for divorcing couples to divide their pensions: Offsetting - Pension assets can be offset against the divorcing parties’ other assets. For instance, one party may want to remain in the family home in place of receiving a part of their ex-partner’s pension. Whilst allowing a clean break, this route may not release funds to meet any immediate financial needs you might have. Pension sharing orders - Pension assets are divided at the time of divorcing. The amount transferred is a percentage of the pension at the date of implementation and not a percentage as at the retirement date. However, this option achieves a clean financial break. Pension attachment orders - This is where the pension provider of one party pays an agreed amount to the ex-spouse based on the pension value at the date of retirement. However, this risks the loss of future income for the ex-spouse if the person with the pension rights dies before retirement, or if the ex-spouse gets remarried.  Deferred lump sum - This is an order requiring you to pay an amount of your pension lump sum to your ex-partner on retirement. It is your responsibility to pay the lump sum, not your pension provider’s. The order will simply state the date by which you must make the payment. This method achieves a clean break and does not directly affect your pension income, but an agreement like this could dictate when you can take retirement, if you have no other means of paying the lump sum when it becomes due.

Although child arrangements and finances are usually the main priorities when discussing divorce settlements, pet custody is by no means unusual. Did you know that in 2018, around one quarter of all divorce cases in the UK included the custody of a pet? With Brits owning an estimated 12.5 million dogs and 12 million cats at the latest count, it’s fair to say we are a nation of pet lovers. Astute marketing has highlighted this fact over the years, with feathered and furry friends frequently featuring in television adverts for everything from sofas to car insurance. Dog friendly holidays are increasing in availability and, in some cases, pet ‘owners’ are being rebranded as pet ‘parents’, underscoring the sentiment that pets truly are part of the family. But even though you might see your dogs or cats as your fur babies, unfortunately the law in England and Wales does not share that view. Where the best interests of children are given priority in a divorce case, along with factors such as access and living arrangements, pets are considered to be goods and chattels, like a laptop or an item of furniture. This means that the court tends to look at who owns the pet in terms of who actually bought and paid for it, regardless of how strong the relationship may be between the animal and the other partner – unless, of course, the pet was a gift to the other partner. The law considers questions including Who bought the pet? Who is named on the contract or purchase receipt, e.g. with the animal rescue centre? Who is named on the pet insurance policy? Which partner is registered with the microchip database? Who is the animal’s main provider, e.g. who buys the pet food and supplies, etc.? Which party is registered with the vet? Who takes care of the pet, e.g. walking, grooming, and feeding the animal? If there isn’t any formal record of ownership, it could make matters more complicated. While the court has the authority to rule that an animal should live with just one party, it doesn’t have the power to order access. This means it cannot order the legal owner to give the non-owner access to the pet. Without clear evidence, the court could also decide that the pet is jointly owned. If neither party is willing or able to take ownership, the court could order the pet to be sold, with both parties sharing the proceeds. If the pet was bought for a child, it is likely that the animal will continue to live with that child. It has to be borne in mind, however, that pet maintenance can be costly, which could lead to further discussions about who should pay for pet care. Fortunately, pet custody matters rarely go as far as court. If you and your ex-partner are on reasonably good terms you should be able to decide what happens to your pet. If you can’t agree, you might want to consider mediation. Issues to discuss at mediation could include what is in the best interests of the pet, who is better placed to look after it, e.g. availability/ time spent at home, and who is willing to pay for the animal’s upkeep. While some people may consider sharing custody of a pet, this may not always be the best option for the animal. Pets prefer a regular, stable routine, and the constant upheaval could be detrimental to their wellbeing. Likewise, people with more than one pet who might be tempted to divide them between the two partners should think about what is best for the pets. If your pets are attached to one another, splitting them up could cause them a great deal of distress. On the other hand, if your pets don’t get along, it might well be a viable option. It is not uncommon for prenuptial agreements to include future provision for pets, but separate agreements designed specifically for pets and their owners are growing in popularity. Known as ‘petnups’, these agreements are drawn up in the same way as prenups, with both parties setting out details of how the pet will be taken care of in the event of a divorce.