A MODERN fairytale: boy
meets girl, and after a series of comedic misunderstandings,
they fall in love. Boy proposes to girl and they take on massive
debts to fund a £15,795 wedding, the current average price of
the full works. Boy and girl struggle with the debts, until
fissures in the relationship deepen. Boy and girl get divorced,
losing £25,575. More than £41,000 out of pocket, they start
again.
Depressing as this fairytale is, it is the new reality for
many couples in Britain. Last year, 153,490 couples divorced
after an average of 11 years of marriage. But the rising tide of
divorce comes as the cost of breaking up is spiralling ever
higher. Norwich Union, the insurer, calculates that the average
divorce in the UK now costs £25,575, as couples spend cash on
lawyers and incur the costs of unwinding interdependent
finances.
Even if a divorce is amicable, the bills mount up. If it is
acrimonious, you will pay dearly. Sarah Anticoni, a partner at
Charles Russell, the law firm, says: “Asking how much it will
cost is a question of licking your finger and sticking it in the
wind.”
Ms Anticoni says that divorce lawyers are seeing an
increasing number of high-earning women facing claims on their
assets from lower- income husbands. She says: “More women are
in a better financial position than they were, and more men are
making claims against women.”
Whichever partner holds the bulk of the assets, divorce can
be messy when the family wealth is split into individual shares.
The negotiations involve three stages: the organisation of the
divorce itself, the custody of any children and the financial
settlement.
Obtaining the divorce itself is likely to cost at least £1,000,
including court fees, administration costs and payments to
lawyers. The average spent on legal fees, according to Norwich
Union, is £1,694. But if there are significant disputes and a
full court hearing is needed, this will soon escalate.
Ms Anticoni says that deciding on custody of children should
not cost anything, provided that both parties agree on the best
way to proceed. If there are significant areas of dispute, try
mediation services before calling in the lawyers.
Settling the financial deal is the point at which the cost of
divorce mounts. Ms Anticoni says: “The best money you can
spend is making the financial deal watertight.”
The starting point of most settlements is that, after a long
marriage, there should be a 50-50 split of assets. In the eyes
of the courts, 12 years is a good indication of a long marriage.
The Ray Parlour case, in which the professional footballer was
ordered to pay his wife 37 per cent of his income for the next
four years, sent many high-earners into panic. But lawyers say
that the Parlour case was unusual because the footballer has a
huge income but few assets. Normally there would be more assets
to split after a long marriage, so there would be little need
for continuing sharing of income.
There tend to be two main assets to deal with, the house and
the pension.
More than a third of couples are forced to sell their marital
home when they split up. The average cost of moving from one
household to two is £8,772.
Many couples will not be able to afford two new mortgages, so
one or both of the pair end up renting. Jonathan Benson, of Life
Change Financial Management, a specialist firm set up to help
divorced people, says: “Whatever route the couple chooses, it
means they will face all the costs of setting up and running at
least one and possibly two new households — frequently on the
same income as before.”
A pension pot built up over a working lifetime can be worth
as much as a family home. There are three ways of dealing with a
pension if only one partner has built up substantial rights.
The first allows one partner to give up any rights to the
pension in exchange for cash or other assets. Known as
offsetting, this often enables one partner to keep the house in
exchange for giving up any future pension rights. While this may
seem an ideal immediate solution, it can leave one partner
relying on the state to fund his or her retirement.
The other option is for the courts to place an earmarking
order on the pension. This keeps the fund intact until
retirement. At this point, both partners receive a share of the
tax-free lump sum or the continuing pension payment. The
downside is that the couple need to stay in touch and are unable
to sever their financial ties. The other problem is that an
earmarking order ends with the death of the partner who holds
the pension or the remarriage of the partner without the
pension.
The last option is pensions sharing, which splits the rights
to a pension between the couple. Normally, a company pension
scheme will split the pot and give the spouse a cash transfer,
which must be used to fund an alternative pension.