The McCartney Split and Others
The much-publicised divorce of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills has led to an award to Ms Mills of £24.3 million. Press speculation was rife that she might be awarded anything up to £60 million from Sir Paul’s fortune, which is estimated to be £400 million – the figure presented by his side in the proceedings and accepted by the court. Ms Mills, who represented herself, claims that he is worth £800 million.
What is significant about the judgment is that the award is based only on the “needs” of Ms Mills and the couple’s daughter. The implication of this is that the judge clearly considered that Ms Mills had added nothing of significance to the wealth of the McCartney household during their four years of marriage.
The decision contrasts with the July 2007 divorce of insurance magnate John Charman and his wife Beverley, who received £48 million from Mr Charman’s £130 million-plus fortune. The difference between the cases in legal terms is that Mrs Charman was considered to have made a ‘special contribution’ to the couple’s 28 year marriage and to the acquisition of marital assets during that time compared with that made by Ms Mills during her four year marriage to the former Beatle.
The McCartney settlement follows a recent case in which a thrice-divorced woman, on marrying for the fourth time, had signed a pre-nuptial agreement that in the event of divorce neither she nor her husband would make any financial claim against the other. She sensibly withdrew her claim for a share of her ex-husband’s fortune when the couple divorced, after the judge issued a preliminary ruling that the pre-nuptial agreement would be of material importance to the case. It would have been foolhardy to continue in the face of such a clear indication.
The courts are clearly looking much more closely, not only at the stated intentions of people going into a marriage, but also at their relative contributions to the wealth created during the marriage. This does not mean that a ‘stay at home’ spouse will necessarily receive a small settlement. If she/he can demonstrate that she/he provided the environment and support which enabled or assisted the ‘go getter’ to amass wealth, then there is every chance of her/him being awarded a significant proportion of the marital assets, particularly if the marriage has lasted many years.
Another factor the court may well consider is the wealth brought into the marriage by each party. By and large, the ‘non-marital assets’ are divided in the proportion in which each spouse or civil partner introduced them.
Waters & Co., advises those embarking upon divorce or separation to seek the services of a legal professional. Solicitors can help to ensure the best outcome for the parties involved, generally without the need for a Court hearing. Litigants in person (those who represent themselves in Court) will often come up against the opposite party’s solicitor, which can be intimidating and is hardly an even match. Having your own “legal knight” to represent your cause will help boost your chances of a fair outcome. A solicitor is better able to deal with the paperwork involved in a divorce. Whilst the DIY approach might seem attractive, even in straightforward cases, it is safer to, at least, get a solicitor to check everything is covered.
The legal process of getting a divorce is a relatively straightforward one. What is generally much less straightforward is sorting out the practical issues associated with a divorce, such as where each person will live, who gets what, and arrangements for children. Before agreeing matters with your husband or wife, it is wise to take advice from a solicitor about your rights, the options available to you and the principles to be applied in the light of statute and case law.
The law applies identically for civil partners: as yet there has not been a dissolution of a civil partnership where great wealth is involved (at least not one that has gone to court and been reported).
The information contained in this newsletter was prepared in April 2008 and is intended for general guidance only. It provides information in a concise form and is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice. If you would like advice specific to your circumstances, please arrange for an appointment to discuss.
What is significant about the judgment is that the award is based only on the “needs” of Ms Mills and the couple’s daughter. The implication of this is that the judge clearly considered that Ms Mills had added nothing of significance to the wealth of the McCartney household during their four years of marriage.
The decision contrasts with the July 2007 divorce of insurance magnate John Charman and his wife Beverley, who received £48 million from Mr Charman’s £130 million-plus fortune. The difference between the cases in legal terms is that Mrs Charman was considered to have made a ‘special contribution’ to the couple’s 28 year marriage and to the acquisition of marital assets during that time compared with that made by Ms Mills during her four year marriage to the former Beatle.
The McCartney settlement follows a recent case in which a thrice-divorced woman, on marrying for the fourth time, had signed a pre-nuptial agreement that in the event of divorce neither she nor her husband would make any financial claim against the other. She sensibly withdrew her claim for a share of her ex-husband’s fortune when the couple divorced, after the judge issued a preliminary ruling that the pre-nuptial agreement would be of material importance to the case. It would have been foolhardy to continue in the face of such a clear indication.
The courts are clearly looking much more closely, not only at the stated intentions of people going into a marriage, but also at their relative contributions to the wealth created during the marriage. This does not mean that a ‘stay at home’ spouse will necessarily receive a small settlement. If she/he can demonstrate that she/he provided the environment and support which enabled or assisted the ‘go getter’ to amass wealth, then there is every chance of her/him being awarded a significant proportion of the marital assets, particularly if the marriage has lasted many years.
Another factor the court may well consider is the wealth brought into the marriage by each party. By and large, the ‘non-marital assets’ are divided in the proportion in which each spouse or civil partner introduced them.
Waters & Co., advises those embarking upon divorce or separation to seek the services of a legal professional. Solicitors can help to ensure the best outcome for the parties involved, generally without the need for a Court hearing. Litigants in person (those who represent themselves in Court) will often come up against the opposite party’s solicitor, which can be intimidating and is hardly an even match. Having your own “legal knight” to represent your cause will help boost your chances of a fair outcome. A solicitor is better able to deal with the paperwork involved in a divorce. Whilst the DIY approach might seem attractive, even in straightforward cases, it is safer to, at least, get a solicitor to check everything is covered.
The legal process of getting a divorce is a relatively straightforward one. What is generally much less straightforward is sorting out the practical issues associated with a divorce, such as where each person will live, who gets what, and arrangements for children. Before agreeing matters with your husband or wife, it is wise to take advice from a solicitor about your rights, the options available to you and the principles to be applied in the light of statute and case law.
The law applies identically for civil partners: as yet there has not been a dissolution of a civil partnership where great wealth is involved (at least not one that has gone to court and been reported).
The information contained in this newsletter was prepared in April 2008 and is intended for general guidance only. It provides information in a concise form and is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice. If you would like advice specific to your circumstances, please arrange for an appointment to discuss.
