2013-05-24T19:28:10-04:00 Liz Cowell http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=liz-cowell Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Liz Cowell Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3183032 2013-04-30T03:57:50-04:00 2013-05-01T06:27:18-04:00

Liz Cowell http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-cowell/
That label does not necessarily refer to the number of separations handled by that city's courts or even for its making world record-breaking settlements.

Rather, it could be argued that London has developed a unique appeal because of its being regarded as "wife-friendly" in terms of the way in which marital assets have been divided in recent years.

The pendulum had begun to swing in wives' favour with a House of Lords' decision in 2001 which saw Pamela White exit her 33-year marriage and the family farming business with a £1.5 million lump sum.

However, the pace quickened noticeably with three significant rulings within the space of three months. On the same day in May 2006, Law Lords decided that Julia McFarlane was entitled to maintenance of £250,000 a year for life and that Maria Miller could keep a £5 million share of her husband's fortune despite their being married for less than three years.

In August of that year, Beverley Charman was awarded what was then the largest divorce settlement in British legal history - a £48 million payout from her insurance tycoon husband, John.

The judgements were followed by other high-profile cases and helped fuel a rise in so-called 'forum shopping', with many unhappy foreign wives choosing to have their divorces heard in the UK. They believed that they too might benefit from the supposedly "wife-friendly" approach of the courts, as one of my colleagues, Vicki McLynn, outlined in a previous article for the Huffington Post.

There are, of course, many spouses unable to shop around different national jurisdictions because they do not enjoy the same gilded, international lifestyle as the very wealthy.

Even these husbands and wives, though, still compete to have their divorces heard in areas which they believe will provide them with a more favourable outcome.

As a result of research by Pannone and the experiences of other family lawyers around England and Wales, an apparent pattern in the way settlements are dealt with has emerged - a 'maintenance map', if you will. In essence, wives whose divorces are handled by courts in cities seem more likely to secure generous settlements than those who separate in the provinces.

Provincial courts, it appears, are less likely to receive spousal maintenance on top of whatever share of joint marital assets which they may have secured.

It is almost as though wives who separate outside major conurbations such as London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol or Leeds are being urged "to stand on their own two feet" once their marriages are over.

What we are seeing is a complicated picture which certainly does not represent a regional bias in favour of one spouse or another. Instead, it illustrates the wide variety in interpretation and discretion applied by courts in different parts of the country.

The consequence is that wives from the North may want their cases heard in London because they feel that they have a better chance of securing capital and generous maintenance. I have been told that in the North East, meanwhile, maintenance awards were infrequent at best.

It's not simply a North-South settlement divide. There are considerable local and regional variations as well.

What it reflects too, I might add, is more than the thinking of a particular court. The mindset of husbands also comes into play.

Many men are not necessarily opposed to the idea of making suitable provision for their ex-wives when they go their separate ways. They realise, though, that a maintenance order creates the possibility of the nature of such support being revised upwards or even capitalised into a single lump sum at some point in the future.

To an ex-husband who might have improved his life and finances are a marriage ended, a future claim from a former wife who had seen him prosper after they parted is an unwelcome prospect and something which they will do their utmost to avoid.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.973439 2011-09-21T19:00:00-04:00 2011-12-30T06:34:03-05:00

Liz Cowell http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-cowell/
The impact which divorce has on the pocket has, since 2006, been reduced because of the availability of so-called 'litigation loans', providing individuals - usually women - with sums to obtain a fair settlement.

A number of banks saw the commercial opportunities presented by London's growing reputation as "the world's divorce capital". They also realised that few husbands are so agreeable as to pay their ex-wives' legal bills, especially if discussions about how to divide the marital assets involve heated exchanges.

It is understood by the courts, lawyers and their clients that litigation loans can also speed up and even reduce the cost of the divorce process. An alternative step is an application for interim maintenance which, if awarded, can include a monthly allowance for legal fees. However, even applying for such an order can in itself be costly and there's no guarantee of being successful. If it's not, women who fall short may not be able to recover the costs of their application which may exceed the interest they would have been likely to pay on a litigation loan.

In addition, women who may have devoted themselves to raising a home and children instead of building a career and income often don't have the resources to pay for legal bills and the usual living expenses while a divorce is ongoing.

However, as with other areas of the economy, the recession has intervened. Some couples have simply seen their financial position so eroded that they have remained under the same roof, separated in all but law and living arrangements.

Those women who have relied on litigation loans to pay for their separation have, in the last two years, found it more difficult to find banks, investment companies and hedge funds willing to lend them the money they need. As a result, many are turning to friends and family to help meet the cost of their divorces.

I and my colleagues have seen a threefold increase during the last two years in women, including those with wealthy partners, being forced to obtain such "informal" sources of funding.

One of the issues that they face is the sheer unpredictability of some divorce cases. A simple, straightforward and amicable divorce may take little time and cost a relatively small amount but if couples can't agree the terms of a settlement, they may end up in a lengthy process involving court hearings and with legal bills amounting to many tens of thousands of pounds - at least.
The situation does not only affect women of relatively modest financial circumstances. The ex-model Michelle Young, whose former husband was said to be worth £400 million ($636 million), has reportedly had to turn to retail tycoon Sir Philip Green and entrepreneur Sir Tom Hunter to help pay rent, clothes, school and legal fees.

Banks nervous about granting loans which subsequently go 'bad' are being cautious when it comes to considering hoping to borrow. Whereas a sizeable house might have been enough to loosen a bank's purse strings in previous property boom times, now financial institutions are only willing to advance the cost of a divorce if it can be repaid immediately in cash once a settlement is finalised.

Those women who manage to get a loan are also having to pay handsomely for the privilege, with interest rates quoted by those few lenders still active in the market hovering between 11% and 17%.

Most, however, will be forced to turn to friends and relatives until the world's money markets stabilise and the threat of recession has passed. Divorce, it seems, seems set to exact an emotional and financial toll for some time to come.
]]>