Business
How would Downton Abbey be treated on divorce”
30th November 2011
By Tony Roe, Principal, Tony Roe Solicitors, Divorce & Family Lawyers, Theale
As far as I know, there are no plans for the fictional Earl and Countess of Grantham in ITV’s Downton Abbey to divorce in any forthcoming script. What would be the outcome if a modern day version of these imaginary characters came before the court?The leading House of Lords case of White v White in 2000 was a quantum leap in terms of divorce awards. Until that point, wives, particularly, had been awarded settlements on the basis of their needs. White emphasised the importance of the key factors to be considered. It held that there was no room for discrimination between breadwinner and homemaker. Equality of division of the assets became the starting point. A judge was only to depart from equality if there was good reason to do so.
And what about inheritance and assets acquired prior to the marriage? Downton Abbey, after all, was inherited. In White, the Lords said, “Property acquired before marriage and inherited property acquired during marriage come from a source wholly external to the marriage....where this property still exists, the spouse to whom it was given should be allowed to keep it. ...The nature and value of the property, and the time when and circumstances in which the property was acquired, are among the relevant matters to be considered”. Crucially though, the court added that the fact property was inherited would not matter if a party’s needs could not otherwise be met.
Recently, there has been a raft of inherited wealth cases. In Robson v Robson, the husband, whose father founded of accountants’ firm, Robson Rhodes, had inherited estates in Oxfordshire and Scotland. The husband promptly sold up for £14m before the wife’s appeal was heard. The Court of Appeal found that inherited wealth formed part of the resources to be taken into account, but its nature was relevant and could lead to it being treated differently. An ancestral pile could be distinguished from a farm acquired by one’s parents. Moreover, the duration of the marriage and the period during which the wealth had been enjoyed by the spouses would also be relevant. The couple had been married 22 years. The wife was awarded £7m.
The courts have held that the importance of inherited assets may diminish over time. Yet, in K v L, the Court of Appeal decided that it would ring-fence the wife’s shares in a family business, worth £57m, inherited long before the marriage. This inheritance had been kept separate from matrimonial property, even after a 21 year marriage and three children. The husband received only £5m.
Meanwhile, in Jones v Jones, the appeal court deducted its assessed value, pre-marriage, of the husband’s business, applied a sharing principle to the remaining £16m worth of matrimonial property, giving the wife £8m. There was no reason to depart from equality.
So where does this leave the hapless Downton dynasty? A thorough overview of the financial history of the fictitious marriage would be needed to advise. After all, no matter what the legal principles are, circumstances alter cases.
Tony Roe Solicitors, Divorce & Family Lawyers, Theale, appears in the independently researched Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners directories: www.tonyroesolicitors.com
More From: Business News Next Story: Youth unemployment and what it means for business Previous Story: Shopkeeper opens for business, aged just 20