disclosure

You are currently browsing articles tagged disclosure.

My ex is cohabiting

January 25, 2016 in spousal maintenance by Alan Larkin | No comments

Postbox

My virtual postbag has another enquiry regarding an ex-partner who is now cohabiting:

MP tells me:

We are about to sign the paperwork regarding our financial settlement but my ex husband is lying about the fact he is cohabiting… does that make a difference for me as far as the financial settlement?

I receive a great deal of traffic about the effect of cohabitation in the context of divorce financial settlement.  I probably don’t have a lot more to say on the issue here except that this enquiry is interesting in respect of the obligation on each party to a divorce to tell the truth about their financial circumstances.  That obligation to be full and frank about any change in relevant circumstances carries on until the point an order is approved and sealed by the family court.

MP feels certain that her ex husband is lying about the fact he is cohabiting and asks whether this makes a difference as regards the financial settlement.  I can’t really answer that question as I don’t know the circumstances.  But I can say that MP’s ex needs to tell the truth about his circumstances because MP may feel that her ex’s new partner has a reasonable amount of income and can share expenses with the ex.  In other words, this new partner represents an income resource to this ex.  That may be relevant to MP’s circumstances if she is in need of spousal maintenance from her ex.  If MP has lawyers then they can advise her upon the situation.

From the sound of it, MP is about sign ‘the paperwork’ on her financial settlement.  This sounds like a consent order.  Any consent order needs to be submitted to the family court for approval and be accompanied by a Form D81 – also known as a Statement of Information Form.  One of the questions on the form requires a declaration as to whether either party is cohabiting or intends to cohabit. MP’s ex, when he signs this D81, must tell the truth.  His lawyers, if he has them, must ensure that he understands his obligations in this regard.

It is open to MP, if she feels strongly about this point, to refuse to sign the consent order or the D81 form until her ex provides a truthful response.  She will need to be guided by her lawyers.

Tags: , ,

Piercing the corporate veil in divorce

June 12, 2013 in Companies, Disclosure, International by Alan Larkin | 1 comment

 

Piercing the corporate veil in divorce

Prest v Petrodel: Piercing the corporate veil in divorce (not)

 

Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a Pygmy’s straw doth pierce it.
King Lear, 4.6.170

Piercing the corporate veil in divorce

If you are considering piercing the corporate veil in divorce proceedings, you will need more than a Pygmy’s straw.  The Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment today for family lawyers.  It is the usual heady, divorce cocktail of naughty husbands, big, big money; opaque companies; and imploring wives.  Spoiler alert: justice and fairness win out in the end.

My previous post about this case  Prest (Appellant) v Petrodel Resources Limited & Others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 34 carried a lovely quote from the Court of Appeal judge who feared that husbands with assets sheltered by company status would be given “an open road and a fast car” to defeat the reasonable claims of their wives on divorce.  The case had alarmed many family lawyers who fear that some spouses will hide certain assets – assets that should form part of the matrimonial pot for division – within company structures.  In other words, the family assets would lie behind the corporate veil and the law would be reluctant to allow the piercing of the corporate veil in divorce.

In this particular case, the husband, Mr Prest, owned the companies and when the High Court first dealt with the case, the Judge ordered some of the company properties and shares to be transferred to the wife, Mrs Prest.  The husband appealed to the Court of Appeal and argued that the orders should not have been made since the court had failed to distinguish between the husband as an individual and the companies of which he was the sole shareholder.   The husband reminded the Court of the long established legal principle that a company has a ‘legal personality’ which is independent of its shareholders.  The shareholders of a company have no interest in or entitlement to the company’s assets.  Therefore, the High Court had made a fundamental mistake when it ordered that the husband was entitled to the properties and shares in his companies and could therefore simply be ordered to transfer them to his wife.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the husband.  Cue: gnashing of teeth from family lawyers who labelled it a ‘cheat’s charter’.  There was to be no piercing of the corporate veil in divorce. The wife appealed and The Supreme Court has now considered the matter: the judgment was released today (12th June, 2013).

Scores on the door

The family court does have the power to order that “a party to the marriage shall transfer to the other party… such property as may be so specified, being property to which the first-mentioned party is entitled…”  As the Supreme Court acknowledged today, the ability of the court to exercise such a power of property transfer requires “a considerable measure of candour by the parties in disclosing their financial affairs”.  Unfortunately for the wife, the court described the husband’s conduct of the proceedings as being characterised by “persistent obstruction, obfuscation and deceit.”

The Supreme Court, like the High Court and the Court of Appeal, before it,  has decided that the piercing of the corporate veil in divorce proceedings will only be tolerated in exceptional circumstances, which would normally involve the husband acting improperly.  Now, there may be a few of you out there scratching your heads and thinking “surely, persistent obstruction, obfuscation and deceit amounts to improper behaviour?” Well, it is certainly improper, but the Supreme Court found little evidence that the companies were set up to frustrate the wife’s matrimonial claims.  Instead, the Supreme Court found that the companies were set up as a form of wealth preservation and tax mitigation.  Additionally, the court concluded that there were remedies available to the wife, such as the transfer of the properties owned by the companies, that would, and should, allow the court to stop short of piercing the corporate veil.

The Supreme Court was clear that the family court enjoyed no special rights, in attempting to provide justice and fairness to spouses, above any other court division.  As Lord Sumption, providing the leading judgment,  states:

Courts exercising family jurisdiction do not occupy a desert island in which general legal concepts are suspended or mean something different. If a right of property exists, it exists in every division of the High Court and in every jurisdiction of the county courts. If it does not exist, it does not exist anywhere. 

But, the Supreme Court still came to the wife’s rescue by finding that the seven properties were owned “beneficially’ by the husband even though not in his personal name.  This meant that the court, using its family jurisdiction, could transfer the properties to the wife and did not need to think about using a lance, or a Pygmy’s straw to pierce the corporate veil.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court emphasised the existence, and usefulness of, the family court’s ability to draw adverse inferences from the husband’s failure to make proper disclosure of his finances.  In effect, the court could speculate as to why the husband might be trying to hide the reality of his financial affairs which is not a function you will find in civil (non-family) litigation.

Despite the pragmatic outcome of this case, the Supreme Court went on, Lord Neuberger in particular, to consider whether the piercing of the corporate veil, could be said to exist as a doctrine.  Lord Neuberger said it did exist.  But in what circumstances should it be deployed by the courts? Lord Neuberger declares:

The doctrine should only be invoked where “a person is under an existing legal obligation or liability or subject to an existing legal restriction which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control”.

I welcome this judgment.  Like other commentators, I am pleasantly surprised at the fairness of the outcome.  However, I do not share the general gush of enthusiasm exhibited by some.  I do not see this decision as groundbreaking or even great news for wives in general.  This judicial approach could be summed up as: let’s exhaust all the other options first.  If everything else fails, we’ll blow the dust off the doctrine and give it a spin but only if the husband is a lying git of the highest order.  And you have the dosh to stay the legal course.

Last word

James Turner divorce finance toolkit Prest Petrodel

James Turner QC

The last word on the topic of piercing the corporate veil in divorce I leave to James Turner QC.  I asked James today for an off the cuff response to the judgment and, despite being extremely busy, as usual, he graced me with a sensible, and level response.

“This is an unexpected result, but it is pleasing to see that the courts are doing what they can to prevent a divorcing spouse from avoiding true justice.  However, it may create problems in future cases when deciding whether or not to join companies and trustees as parties, with the consequential expense of such a course”.

Tags: , , ,

Video: How to request a pension valuation on divorce

May 14, 2012 in Disclosure, Form E, Pensions by Alan Larkin | 2 comments

Completing Form E within divorce proceedings is difficult enough but one of the main mistakes is to underestimate the length of time it takes for pension providers to cough up the pension information.  But in the first place, it helps to submit the correct document: this is Form P (Pension Inquiry) to each pension fund holder. Using Form P is essential, otherwise the pension providers will not know the context of your request is a divorce and therefore will not give you the information needed for Form E.

Here is a short video on:

  • how to find the Form P for free on the internet;
  • the relationship between Form E and Form P;
  • how to complete Form P.

Form P is essentially used for the majority of private pension funds.  A different pension information request form is used if you are, for instance, in the armed services,  a police officer or a teacher.  As ever, I can always post on these exceptional circumstances if there is enough interest.

Tags: , ,

Client confidentiality may be in the Cloud.

October 2, 2011 in Disclosure, Technology by Alan Larkin | No comments

Image by @Williamslegal

There can hardly be a family lawyer in the land who has not shivered with horror at the news that one of their letters of client advice, containing deeply personal and confidential information, has fallen into the hands of their client’s other half.  How could this have happened?  And what could have been done to prevent it happening in the first place?  I suspect that nowadays, it is more likely to be an email that has been compromised rather than a letter.

Adios snail mail

It is often the case that advice will be sought whilst a client is still living with their spouse or partner in the same property. A problem arises when the solicitor wishes to confirm the advice given in writing. In the days when snail mail was the only option, it was often agreed that the post would be sent to a trusted third party rather than to the client’s home address. The use of e-mail, which has the benefit of speed, is often requested by clients still sharing a property with the person from whom they wish to separate.  Even if the parties have separated, it may be the case that the departed spouse comes back from time to time to pick up post, or possessions.  These visits may occur when the occupying spouse is absent.  It strikes me that sending an e-mail to a client’s email account, which will be accessed from a shared computer  in the matrimonial home is as dangerous as sending a hardcopy letter to the home bearing the legend “DEEPLY PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM YOUR DIVORCE SOLICITOR”.  In fact, it is probably easier for a client’s partner to stumble across and read a confidential e-mail from a lawyer (and then then hit “Mark as unread”) than it is to steam open a hardcopy letter before glueing the envelope back down.

Clouds in my coffee

It is imperative in most family law situations, (the possible exception being the collaborative law model) that communications between solicitors and clients are kept private.  Confidentiality is key.  How can a client discuss matters of importance with candour and expect equally candid advice if such communications are likely to be intercepted and compromised?  So, what can you do to retain the benefits of electronic communication whilst maximising its security and confidentiality?

Try these tips:

  1. If you want to receive email communication to your home on a shared computer then consider setting up your own user account that you log into and out of when the computer is on.  This will require a password.  This is relatively secure but may be overridden if you are not the person who set up the computer in the first place – often known as the Administrator.
  2. Go a step further and open an email account with a hosted e-mail provider (in what is colloquially called The Cloud). GMail is just one example.  Set your username, password, and security questions, and do not reveal them to anybody else. Do not leave these details written down. If you absolutely must keep a record of the account information for fear of forgetting the passwords, then consider retaining the information on your smart phone, if you have one, but heed the next tip.
  3. Ensure that you have a pin code on your smart phone, laptop or tablet to prevent your spouse or partner accessing these details when you are not around.
  4. You can then give this hosted e-mail account to your solicitor. The e-mail communications will not appear on your home PC provided you have not set up a forwarding facility on to a conventional e-mail account that can be accessed at home.
  5. When setting up a hosted email account you will often have to provide a pre-existing email address.  This is likely to be your email account in the shared home.  A validation email will be sent from the hosted account to your existing email account as part of the set – up process.  Once this has arrived, deal with any action required but then immediately delete the welcoming email  it (and then delete again from the trash folder).  This will prevent your partner being aware that you have an additional email account.
  6. Such cloud services offer more than just email.  If your solicitor has sent you draft letters or settlement options for consideration, you can retain them in the cloud, amend them and then send back to your solicitor.  You need not ever print off a document that could be inadvertently read by your partner. You can therefore have a complete set of correspondence from your solicitor which you will retain online rather than having a printed file of documentation which could fall into the wrong hands. As an alternative to  the online storage solutions offered by Google, you could consider opening a Dropbox account which, to my personal taste, is a more elegant and functional solution than Google Docs.
  7. Before you login to your hosted e-mail account, see if you can select “Private Browsing” in your Internet browser.   This prevents a record of your browsing history (including your visits to a hosted email account) being created on your home PC.  Alternatively, when you log out of a browsing session, you can delete the browsing history. This would prevent a suspicious partner from looking at the recently browsed or accessed webpages and deducing that you have a private e-mail account even if they cannot access it.

The phenomenal growth in the smart phone market, now complemented by the astonishing popularity of the Apple iPad and Apple’s competitors rushing to also grab a slice of the tablet market, has freed us from the shackles of a desk-bound computer.  We can access emails and documents from just about anywhere on a number of electronic devices.  Family lawyers must be more flexible about the ways in which they balance their clients’ demands to be kept informed with their competing right to confidentiality.

Tags: ,

Form E Top Tips

September 30, 2011 in Disclosure, Form E, Technology by Alan Larkin | No comments

Divorce, Next ExitI might have known that I could not write a blog aimed at helping people to get their heads around divorce finance issues without coming back, time and again, to Form E.  The magnificent, overblown Form E.  If Form E were a film it would be Citizen Kane.  If it were a novel it would be War and Peace.

Despite the fact that Form E is designed as a financial questionnaire, even its apparently straightforward sections can provoke confusion and mistakes.  A few of my clients had problems with Section 2.3 which asks for the listing of all bank and building society accounts.  Here are a few pointers on this particular section

Form E Section 2.3 

Details of all personal bank, building society and National Savings Accounts that you hold or have held at any time in the last twelve months and which are or were either in your own name or in which you have or have had any interest. This applies whether any such account is in credit or in debit. For joint accounts give your interest and the name of the other account holder. If the account is overdrawn, show a minus figure.

If you have money in another person’s bank account, you must still disclose your interest (the amount you have in the account) at this section of the Form E. TIP If you have online access to your bank accounts you can usually print off the last 12 months’ bank statements directly to your printer.  If you are having difficulty obtaining missing bank statements, your bank is obliged to provide up to the last 6 years’ worth of bank statements provided you state clearly it is a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for which the maximum charge is £10.00. There are some common mistakes to avoid:

  1. Forgetting to include details (and statements) for accounts closed in the past 12 months.  If your spouse is aware that you had such an account but you do not disclose it, it can arouse suspicion and mistrust.  Remember to include the closing statement so it is clear the account has been closed.
  2. If you do not want your spouse to know where you are living (arising from a genuine concern for your safety or that of your children) and have withheld your address in the divorce or civil partnership proceedings, you should ‘redact’ (blank out with a thick felt pen) any identifying geographical information such as your address and also any local ATM cashpoints that you use.  DO NOT BLANK OUT AMOUNTS OF MONEY AS THAT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.
  3. Ensure you have complete sets of statements for each account.  Through no fault of your own, you may be missing a few pages and if there are significant changes in the balances of the accounts then your spouse may think you are hiding something.
  4. If the bank account you disclose is a joint one then make sure you only put down 50% of the final balance as your interest.
  5. Finally, do not forget to deduct the value of any overdrawn accounts rather than adding them in.  This happens more often than you may think, especially if there are 8 or 9  bank accounts all jostling for space in this section of the Form E.
There.  Hope that makes it all clear.  
Post-script: I am pleased to say that after many years of effort one of my tech projects has led to the creation of the Siaro platform.  This platform will be available to lawyers but free to their clients and one of the features is the automatic production of a Form E which I hope will go some way to removing the errors that often appear in the completion of this document.

Tags: , , ,

The mysterious case of the missing house

September 28, 2011 in Disclosure, Form E by Alan Larkin | 2 comments

 

Very occasionally in divorce proceedings one spouse will forget to disclose one of their assets on Form E, nothing major you understand, just one of those big bricks and mortar things called a house. It’s easily done.  Often, just a gentle nudge by way of an enquiring solicitor’s letter or even a court approved questionnaire if you are in the middle of financial proceedings will do the trick and get the response: “Oh, that house…”

But what can you do if the spouse swears blind that there is no other property even though you distinctly remember them whispering about it to their accountant or investment manager?  What do you do if you have no idea where the property may be, not even which town it may be sitting in?  You can’t do a Land Registry search unless you have a specific address.  Or can you?

Here’s a little trick.  Ask your spouse to help you complete a form from Land Registry called PN1 which allows a search in the Index of Proprietors’ Names. That is, it allows a search against a name and will reveal the details of any properties owned by that person.  The Land Registry will not accept the form unless your spouse has provided their consent on the form.  But if your spouse has nothing to hide they will be happy to complete the form and let you do the search.  If they refuse, you can always ask the court to draw an adverse inference from the refusal by concluding that there is indeed something to hide  In that case, if the court is on your side you can ask the court to order a search in the Index of Proprietors’ Names.  This does not require your spouse’s consent.

This approach is not foolproof though.  It is possible that your spouse owns the property through a company so you will need submit a search in the name of the company as well as the name of your spouse.  More difficult still would be if your spouse had given funds to a private individual who has purchased the property in that individual’s name.

But despite these drawbacks, this is a useful weapon to have in the disclosure armoury.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Post-divorce cohabitation

September 7, 2011 in Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing, Form E, spousal maintenance, Variation maintenance by Alan Larkin | No comments

Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Both were in short supply on the occasion I represented a client at a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing in an outer London county court whose architect had taken to heart the brutalist aesthetic of the early 1970’s.  My client had divorced his wife some 10 years previously and had been paying her maintenance ever since.  In the original court hearing my client had claimed that his wife was in a relationship of cohabitation with her new partner.  The wife vehemently denied this, my client’s lawyers had said it was a kite that would barely fly and so the case settled on the first day of the trial.

Fast forward to my involvement after the husband discovers that his ex-wife is shacked up with another man and they were happily settled in another jurisdiction.  My client didn’t care in the slightest about the relationship in itself but further investigation revealed that, surprise, surprise, the new man was in fact the same man about whom the husband had harboured suspicions a decade earlier. This new man was working.  Why, therefore, my client asked, should he carry on paying maintenance for his ex-wife when this spousal maintenance was directly contributing to the living standards of a man quite capable of earning his own living?

This was a case in which the children were grown up and quite independent of the former spouses.

My attempts to invite voluntary financial disclosure from the ex-wife with a view to negotiating a cessation or downwards variation of maintenance met with little success.  My client therefore had to issue variation proceedings (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, section 31) asking the court to either terminate his spousal maintenance payments or at least to reduce them.

The ex-wife made two attempts at producing her Form E but the contents were evasive to say the least. Eventually, I was able to obtain an admission that she had cohabited with her new partner for the past seven years.  It was clear that she had gone to considerable lengths to conceal the fact of the co-habitation from my client.  Legally, there was no reason for her to do so as the original court order from ten years ago, awarding her spousal maintenance, had not stipulated that the payments should end or be reduced in the event of her cohabitation with a new partner.

The proceedings were settled at the FDR with the wife agreeing a reduction in her spousal maintenance.  The judge, whose role at the FDR is to assist the parties to reach compromise and avoid the lottery and costs of a trial, was not required to reach any conclusions (what lawyers would call a finding of fact) about whether the former wife had deliberately attempted to conceal her co-habitation from my client, or whether she had attempted to mislead me, my client and the court by filing inadequate Forms E before making a late admission that she had, indeed, been cohabiting.  The judge was unwilling to comment adversely upon these matters and criticise the wife.  My client was not willing to incur the further expense of going to trial so that is why a deal was struck.

I had to explain to my client that if his ex-wife had married her new man, then the spousal maintenance payments would end automatically.  But shacking up was different.  The English family court does not regard a relationship of cohabitation as having the same gravity as one of marriage.  So, the logic goes, my client’s obligations to his ex-wife arising out of his marriage, were of such significance that they could not be displaced by the ‘inferior’ relationship of mere cohabitation entered into by his ex-wife.  He must continue to pay maintenance, enriching the joint financial position of his former wife and her new (working) partner.

I wondered if the ex-wife would appreciate that her relationship of seven years (I suspect closer to ten years) was inferior to the relationship of marriage she had formerly enjoyed with my client.  I wondered if any cohabitees, the length and breadth of this jurisdiction, would appreciate the second-class nature of their relationships compared to their married counterparts.

Why then was the ex-wife so intent on concealing her new relationship when there was nothing in the original court order that would prevent her co-habiting and losing her spousal maintenance?  I think the answer is that she knew, instinctively, morally if you will, that it was wrong to continue receiving the maintenance when she was in a new and settled relationship.  That is why she concealed her partner.  I think this judicial attitude towards co-habitation has to change.  I consider it is out of step with how a significant proportion of the English population choose to lead their lives.   The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 belongs to, well… 1973 and brutalist architecture.  Society has moved on since then.  Forty per cent of all children in this jurisdiction are born to unmarried couples.

I had hoped that Parliament would revisit the rights of cohabitants and in so doing, enable cohabitants to seek financial relief from each other in certain circumstances.   This would then open the way for ex-spouses to be relieved of their financial maintenance obligations when their ex was in a settled relationship of cohabitation with a new partner.  Unfortunately, the recommendations of the 2007 Law Commission Consultation Paper suggesting legal rights and remedies as between cohabitants was quietly shelved by the Government last week.  That is a spineless and neglectful decision.  Previous administrations have at least had the courage to wait until the Daily Mail ran an adverse editorial before running for the hills.  The present Government, whose earlier decision to take the axe to public funding for most family law cases, is hardly covering itself in progressive, legislative glory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Without Prejudice – new addition to my Legal Lexicon

September 5, 2011 in Self-Representation by Alan Larkin | No comments

“Without Prejudice”.  The words sit proudly, perhaps ominously, atop the family solicitor’s letter setting out the latest financial offer in the war of the spouses.

I’m often asked what this term means and have therefore added it to my Legal Lexicon.  To lawyers, the term represents a form of legal privilege (there are different forms of legal privilege but I need not go into that here).  What is legal privilege?  Well, imagine your divorce lawyer wants to make a financial offer on your behalf.  If the offer is made in an open solicitor’s letter then this offer can be shown to a judge in any court proceedings.  The offer may be overly generous with a view to bringing proceedings to an end but if the expensive proceedings drag on then it will not be possible to ask the judge to ‘forget’ the terms of your offer.  But if the offer letter is written “without privilege” it is a way of testing the water for settlement without the judge seeing the letter and being influenced by it in the subsequent proceedings.

Such ‘without prejudice’ letters can be read by a judge in a special type of hearing called a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing when offers can be compared and the judge can comment upon the reasonableness of the settlement positions.  If settlement cannot be achieved at the FDR the same judge cannot then preside over the final hearing (or trial) as otherwise they would remember the ‘without prejudice’ offers and be influenced by them.

 

Tags: , , ,

Form E: bank and building society accounts

May 17, 2011 in Form E by Alan Larkin | No comments

I’ve had a few clients come unstuck on the dreaded Form E financial disclosure form.  It’s a beast of a document and is the foundation of the disclosure process in divorce and civil partnership proceedings.  I will be posting on some of the more problematic sections of this document such as paragraph 2.3 which asks for:

2.3 Details of all personal bank, building society and National Savings Accounts that you hold or have held at any time in the last twelve months and which are or were either in your own name or in which you have or have had any interest. This applies whether any such account is in credit or in debit. For joint accounts give your interest and the name of the other account holder. If the account is overdrawn, show a minus figure.

If you have money in another person’s bank account, you must still disclose your interest (the amount you have in the account) at this section of the Form E.

If you have online access to your bank accounts you can usually print off the last 12 months’ bank statements directly to your printer.  If you are having difficulty obtaining missing bank statements, your bank is obliged to provide up to the last 6 years’ worth of bank statements provided you state clearly it is a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for which the maximum charge is £10.00.

There are some common mistakes to avoid:

  1. Forgetting to include details (and statements) for accounts closed in the past 12 months.  If your spouse is aware that you had such an account but you do not disclose it, it can arouse suspicion and mistrust.  Remember to include the closing statement so it is clear the account has been closed.
  2. If you do not want your spouse to know where you are living (arising from a genuine concern for your safety or that of your children) and have withheld your address in the divorce or civil partnership proceedings, you should ‘redact’ (blank out with a thick felt pen) any identifying geographical information such as your address and also any local ATM cashpoints that you use.  DO NOT BLANK OUT AMOUNTS OF MONEY AS THAT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.
  3. Ensure you have complete sets of statements for each account.  Through no fault of your own, you may be missing a few pages and if there are significant changes in the balances of the accounts then your spouse may think you are hiding something.
  4. If the bank account you disclose is a joint one then make sure you only put down 50% of the final balance as your interest.
  5. Finally, do not forget to deduct the value of any overdrawn accounts rather than adding them in.  This happens more often than you may think, especially if there are 8 or 9  bank accounts all jostling for space in this section of the Form E.

Good luck!

 

 

 

Tags: , ,

Form E=MC2

April 2, 2011 in Form E, Technology by Alan Larkin | 7 comments

Form E – Towards a new theory of relativity

With all apologies to Einstein I would like to propose a re-formulation of his classic theory E=MC2.  As follows:

E = Form E

M= Matrimonial

C = Confusion

2= both spouses/civil partners

The expense of the divorce case is accelerated by the Form E creating Matrimonial Confusion in the minds of both spouses.  Many people struggle with the Form E  (some lawyers too, I dare say) and it is a form that can catch out the unwary.  Luckily, instead of just one Form E, we now have three Forms E.  Simple.

The Family Procedure Rules 2010 came into force on 6th April, 2011.  One of the changes introduced is the splitting of the olde worlde Form E into three new forms:

Form E – this is the document that should be used by husbands and wives or civil partners in divorce or civil partnership dissolution proceedings to disclose their finances when applying for a Financial Order or if applying for financial relief following a divorce or dissolution overseas.  This is by some margin, the largest and most complex  financial disclosure document designed to torture lawyers and clients alike.  Fortunately, I expect the Siaro platform to be able to generate a Form E for family lawyers with virtually one click which should produce costs savings for clients.

Form E1 – this is the document that should be used for any other financial remedy in the County Court (in other words, do not use this form if you are divorcing your spouse or civil partner).  Form E1 is suitable for claims made on behalf of children under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 (for instance, if the children’s parents are not married or in a civil partnership).

Form E2 – this is the document to use when applying for a financial order in the Family Proceedings Court (the Magistrates’ Court).  It is simplified and presumes that the parties will have a small capital base and modest income.

To attempt to shine some light on these Forms I will be dealing with certain pages or sections of the documents as and when they appear to cause some difficulty right here

Tags: , , , ,