Morning:
8°c
Law lords to clarify status of prenups
Ellen Widdup12 Nov 2008
SENIOR judges will clarify today the legal status of prenuptial agreements drawn up by couples trying to protect their wealth from a marital split.
In a test case, the first of its kind, five law lords will be asked to decide if an agreement signed by an American couple with five children, who divorced after 10 years of marriage, should be upheld.
At present, courts take prenuptial contracts into account but they are not legally binding so any decision made could have huge repercussions for others who have made a pact before marriage.
The court will be asked to validate a deal made between Rob MacLeod, a 64-year-old businessman who made his fortune in the cable television business, and his 42-year-old wife, which was signed when they married in Florida in 1994 and which they subsequently amended on two separate occasions. But a disagreement about how much money Mrs MacLeod should be awarded has prompted her husband to seek clarification.
The case will be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest appeals court for UK overseas territories, because the couple live on the Isle of Man. Mrs MacLeod is claiming £5.6million, an amount agreed by the Isle of Man Court of Appeal. But Mr MacLeod claims his wife should be bound by a 2002 variation of their prenuptial agreement, when the marriage was faltering and Mrs MacLeod began an adulterous relationship. This allows a £2million settlement.
The Law Lords last considered the enforceability of prenuptial agreements in 1929. But pressure for reform has been mounting over the past decade. Family law partner at Withers, Suzanne Todd, said: "This is a chance for the Privy Council to acknowledge the evolution of social values."
Reader views (2)
If this reform does go through and pre-nups do indeed become legally binding it will not be a minute before time.
I'm not sure why, if the reform were passed, the government could be accused of encouraging marriages to fail?
As I understand it the main aim would be to ensure that an assets acquired by an individual, without any contribution from the other spouse, are ring-fenced in the even of a separation. Are we saying that passing a reform to help this happen will make it more likely that marriages will fail or perhaps not even be entered into?
This suggests that the only reason some individuals get married and stay married for any reasonable period of time is so they can lay claim on their partners assets when the marriage does come to an end.
If this is so, then this argument shows exactly why the reform must happen. I find it staggering that anyone can argue against legislation which finally calls time on the 'Gold Diggers'.
Pre-nup agreements have to date carried very little weight in British courts and this has lead to gross injustices in divorce settlements. The fact that it has nearly always been wealthy men on the receiving end of such injustices make it ironic that it's taken a case where a wealthy woman has been the 'victim' ( Radmacher) to provide the catalyst for the long overdue reform.
- Andrew, Barnet, 04/01/2011 21:53
Report abuse
A Living Together Agreement which merges by mutual acceptance into consistent practice and procedure at subsequent marriage should be inviolable provided made on freely accepted legal preparation with conditions by both parties and strengthened if in sacrosancity of Christian marraige vows. Solicitors like the easy financial gravy of divorce proceedings whilst Family Law District Judges are prone to bias in favour of an "aggressive" distaff petitioner rather than a spear partner in operating tbe veritable jungle of the Family Law (Divorce) Protocol with its Family Law Judges wielding powerful discretions through the "roller coaster " of the complicated protocol . High time for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to clarify.
- John Morris, Worle Weston Super Mare N.Somerset UK, 16/11/2008 09:56
Report abuse
