A decision by judges sitting in the Appeal Court in London has attracted a considerable amount of controversy recently after a ruling that a woman should receive an increased amount of maintenance from her ex-husband, despite the fact that the couple divorced 15 years ago.
The case concerned Graham and Maria Mills, who married in 1998 and divorced in 2002, reports the Telegraph. The couple had one son together who is now an adult.
Financial Settlement
Under the terms of the financial settlement agreed at the time of the divorce, Mrs Mills, who used to be an estate agent, received a personal maintenance payment of £1,100 per month and the majority of the couple's "liquid capital", which amounted to around £230,000. Mr Mills, who was a surveyor, kept ownership of his business.
After the divorce, Mrs Mills invested her money in a series of unwise property purchases in an attempt to improve her situation. With each move she extended her mortgage liabilities and failed to recoup sufficient profit when the properties were sold. By the time she sold her last property, a two-bedroom flat in Battersea, she was in significant debt.
Both Parties Return to Court
Following the divorce, Mr Mills remarried and started a new family. In 2016, he went to court to request that his maintenance obligations come to an end so he could "move on with his life". Mrs Mills also went to court asking for a higher level of monthly maintenance payments. Neither was successful and both took their cases to the Court of Appeal.
Mr Mills' lawyer argued that he should not have to pay for his ex-wife's financial mistakes and that it was reasonable for him to want to move on with his life and bring her financial dependency to an end.
However, Mrs Mills' lawyer highlighted that her spending had not been "profligate or wanton" and that her ability to work had been affected by a number of health issues. He said that she was no longer able to afford to meet her "basic needs" and needed an increase in maintenance.
Ultimately the Court of Appeal judges ordered that Mrs Mills' monthly maintenance payments be increased to £1,441 until such time that a further court order is issued.
The Scottish Position
It is important to highlight that this is an English decision and that the legal situation in Scotland is very different. In Scotland, financial provision on divorce is predominantly dealt with by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, the provisions of which are geared towards achieving a "clean break" following separation. Any ongoing spousal maintenance obligations will normally be limited to a maximum period of three years from the date of divorce to enable the financially dependent spouse time to adapt to the change in circumstances. Awards of longer term financial support are, however, possible where a spouse is likely to suffer serious financial hardship as a result of the divorce. Further to this, it is not possible in Scotland to seek financial provision after the divorce has been finalised and therefore all financial issues must be agreed prior to decree of divorce being granted.
These fundamental differences between Scottish and English family law mean that a situation similar to that described above would have been handled very differently under Scottish law.
Disclaimer
The material contained in this article is of the nature of general comment only and does not give advice on any particular matter. Recipients should not act on the basis of the information in this e-update without taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.
