Advice for Claim for Financial Relief - Report Example

Advice for Claim for Financial Relief Table of Contents Introduction 3 Case Overview 3 Legal Concerns 4 Recommendations 5 Conclusion 9 References 11 Introduction In general, financial claims for proceeding mutual adjustment in case of married couples, applying for divorce or separation, consider splitting the property equally where both the individuals enjoy same benefits. A property adjustment order proceeds to transfer the ownership of the property from one partner to other. In this context of transferring assets to other person, the shared property may include lands and buildings which can be considered as one of the most usual subjects of the order. However, in various cases it can also observed that the financial investments are further included within the transferring process1. Based on this context, the report intends to develop a financial claim which provides an equal distribution of properties including houses and investments of a married couple, Megan and Hugh. Therefore, the discussion of the report will focus towards developing the financial claim which will be incorporated necessary elements including law, property claiming act along with other major concerns. Case Overview According to the case, it can be observed that Megan and Hugh agreed to mutually separate from each other due to personal conflicts based on adultery issues. As noted by Megan, it can be observed that she wants divorce from Hugh on the grounds of adultery allegations, after discovering that Hugh has been engaged in an affair for a year with one of her friends. It has been since then that the duo had been conflicting upon sharing the property and other savings and investments including, land and houses and other assets. In this context, Megan wanted to be separated from Hugh and proceed to split the property with an equal distribution among both. In relation to sharing the properties, Hugh has however refused to share investments and pensions to Megan. Although Hugh has agreed to pay child maintenance charged allowing the children to stay with their mother, he has confirmed to be unwilling to pay the maintenance amount for Megan affirming that she should be working as she had already planned after the birth of their first child when resigning from her last job. Legal Concerns In the context of the policy constitute in the UK family law act, a person can make legal application to the Court for orders in order to mitigate issues concerning financial factors including division of property and assets, valuation of houses and buildings along with other investment, pension as well as maintenance related issues. From the perspective of the case of Megan and Hugh, the particular application can be identified to be associated with divorce proceedings which are generally considered as Ancillary Relief (AR) Proceedings2. In the context of divorce or property separation, assets owned by the spouses can be defined as the matrimonial assets which are separated in an effective way in order to signify a fair judgement for both the parties benefitting the duo equally. With this concern, the court can enforce an order if the spouses are observed to be unable to make any agreement for their AR Proceedings. The considerable factors that shall be undertaken by the court can be identified in terms of marriage duration, age of the spouses, financial resources of each individual along with their income levels and future probable obligations3. It is in this context that needs concerning the custody of any children is also referred as a considerable factor for the court to render judgement in the case of AR proceedings between the spouses4. Recommendations According to the legal guidelines of the UK family law, either wife or husband can legally apply for AR Proceedings which can be formed to commence divorce agreement among the duo. In general, a hearing process considering all types of claims and applications are to be followed by both the parties, at the same time by the court as well. With this regard, it becomes an important and preferable process to reach a mutual agreement among the couple rather to impose a resolution from the court. However, the judiciary procedure might consist of a wide discretion in order to apply the legal concerns which can lead to indecisive judgement in a court hearing along with significant delay and cost5. Furthermore, in the context of UK property division act, in relationship dissolution among husband and wife, it can be observed that judgement can be obtained in accordance with any of the four dimensions which are significantly designed for AR proceedings which have been discussed below. Property Adjustment Order According to the act of Property Adjustment Order, the judgement rendered can be favourable to transfer the ownership of the properties including lands and buildings and other long-term assets to the other partner. In this type of orders, houses and buildings can be considered as the most common subjects; however, investments and other financial mortgages are also frequently included within the property adjustment order among the engaged duo6. Hence, according to the case of Megan and Hugh, it can be identified an equal distribution will be made among both the person. In this concern, it is likely that the court will attempt to compare the net value of properties hold by Hugh and Megan separately while rendering judgement upon its transfer. In this case, it has been found that Megan owned a property value £100,000 in Wales, while the ownership of their current residential house in Hertford amounting £650,000 was divided between both the parties. Hence, the court might render a judgement that Hugh can obtain the ownership of their property at Hertford provided he compensates 50% of the property’s net value to Megan or provide 50% of the difference between the valuation of the property in Hertford and the property at Wales to Megan. Lump Sum Order The lump sum order may endow with the payment of compensation amount or maintenance to be provided to the other party at a settled date or time. Moreover, the payment mode may also involve certain instalment options rather than paying in a single mode7. A lump sum order in the mutually separation process among the couples, such as in the case of Megan and Hugh, cannot be varied except the procedure is a lump sum with a provision of instalment options by the court. However, under this provision, the court possesses a limited authority to decide upon paying the due instalments through changing the payable amount and/or the mode and time of payment. Contextually, the payment mode in the lump sum order is likely to be changed or developed by the court by fairly recognising the circumstances of the couple demanding for financial relief and his/her financial position after confirming the order8. Pension Sharing Order Under the pension sharing order, amounts saved as pensions by both the parties can be recognised as one of the major and valuable marital assets which must be measured in the AR proceedings. Fundamentally, the pensions involve three major categories through which it is implemented in the AR proceedings. Offsetting: The technique involves equalising the value of the fund to be shared with the other transferable assets which are to be provided to the other party Attachment: It allows the amount of the fund that is payable to the former spouse, rather than transferring assets to the second party Sharing: It allows courts to split the pension amount and considerable rights at the time of separation equally Notably, the sharing process is considered as one of the most popular and favourable orders for the individuals applying AR proceedings. The pension sharing procedure in the AR proceeding is made through directing the transferable processes of the benefits of spouse to the other partner9. Therefore, the pension savings of Hugh till date and their mutual savings amounting to £20,000 are likely to be shared equally between the parties as per the court’s order. Maintenance Order The maintenance order in the AR proceedings involves the responsibility of one person to pay the specified amount to his/her partner in the case of marriages, as an income on a monthly or weekly basis which is also applicable for the case of Megan and Hugh. The maintenance order can be stated at any time after divorce among the partners is commenced. The court can make temporary orders such as ‘maintenance pending suit’, ‘interim maintenance’ or ‘interim periodical payments’ which tend to make the maintenance order faster rendering the advantages of cost as well as time efficiency. The maintenance order may occur for an unlimited period or it may also be performed for a specific period. Moreover, the maintenance order is stipulated in specific time without providing any extension facility to the spouse10. Conclusion According to the UK family law act, Megan and Hugh can be affirmed as liable for equal compensation from a generalise point of view. However, judgement might differ on the basis of their basic requirements and voluntary agreements. For instance, even though Megan wills to register for obtaining 50% of the value invested privately by Hugh amounting to £30000, the court, under the property adjustment order, may restrict in rendering judgement as the factors to be considered in this provision exclude such financial instruments. Again, in relation to the plea of Hugh, the court might render a judgement for the transfer of ownership taking into account the land and building property owned by Megan from her grandmother. Concerning, Hugh’s plea to obtain the ownership of their current residential house at Hertford, it can be stated that the court shall primarily take into concern the financial needs, emotional attachments and other factors into account when deciding upon the transfer of property. The probable judgements that can be offered in this case might allow the transfer of ownership in favour of Hugh subjected to Megan’s agreement and 50% of the property value rendered as compensation by Hugh to his wife and children. This judgement can be further justified on the basis that the children’s custody is agreed to be held by Megan, which increases her future obligations more than compare to Hugh. However, court might not take into concern the transfer of other assets in terms of investments without the voluntary agreement of both the parties. References Act Family Law, ‘Financial Claims In Divorce Proceedings’, The Orders. < http://www.actfamilylaw.co.uk/downloads/ancillary_relief.pdf>, 2009, (accessed 7th January 2013). Crown, ‘Matrimonial Causes Act 1973’, The National Archives, , No Date, (accessed 7th January 2013). Bird, R. & King, A. ‘Ancillary Relief and Financial Orders Handbook’, Chapter 1 Introduction to Financial Remedies, , 2011, (accessed 7th January 2013). Fisher, H. ‘Divorce property division laws and the decision to marry or cohabit’, Model results and implications, http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/hcf26/pubs/divorcelaw.pdf>, 2009, (accessed 7th January 2013). Prolegal Solicitors London, ‘Ancillary Relief (Financial Remedy) Factsheet’, Family Law - Financial claims, < http://www.prolegal.co.uk/family-law-uk/financial-claims.htm> No Date, (accessed 7th January 2013). Cretney, S. Family Law in the Twentieth Century: A History, Legal Consequences: Property Regimes, Oxford University Press, p. 117. Read More