One of Coronation Street’s explosive upcoming storylines is rumoured to have Rover’s Return landlords, Steve McDonald and Michelle Connor  heading for divorce following tragic domestic upheavals and his infidelity.

Media speculation on the split in the iconic series includes the million dollar question question – who will get the pub?

While the soap is fictitious, the issue of ensuring a business holds up, not folds up, through divorce is a very real and prevalent one – bringing many complexities which, in this scenario, include whether or not the pub is a tenancy.The trauma of divorce, which impacts on separating couples, their children, and their wider family and friends, can be further exacerbated when a business is involved.

Many business owners with failed marriages have found themselves losing an organisation they have worked long and hard to build over decades, to their ex.

Safeguarding the family company is therefore critical and situations when husband and wife teams own joint shareholdings as “co-preneurs” and both seek to retain their stake in the company, can be difficult to resolve – requiring expert advice.

Many couples also employ their children in the family business – increasing the importance of a smooth transition to safeguard their sons’ and daughters’ respective roles.

In a divorce, a company is regarded as a matrimonial asset, to be sold or shared like any other. It is therefore vital for a couple in business together to secure sound legal advice before marrying, so that a pre-nuptial agreement can be drawn up.

Although pre-nups are not legally binding, courts do take them into account and they can make the whole divorce process run more smoothly. However, in the absence of a pre-nup, a business will be scrutinised by the court – prompting questions such as How much is it worth? What income can it produce – now and in the future, when assets are divided? Should it be producing more? Judges will often examine a business’ liquidity and how this might be paid out.

If you have any comments, queries or concerns on divorce affecting business and divorce  or wider divorce related issues, leave a comment below, call the Jones Myers team on 0113 246 0055 or tweet us on @helpwithdivorce.

The post Rover’s Return landlords explosive split: how to safeguard a family business appeared first on Jones Myers.

As the media continues to dissect every minute detail of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard divorce, stories reported include claims that Johnny Depp deliberately delayed proceedings.

In our vast experience, UK divorces are rarely purposely prolonged once agreement is reached, with most people understandably seeking to avoid extending what may have been a protracted and emotionally painful process.

However, if one party refuses to file the documents for a consent order, the other can apply to the court for an order that the recalcitrant party should ‘show cause’ why an order following the terms of the agreement should not be made.

Depending upon the circumstances – and the people involved – a delay or dispute in a “high-profile” could attract the media’s attention. When a divorce goes to court, some of the proceedings are in the public domain and the press can attend some of the hearing and publish the details.

This potential risk – which would be embarrassing and distressing for the couple involved as well as their children, parents, business partners and other ‘stakeholders’ – makes arbitration worth considering to prevent intimate details being broadcast to the world.

Arbitration allows couples to reach a divorce settlement without the trauma of the courts, the sessions are held in private, which means that journalists cannot report the details of the divorce or settlement.

The hearings, which are arranged at clients’ convenience, and at comfortable venues, see the arbitrator determine who should have what. Similar to a judge, they collect relevant facts and evidence and base their decision on this evidence – taking into account the views of both parties. The Award is final and binding in both parties.

Arbitrators are not only qualified in their process – they are also experienced family lawyers who are either former judges or family law barristers or solicitors. Jones Myers founder, Peter Jones, was one of the country’s first arbitrators, when arbitration was introduced in 2012 to resolve differences on financial and property matter.

Jones Myers family lawyers are members of Resolution – a national family law group which promotes non-confrontational solutions in family law – of which Peter Jones is a former chair.

For more information on how – and why – arbitration lowers the cost of divorce, read our previous blog.

If you have any comments, queries or concerns on divorce related issues, leave a comment below, call the team at Jones Myers on 0113 246 0055 or tweet us on @helpwithdivorce.

The post How tom avoid a Johnny Depp-style public divorce appeared first on Jones Myers.

In the countdown to schools breaking up, Jones Myers is witnessing heightened anxieties from divorced parents over their ex-partner taking their children on summer holidays.

In a climate where security and safety concerns are unprecedented, what is understandably an already a tense time for divorcees can be further exacerbated when their ex-partner flies off with their son or daughter.

Quite apart from missing the children and coping with their absence, these anxieties are sparking a ‘fear culture’ which is totally unrelated to worries that their offspring will be abducted or harmed.

Instead, it’s a feeling of helplessness at not being there in person to ensure they are in an appropriate country with suitable accommodation – and not knowing that they won’t visit places the parent left behind wouldn’t go to – especially when they will be thousands of miles away for a period of two or more weeks.

Much of the tension emanates from different parenting styles that can cause conflict in any partnership – i.e. one parent is too laid-back in the other’s eyes, while another is considered too tense and over anxious.

We recommend the following steps which take your ex-partner’s feelings into consideration and can go a long way to prevent bitter disagreements and arguments:

1. If you are taking the children away for longer than a month or during a period when your ex would normally have parental contact, you must obtain permission from your ex-partner. It would also be considerate to ask for consent for shorter trips that do not affect shared arrangements as this may encourage future co-operation.
2. As both parents usually hold legal Parental Responsibility, inform your former spouse of your travel plans and accommodation arrangements. This will comfort them and enable them to contact you in an emergency.
3. It is always a good idea for parents to plan holidays face-to-face if possible. This collaborative and non-confrontational approach that we always recommend enables practicalities and issues such as allergies to be sorted out, avoids diary clashes – and lets children schedule their social lives.
4. Reassure the parent who is left behind. Stay in touch to let them know how things are going and encourage your children (depending upon their age) to communicate regularly with them by text, email, Skype or FaceTime.
5. As in other areas of life, treating your ex-partner as you would like to be treated can pay dividends for your long-term relationship – especially if you are waiting for news while they are on holiday with your children.

If you have any comments, queries or concerns on children and divorce related issues, leave a comment below, call the team at Jones Myers on 0113 246 0055 or tweet us on @helpwithdivorce

The post How to diffuse rising ‘fear culture’ involving estranged parents appeared first on Jones Myers.

Middle England is taking yet another blow on the chin following the announcement that the cost of getting divorced is undergoing an astronomical 34% hike, from £410 to £550k, in a drive to boost the economy.

Divorce – with all the consequent expense, trauma and stress – constitutes a major life crisis without the Ministry of Justice further exacerbating the situation for those who need to file a divorce petition for a civil court hearing in England and Wales.

Even a hike of a single penny is unjustifiable, although it appears the Ministry thinks we should be thankful for small mercies after first mooting plans in 2013 to increase divorce fees from £410 to £750 – an increase of over 80%.

Its decision to limit the increase to 34% after ‘careful consideration’ will not lessen the impact for those people who work hard to make a modest living in roles spanning shop assistants, receptionists, bus drivers and electricians who will be forced to dig even deeper into their pockets when the increase bites later this year.

Although the extremely vulnerable who are on benefits or earning a low wage with little or no capital may either be exempt or pay a reduced amount – the very rich will not be affected.

It is inconceivable that businesses in wide ranging sectors including professional services would dare to contemplate, let alone announce, an increase in fees to this astronomical percentage. Indeed there would justifiably be a public outcry if petrol went up from £1.16 to £1.60 a litre.

The rise is part of series of measures to raise an extra £60m a year, which include increases for areas spanning issuing possession claims in the county court, general applications in civil proceedings and contested applications in civil proceedings.

To further add insult to injury, the Ministry is threatening us with another tranche of proposed fee increments on which it is consulting across the next two months that would generate a further £48m in revenue.

Any other body or organisation deigning to railroad through these hikes through would deservedly bring down the wrath of the government on them. The irony that the Ministry of Justice is instigating these changes will not be lost on those who find themselves paying more from the very justice system they seek support from.

If you have any questions or comments about divorce related matters, please call us on 0113 246 0055, leave us a comment below, drop us an e-mail or contact us on @helpwithdivorce.

The post Why the hike in divorce fees is unjustifiable appeared first on Jones Myers.

The sad case of three-year-old Ethan Minnock, who is in hiding with his mother, is evidence of family courts getting tough on mums who try to restrict fathers’ access to children.

Rebecca Minnock is on the run with her toddler son because she had allegedly “lost faith” in the legal system which has decreed that Ethan should live with his father.

The family law framework underwent seismic changes last year as part of the government’s bid to encourage divorcing couples to be less confrontational, to avoid court where possible – and to put children’s best interests first.

As I have previously written in this blog, a key feature of this legislation was Child Arrangement Orders – designed to promote joint parental responsibility and consensus between parents about where children will live – and how often they will see both mum and dad. There is a presumption that it is in the child’s best interests to have contact with both parents.

I predicted a year ago that despite the new laws, some parents would have no alternative but to go to court in a bid to see their children. That appears to be the case for Ethan’s father, Roger Williams. On May 27 this year a district judge ruled that Ethan should live with Mr Williams after finding that Ms Minnock had made false allegations and obstructed contact between father and son. The judge said that the little boy had been exposed to “emotional harm” by his mother and that she had breached court orders.

Following the judgement, the 35-year-old mother left her home in Highbridge, Somerset with her only child. The pair has not been seen since, but Rebecca’s family were questioned about her whereabouts at Bristol Crown Court, where – in an unusual step – Judge Stephen Wildblood QC relaxed reporting restrictions so that mother and child could be named in the media.

I do not know the full details of this case; however it is clear from reports and the courts’ judgements that Rebecca was attempting to block Mr Williams’ contact with Ethan – although at one stage his son lived with him four nights a week.

Ms Minnock has told the media that she feels “let down” by courts and social workers, but knows she will be caught and will be “in trouble”.  Deciding on where a child should live if there is a dispute between the parents is traumatic for all involved, but taking the law into your own hands is not the answer. Rebecca Minnock could faces charges for contempt of court and runs the risk of losing her child permanently. Her family and friends face possible perjury charges if they have not been honest about what’s happening and the whereabouts of Ethan and Rebecca.

I hope that Rebecca Minnock and little Ethan will be found soon and that this heart-wrenching story makes other separating parents put aside their differences in the best interests of their children.

If you have any concerns about any matter relating to children and divorce then please leave us a comment below or contact us. You can follow us on Twitter at @helpwithdivorce

The post Mum on run : desperate response to courts’ tougher stance? appeared first on Jones Myers.

After years of being with sons and daughters 24/7 in the family home, the transition to living apart from children can be tough. And never more so than on the day when children throughout the UK celebrate and indulge their fathers with cards and gifts.

One million men – 1 in10 dads – don’t live with their children. However, encouragingly 87% still have contact with their offspring – although a few hours a week and every other weekend is very different, both practically and emotionally, from being a full time dad.

Making the shift to part-time parenting – and ensuring that the special father/child relationship thrives – can be a practical and emotional challenge for parents and children. It requires planning as well as empathy and understanding from the mother, who should recognise that spending quality time with dad is in the child’s best interests – both in the short and long term.

At Jones Myers our collaborative approach to separation and divorce means that we work with our clients to ensure that any children are at the heart of discussions. We aim to help mums and dads to understand the importance of contact with both parents and try to come to amicable agreements about how that will happen – and what it will look like.

Going through the pain of separation and divorce can be lonely – and fathers who have moved out of the family home and are living apart from their children may feel particularly isolated or helpless. They may feel uncomfortable discussing their personal issues with friends or workmates. However, there is a plethora of useful online advice and support for separated and divorced fathers. Here are some of the helpful resources:

Relate, is one of the UK’s largest and most recognised providers of relationship support – assisting more than one million people a year. Their Being Parents Apart campaign recognises that separating well – where both parents are able to be amicable, cooperative and fully engaged with their children – means better outcomes for the whole family. It also aims to raise awareness of the challenges that separation brings and to let parents know that the organisation is there to help.

Gingerbread , a long-established organisation providing advice, practical help and campaigning for single parents, has a useful section on its website just for dads. As well as tips on issues including finances, housing rights and divorce, it has useful links to other online resources.

Only Dads is a website specifically for fathers who are going through separation or divorce. There is a sister site for mothers called Only Mums. Helpful sections include relationships, mediation, parenting, legal advice and finance.

Separateddads covers topics ranging from emotional to financial and legal matters with an online directory to help fathers find further advice and support. There is a lively blog and an ‘ask the expert’ section.

We hope that whatever their personal circumstances, many thousands of dads will be able to celebrate their special relationships this Father’s Day.

If you have any questions about contact with children or any aspect of separation or divorce please leave us a comment below or contact us. You can follow us on Twitter at @helpwithdivorce

The post How dads can cope with being alone on Father’s Day appeared first on Jones Myers.

Targeting men who feel let down by our family courts, lawyers in London are offering a service exclusively for husbands.

Rather like certain sickly sweet US chocolate, this latest stateside import leaves an unpleasant taste.

Gender specific legal practices are simply divisive and are likely to ignite confrontation and set one party against another – resulting in more harm to any children involved.

Family law firms with all male client lists have been growing in popularity in the States since the 1990s amidst concerns that wives and mothers are likely to get a better deal.

The law firm setting up in London told American divorcing husbands “we’re going to help you keep the dollars you earned”.  As Susan Jacklin QC, chair of the Family Law Bar Association observes: “It’s just a way of bringing in a certain sort of client.”

I share the view that such firms are pandering to those who believe that men will always be short-changed in family courts. In my experience our courts do their best to be fair – and as Ms Jacklin points out: “The court’s focus is on the welfare of the child.”

To act purely for one gender or another is nonsense. A firm offering services solely to men or to women will be blinkered, in my opinion. As divorce lawyers we need to understand the issues from the perspectives of both genders in order to help our clients reach solutions that work for them and their families.

When you act for both men and women you are constantly updating your own knowledge, experience and understanding of the finances and respective needs of both parties. That wider perception can only be helpful to clients, regardless of their gender, when it comes to conducting negotiations that are both productive and realistic.

Family break up is painful. As we have said before, mums and dads who regard each other as the enemy can cause lasting damage to their children. At Jones Myers we take a holistic approach to helping families deal with a divorce that might involve bringing in mediators and other experienced professionals who can help parents and children cope. Firms who only help one gender are unlikely to take such a collaborative stance.

Of course fathers can experience difficulties after separation and divorce – it’s estimated that around one million children in the UK grow up with no contact with their dads. However, the unfounded suggestion that men are oppressed or unequal in the eyes of our family legal system is far from helpful.

If you have any questions about contact with children or any aspect of separation or divorce please leave us a comment below or contact us. You can follow us on Twitter at @helpwithdivorce

The post Why men only divorce firms can backfire when children are involved appeared first on Jones Myers.

As we have said before in this blog, where there’s a will there is often a disappointed beneficiary.

However, few disputes can be as unusual – or involve such eye-watering figures – as the case of Ruanne Dellal, widow of flamboyant property developer Jack Dellal, who has won the first round of a court battle to challenge the provisions of her late husband’s will.

Although Mrs Dellal inherited the not insubstantial sum of £15.4m, she claims that her husband, who died in 2012 aged 89, had a much bigger fortune and must have given away millions to blood relatives without her knowledge.

Known as ‘Black Jack’ for his love of gambling, Mr Dellal regularly featured in the Sunday Times Rich List with his fortune estimated at £445m in the year he died. His widow told the High Court in London that the amount she inherited was an “absurd presentation” of her late husband’s wealth.

Mrs Dellal, the second wife of the charismatic businessman, believes that family members must have received substantial assets in the years after Jack made his will in 2006 and ‘to all intents and purposes left his entire estate” to her.  She is seeking “reasonable provision” from his estate (beyond the £15.4m she has already received) and suggesting that his state net estate should be increased by a number of other properties and assets.

Jack Dellal’s 96-year-old sister Violet and six of his adult children from previous relationships had asked the court to throw out his widow’s claim. However, Mr Justice Mostyn has rejected that demand and instead suggested that he wants to analyse more evidence.

The property dealer, who was born in Manchester to exiled Iraqi Jewish parents, initially made his money in merchant banking. The court heard that he is said to have gambled £1.7million in just one night. However, it seems that neither Mrs Dellal nor the judge believes that ‘Black Jack’ could have simply frittered away the bulk of his vast fortune in casinos.

It is not uncommon for some people to dispose of their assets towards the end of their life and thereafter use their wills to try control what should happen to their remaining estates. Whilst that is the very nature and purpose of a will, problems arise where such testamentary planning is used to try and avoid discharging genuine testamentary obligations (often towards spouses or cohabitees). Disposing of assets prior to death is a risky approach not least because the law does provide for such to be reversed in certain circumstances. Furthermore, the later in life the gift is made, the more likely there will be a challenge based on failing testamentary mental capacity.

At Jones Myers we have dealt with and resolved many disputes of this type and nature. There has been an increase in the number of clients approaching us in life to advise on the likely effect and associated risk of claims as a result of their intended actions. We would encourage open dialogues with family members effected to avoid claims at a later stage.

With or without a will, where there is a dispute that has arisen, we can help resolve it.

If you would like to talk to us about any aspect of disappointed inheritance claims or disputed wills please contact Martin Holdsworth on 0113 3804571 or email martin.holdsworth@jonesmyers.co.uk

The post Gambling on inheritance: wife rolls dice for stake in multi millionaire’s estate appeared first on Jones Myers.

The decision highlights both the value of such arrangements and the importance of taking the right legal advice to draw up robust ’post-nups’ that will stand up to scrutiny in court.

Deputy High Court Judge Nicolas Cusworth QC threw out a claim by Caroline Hopkins for a further £2 million from her ex-husband William.  The couple, both in their 60s, married more than 30 years after starting an affair, but separated in 2011 just three years after tying the knot.

Under the post-nup drawn up shortly after their wedding, Caroline Hopkins would receive two properties, £350,000 and a share of Mr Hopkins’s pension. At the court hearing Mrs Hopkins, who received ‘copious volumes of legal advice’ before signing, claimed that she had been ‘bullied and badgered’ into the arrangement.

However the judge declared: “I do not find it to be a dishonest document.  I find that it was entered into freely by the wife, and with full appreciation of its implications.”

Like pre-nuptial agreements, a post-nup (agreed after a marriage or civil partnership) sets out how property, finance and other assets are to be divided if a couple split up.

A post-nup can be drawn up at any time and is increasingly popular with older couples who may have been married before, and who might have dependent children or who have brought property or assets to the marriage.

In England and Wales pre and post-nuptial arrangements are not legally binding, however as the Hopkins’s case shows, courts often uphold agreements that are well drawn-up and where there is no evidence of one party being coerced into signing. Therefore it is critical that both partners take expert independent legal advice before signing on the dotted line. If a couple can’t agree on the terms then a family lawyer may suggest that they use mediation to resolve their differences.

Following the announcement that the over 55s can take cash out of their pension pots from April 6, we may see more older couples drawing up these agreements to help protect their financial futures in the event of divorce.

If you have any questions or comments about pre or post-nuptial agreements, or any divorce related matter, please call us on 0113 246 0055, leave us a comment below or drop us an e-mail.

The post Why £2m divorce battle puts post-nups in spotlight appeared first on Jones Myers.

Could a landmark Supreme Court ruling allowing a woman to make a claim for financial support from her ex husband 20 years after their divorce open the floodgates for similar claims?

The unanimous decision by five Supreme Court judges to allow Kathleen Wyatt to seek a payout from her former husband multimillionaire Dale Vince is unprecedented.

Ms Wyatt and Mr Vince were penniless New Age travellers with a small son, Dane, at the time of their divorce.  Dale Vince made his fortune years later after founding the successful green energy company Ecotricity and was awarded an OBE. While Mr Vince is said to be worth £107m, his former wife lives on a limited income.

Many family lawyers and media commentators doubted that Kathleen Wyatt would win her case after such a long time lapse. I was not surprised as I had been involved in a not dissimilar case at the Court of Appeal some years earlier. The judges disagreed and they ruled that because there was no financial order in place at the time of the divorce – and no time limit in family law on making such orders – Ms Wyatt could apply to the Family Division of the High Court to make a claim for financial support.

There is no guarantee that Ms Wyatt will receive a substantial payout from the family court. However, the Supreme Court ruling is a timely reminder to all separated couples to have an order in place when they divorce to ensure that there will be no financial claims in the future.

Without this ‘closure’ either party could, like Kathleen Wyatt, come back with a claim for financial support from their ex many decades later. This can apply to husbands just as much as wives.

Although few people are likely to amass millions like Dale Vince, there are many of more modest means who could find their finances looking healthier some years after a divorce.  For example, an inheritance or a lottery win could change someone’s financial status substantially. Without a financial order an ex husband or wife could make a claim on that windfall.

The only way to ensure that future wealth and assets are protected is to seek legal advice when you are considering divorce. However, the demise of legal aid means that many thousands of divorcing couples are denied access to the expert advice they need.

Droves of couples are now undertaking DIY divorces and may not have considered the need to have robust financial orders in place which will give clarity and certainty to avoid delayed claims coming home to roost. Many may come to mutual agreements not endorsed by a court and which could come back to haunt them in the future. Whilst that may seem to be fine it is a recipe for disaster many years later.  No one should have to return to the court years later with all the anguish, stress and cost risking damaging a new relationship.

Dale Vince has described the court’s decision as “mad”, but his rags to riches tale should be a salutary lesson for all divorcing couples.

If you have any questions or concerns about financial orders, or any aspect of separation or divorce, please leave a comment below, drop us an e-mail or tweet us @helpwithdivorce

The post Rags to riches – delayed divorce payout ruling is cautionary tale appeared first on Jones Myers.