Representing yourself in court in a family law case is looking increasingly appealing for some in the current climate. Changes in Legal Aid rules to slash eligibility for money to support divorce cases is one big reason on the face of it. Another is along similar lines but more general – in the tight economic circumstances, people simply do not believe they can afford to employ a solicitor to pursue their divorce settlement. One obvious alternative is to represent themselves in court.
However, the likelihood is that this is not only false economy but could also ultimately lead to a worse long-term settlement than might otherwise have been achieved.
The issue of litigants in person has been in the news this month with the publication of the Criminal Justice Council’s Access for Justice for Litigants in Person report which addresses the need for a simpler, fairer and more efficient way for litigants in person to represent themselves in court without a lawyer. It appears to have been broadly welcomed in the legal profession, and its intentions are noble. However, here’s the thing for me: there’s a reason lawyers train for so long. And that’s why they are the best people to be representing someone to get a divorce settlement.
Lawyers undertake training to understand the legal system. They gain experience which gives them an insight to likely outcomes in specific situations. Both of these are vital to get the best settlement in a divorce case. They also enable a lawyer to give clients a realistic view on what they might expect as an outcome, managing expectations so they do not unnecessarily keep flogging a dead horse, hoping for a result that is never going to happen.
In the last year, several judges have been critical of time wasted by litigants in person not understanding the system, and so pushing for an unrealistic outcome. And while not spending money on a solicitor may save cash in the short run, there are still court fees to pay, the cost of lost time at work trying to prepare for your case adding to the expense and, ultimately, leading to a less beneficial outcome.
I am not saying there is no place for litigation in person but there is no substitute for a good family lawyer. And the end financial benefit is likely to far outweigh the cost involved.
Posted in Topical Information Uncategorized by .
Nov 11
4
Is there life north of Watford
As usual our posts on this blog are reflecting our efforts to satisfy all of our clients in the most appropriate way despite what seems to be going on around us. This one was prompted by a comment from an architect at a breakfast meeting I was at today when he mentioned the number of single house building developments he is working on have soared.
We are often asked via our introducers and indeed via the enquiries on our website to help arrange funding for residential development projects and the first question we always ask is ”where is the project located?” – The answer often determines the level of support that the UK lenders are prepared to give.
The title says it all, there is indeed a huge portion of the UK that is north of Watford, but to the vast majority of the lenders that have set their stall out to support the UK development finance market, it might as well be another planet. Admittedly, the money seems to emanate from the South East and inside the M25 it appears that nothing can go wrong, are they being short sighted or just prudent?
On a recent exercise on a fairly chunky development proposition in the West Midlands, which is not quite the end of the world, we used the details of those current lenders in the UK, that have said they support development funding, gleaned from the latest copy of ‘The finance Book’ to find out whether they would even consider the application. The result – out of 28 lenders approached, only 2 were willing to quote anything near reasonable terms for the business with the high street lenders being particularly unwilling. The main response was “it is too far away”.
I don’t know the numbers but it wouldn’t surprise me if more people lived and worked ‘North of Watford’ than south of there, and they all have to live somewhere, so come on folks, the numbers might not be so big, but the market is, and the argument is always there that a range of smaller development projects across a wider series of locations does mean that the lenders are not putting all their eggs in one Country (Greece) basket.
If you do have a small residential development (Up to say 10 houses) ‘North of Watford’ do get in touch, because we now know who wants to play. You can contact us here
Posted in Members Websites by .
There has been some debate in the last week about Living Together (Cohabitation) Agreements. Despite the Government stepping back from a plan to introduce similar rights for unmarried couples as those who are married, like claims on property and pensions in the event of a split, the Law Society is suggesting that a properly drawn-up Cohabitation Agreement can actually give the parties more protection if things went sour further down the line.
I would take issue with this somewhat.
The existing law is uncertain and expensive to apply and, because it was not designed for cohabitants, often gives rise to results that are unjust. Added to that is the fact that very few unmarried couples choose to take up Cohabitation Agreements, just as most of those getting married don’t bother with a pre-nuptial agreement. They don’t enter the relationship expecting it to fail and so don’t plan for it.
Currently, we are waiting with somewhat baited breath for the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kernott versus Jones which will be of interest to all co-habiting couples who own property and which might encourage more people to look at drawing up their own agreements. Without going into too much detail, this revolves around a house jointly bought by the couple but for which most of the mortgage payments and outgoings were met by Ms Jones during the eight years they were together, from 1985 to 1993, with Mr Kernott effectively contributing money to Ms Jones and carrying out substantial renovation. After they split, Mrs Jones continued living in the property and met all costs until Mr Kernott issued a notice of severance in 2008. At this time, Ms Jones obtained a declaration that she owned 90% of the property and it is this decision that has been the subject of court proceedings since. If a decision from the Court of Appeal is upheld it will suggest that, if a house is jointly owned 50/50 when purchased, no matter which party has contributed more, the proceeds on any sale will be split equally. If it is overturned, it could give rise to a potential wave of claims from couples looking to forensically analyse their arrangements with ex-partners over jointly-owned property.
Whilst a Living Together (or Cohabitation) Agreement could have helped in this situation the important issue for all couples in this situation is to take proper advice and have the options of how they own the property (and the consequences), before they buy.
Living together agreements are all well and good and I would encourage more people happy to live together but not to marry to look at setting up one of these agreements. However, do I think it offers better rights for the parties involved than they achieve under law if they get married? I don’t think so. No claims can be made for maintenance, lump sum payments, pension sharing and transfer of property orders for example. So if Kernott and Jones had been married, they would not be mired in what I expect is a very expensive court action.
Kate Butler
Family lawyer
We often talk about children being damaged by divorce and there are many studies which suggest that children from a broken home are worse off in one way or another, whether they perform worse at school, have relationship issues of their own later in life or are more likely to get in trouble with the police. The latest one I saw last week is that children whose parents divorce or separate before they are five are more likely to be problem drinkers, so says think tank Demos.
However, is it really the divorce (or separation) or the behaviour of the parents that is the factor that has the real influence?
I think the majority of people would agree that the ideal environment in which to bring up children is a family home with two loving parents committed to each other – whether married or not. However, things don’t always go smoothly. Parents do split up. What is important then is how parents behave to each other and the children and that they maintain a high level of parenting. Not all children from separated parents turn out to have problems in the same way that not all those whose parents stay together turn out to be without issues. It is the level of parenting that has the biggest effect. As any parent will tell you though, parenting is not easy and there is no guide book.
Legally, when a couple divorce, the law is focused on the rights of the children, rather than those of the parents. It is designed to protect the best interests of children making a base assumption that every child has the right to a relationship with both parents. Parenting plans, as advocated in a Government review of family law, which set out how each party will behave and how they will deal with access and residence, are not a bad way of approaching the subject but could cause friction at the time they are drawn up. As a simple guide, just encouraging parents to try and keep calm during the divorce process and remember that the children come first is very important, and can help avoid some unnecessary stress.
In a bid to pull together some simple advice like this and all the legal bits, Woolley & Co has produced a new free booklet entitled Parenthood and the law: the facts. It covers issues like parental responsibility, children’s rights, the rights of unmarried fathers and the role of grandparents. The intention is not only to make this available free to all of our clients who have children, but also supply copies to Citizens Advice Bureaux and doctor’s surgeries for people to browse or take with them. It can also be viewed as an e-brochure on our website or a hard copy can be requested by calling 0800 321 3832.
The brochure is not heavily branded as the purpose is not to promote the firm but to try and share advice. If you can help me spread the word I would be grateful, and maybe we can help ensure that their parents breaking up doesn’t set in stone potentially damaging behaviour patterns that affect a child for the rest of their life.
Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor
Posted in Members Websites Topical Information by .
For those with little or no experience of curtain making, as well as those who want to improve on their skills and learn the ‘proper’ techniques. The following topics are covered:
- Tracks and poles
- Taped curtain headings
- Measuring and estimating fabric requirements
- Locked in linings and mitred corners
Students will make a sample, lined curtain with hand finished hem and sides, and machined heading tape to take away along with handouts.
With all the focus on the Legal Services Act – the so called Tesco’s Law – which comes into force in October, little attention has been given to another potential innovation in the sector launched in the US recently and set to come to the UK shortly.
The snappily titled Rocket Lawyer, from the venture capital arm of Google, no less, is an “online legal document assembly service” aimed at allowing those involved in certain types of cases, including divorce, to access and prepare their own documents.
The innovation is getting a mixed response with some suggesting it will take away valuable drafting fees from family lawyers, while others think it will just take on some of the more menial tasks, leaving family lawyers to get on with offering guidance and advice.
We have a while yet to debate it as it is suggested it will not be here until late next year at the earliest. However, I think it could be great for people who:
- are no longer entitled to Legal Aid but who feel they cannot afford legal advice
- people who want to do a lot of the paperwork themselves
- people who just like to feel that they have a real part to play in the process.
In many ways, we could do with something like this now, with the proposed Legal Aid changes and the generally tight economic conditions prompting more people to look at how they can do more things themselves to reduce costs. Divorce is not exempt from that.
If the advice on Rocket Lawyer’s site is correct, then it appears it will play a positive role in helping people. However, a glaring problem I can see is that it takes an experienced family lawyer to know if the advice is right, especially as every marriage and every divorce case is different. I hope it will include some basic guidelines for people to help them understand that the word “divorce” does not include sorting out house, finances and children’s arrangements.
All in all, anything that makes divorce easier for our clients is welcomed by me. But, good luck! With the present state of the court system, the no doubt well-set-up and quick Google system could grind to a halt as soon as the papers hit the court system. That’s a problem we struggle with daily.
Andrew Woolley
Family solicitor
She was one of the original supermodels and famously uttered the oft-quoted line: “I don’t get out of bed for less than £10,000.” She still cuts a stunning figure with looks that many women would die for. But at 46, Linda Evangelista has gone down in my estimation this week. Considerably. I’m sure it won’t bother her but anyone who can still command vast sums for appearances and modelling does not need to argue in court that she needs £28,000 a month from the father of her four-year-old son.
Ms Evangelista argues she needs to pay for around-the-clock nannies and armed chauffeurs to take care of Augustin while she, as a single mother, is working. I appreciate that as a high-profile figure (though perhaps not as high these days as she once was) she is likely to spend a little more on security surrounding her offspring that your average parent. However, holding out for such a huge amount does seem a little excessive. And it sends the wrong message to “normal” couples attempting to thrash out details of a financial settlement.
As I have said before, we live in a celebrity culture and some people take their lead from the way people they see in the media behave. Seeing someone like Linda Evangelista, who has earned millions and is still said to have had an income of well over £1million last year, saying she needs her ex to pay such a huge amount towards childcare surely sets a bad example.
This story has legs and will run a while yet. No decision on the issue has yet been reached by the New York court where it was heard and even the judge’s jaw dropped at the lofty figure, it has been reported. There is also the matter that the father, revealed for the first time, is billionaire François-Henri Pinault, 49, the CEO of luxury brands firm PPR, which owns Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and Balenciaga, and husband of Hollywood actress Salma Hayek
There are single mums out there fighting to get some support from an estranged ex to help them as they try to raise children and work. Many, I think, would be horrified to hear that a wealthy and successful woman is using the courts to fight to get such an obscene sum. It is not the fact that the father should not have to pay, it is just the level bearing in mind the financial position of all involved.
Of course, it doesn’t cover the father in glory either. As a billionaire, you would have expected him to do what he could to ensure his son is comfortable. Some reports allege he does not contribute.
As family solicitors, we do what we can to encourage couples to reach financial settlements amicably. This is hard enough task on its own in situations where emotions are running high. Having celebrity ‘role models’ like this setting such an example does not help anyone.
Andrew Woolley
Family Solicitor
Posted in Members Websites News Items Topical Information by .
Jul 11
29
TVBG at The Tenbury Show
The Teme Valley Business Group will be one of many Exhibitors at the forthcoming Tenbury Show that takes place on Saturday 6th August, so why not come along to our stand and chat to some of the members and find out more about what we do and how we strive to work closely with local businesses within a trusted network.
Full details of the show itself can be found here ——- Tenbury Show Website
We look forward to meeting those local businesses around the area that may well operate as small (or even one man band) business enterprises but realise that innovation in how they get their clients and customers is worth pursuing.
Find out how some of our members have used referral based networking to get theirs.
Posted in Local Events News Items Topical Information by .
News reached me that a woman, said to be living on state benefits whilst seeking her share of her husband’s alleged £400 million fortune, has criticised the divorce system in the UK. Well, you would wouldn’t you?
Michelle Young, 47, who incidentally has hired the former head of Scotland Yard’s Royal Protection Squad to oversee her security after threats were allegedly made against her, wants her share of the fortune apparently amassed by her husband Scot, a fixer for oligarchs and billionaires. He claims the money went in a botched property deal and he now owes £27 million. His wife claims he has squirreled the money away in offshore accounts – and she has spoken of the “injustice” of this country’s divorce law. She believes it is weighted against women and allows wealthy husbands to legally hide funds offshore. Not an expert area of mine but I’m sure a forensic accountant would have something to say about this.
I have spoken in an earlier blog (Time for divorce law overhaul) about the fact that it is time for a change in divorce laws in this country. Whether or not it would help Mrs Young, who was awarded £27,500 maintenance a month in December 2009 – the biggest ever in this country – plus school fees and £1,500 a week rent for her Victoria flat in London, I am not sure. There are claims that the current system actually leads to more marriage breakdowns and leaves many children irreparably damaged by the process. Just simple steps like making pre-nuptial agreements and living together agreements legally binding and introducing a no fault divorce, could help significantly. These are quick and easy steps to take in my opinion.
Would these help Mrs Young? Well, while a pre-nup before she walked down the aisle might on the face of it have been geared more towards protecting her husband’s assets for his sake, generous provision could have been made in it for her and any children (they have two) in the event of a divorce. That would have saved the heartache, stress and conflict she is currently going through. Pre-nups are not simply vehicles to protect one party’s assets – a fact that is often overlooked. And they do, slowly, seem to be becoming more fashionable, if you will. Just ask Kate Moss.
As for Mrs Young, well her husband declared himself bankrupt so has never paid the agreed maintenance. She is hopeful that at a court hearing in October she will be able to convince the judge that far from being broke, her estranged husband simply hid his assets to avoid paying her. It is a case which has links to celebrities as diverse as Simon Cowell and Sir Philip Green and I am sure there are a few twists to come.
Andrew Woolley
Posted in Members Websites News Items Topical Information by .
There is no doubt in my mind that children are the ones who need most help when it comes to divorce – and parents need to act like grown ups and play a mature role in this.
Relationship break-up is traumatic for all concerned, don’t get me wrong, and my role as a responsible family lawyer is to help guide people not just through the legal issues related to formalising a divorce, but also offer support in other ways, especially as someone to recommend other professional services. Children often get no such help, or tailored support, but are caught in the middle as their world falls apart.
The Family Justice Review interim report clearly identified this as a failing of the current system. It suggests, rightly in my opinion, that children often do not understand what is happening, the way the process works or what the possible outcomes are.
We can address this though and should do everything possible to offer support at a difficult time. Among the suggestions currently being considered is getting rid of the whole concept of residence and contact, to be replaced simply by specific orders. Isn’t this just semantics though? Contact or residence agreements already need orders to be properly in place. Previous terms of access and custody were replaced with contact and residence because they were deemed friendlier. Seems to me like little will be achieved by another name change.
What I do find more useful is it has recognised that young people need to have a say in what happens and any changes that ultimately come into being. To this end, a special online guide has been set up for young people, talking about the Family Justice Review, family law in general, proposed changes and how to give feedback on what they would like to see. The comments will then be fed into the review before the final report is completed.
It has been compiled by Roger Morgan, children’s rights director for England, who according to the BBC said it was essential children were told about proposals that will directly affect them “and that they are given a voice in the decisions which are made about their future”. Hear hear! I think this is a fantastic step forward and truly puts the children at the heart of the process, as they should be. All too often they are either left on the margins watching what is going on or are used as pawns by malicious parents wanting to score points off each other and whose primary concern is certainly not for their offspring at that time.
Of course, having a say won’t guarantee an easier ride for children involved. That depends on a variety of other things, including parents. If only they could act like grown ups in divorce proceedings then their children will be able to navigate a divorce more smoothly, no matter what else happens.
Andrew Woolley
Posted in Members Websites News Items Topical Information by .