Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Liz Cowell

GET UPDATES FROM Liz Cowell
 

Friends, Family and the Cost of Divorce

Posted: 22/09/11 01:00 BST

It has been said that breaking up is hard to do. When a divorce isn't amicable and involves former spouses determined not to give ground in their attempts to exit a marriage with the means of making a fresh start, it can sometimes be expensive too.

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.

 
It has been said that breaking up is hard to do. When a divorce isn't amicable and involves former spouses determined not to give ground in their attempts to exit a marriage with the means of making a...
It has been said that breaking up is hard to do. When a divorce isn't amicable and involves former spouses determined not to give ground in their attempts to exit a marriage with the means of making a...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:24 PM on 10/03/2011
I have been divorced and I found that sometimes is best to walk away. You always have your own career and keep yourself in a position to do for yourself. For the women who marry men with money....I would always be smart enough to stash some away for times like these. I might not be able to live in the same lifestyle, but I would have a peace of mind. The only thing that is of concern for me is my children.
10:18 PM on 09/28/2011
My English husband "loves me" but can't return to America..he's too depressed. I haven't heard from him in 5 months. In America, I can secure a divorce; however, I'd have to forfeit any monetary settlement. I'm 61 and he's left me destitute. I cannot afford English legal counsel. 13 years together and only I worked, keeping the home in America. He promised to take care of retirement and now he's disappeared in England and left me with a stack of bills and nothing. Looks like I'll be fighting the cat for it's food. I don't think I'll ever be able to retire. I'll die at my desk thanks to him.
11:51 PM on 09/26/2011
Expensive in SO many ways...I'm 3 years and 36K into my divorce, and not yet done. I have a great attorney who has tried to minimize costs, and an ex who did not want to give me half of what I asked for, resulting in a long and expensive court battle. I'm tired of all of it-the courts, dealing w/ the ex, being nice at family functions for the kids from our 20+ year marriage...He filed, and yet, by the time all the fees are paid and distributions given, I will walk away w/ my car and a monthly support that, when combined w/ my disability pm't, will not allow me to rent a STUDIO apt. within 30 miles of my kids.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
belle27
01:21 PM on 09/23/2011
Wow. My first reaction to this was, what a sad commentary on the way the courts are weighted, that banks will award these loans to women based on the presumption that women always get awarded money to be paid to them by their husbands. I'm thinking men would find it almost impossible to get a bank to give them a litigation loan.
03:46 PM on 09/23/2011
That is counterintuitive, either party would be getting a loan to cover costs until all things were settled and divided. The non working spouse is usually at a disadvantage. If there are any assets, both parties can expect to get their share and subsequently pay their legal fees. The presumption is that each party will have access to their share of marital funds after the divorce but not necessarily during the divorce. There is no bias here, perhaps a generality (women are the stay at home caretaker). Men would probably have an easier time getting a loan if they are employed (generally the case); if they are not, they will likely be the one awarded money. Do not be one of those people who insight gender wars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
belle27
08:36 PM on 09/23/2011
I suppose so in theory, but look at the article: every time the author talks about the situation, the scenario is that an ex-wife would take out a loan presuming that the costs would eventually be covered by money received by the ex-husband in the settlement. So the author, too, is presuming this, and I thinks she is probably quite right. Banks are in the business of making money, and part of that business involves making an educated guess as to whether the person borrowing will pay the money back (plus interest). Quite honestly, if I were a banker and I had two clients, one man and one woman, asking for a divorce loan to be paid off once the settlement was final, I would probably presume, all things being equal, that the woman would begin receiving money after the settlement, and the man would pay money. I would probably also assume that a man who needed to take out a loan for the litigation would be even LESS in a position to pay that money back after the settlement. As a cold, calculated and purely actuarial presumption, I think that's probably accurate. And mind you, I am a woman, and I am divorced. And I did not receive money from my ex in the settlement. But I do still see this as the more likely scenario, and I think in the aggregate it is the case.
Morrisfactor
Just a little bent
01:27 PM on 09/25/2011
97% of all alimony is paid by men.

I'd be willing to bet loans to divorcing spouses run along similar percentages - in favor of women.