Financial Remedies And Spousal Tort Immunity

Fairness in Family law

Divorce is an issue that becomes quite difficult to handle, especially where wealth distribution is involved. Distribution of financial assets or child arrangement orders becomes a challenge to spouses in case of divorce or marriage breakdown. There are some cases where the spouses managed to accumulate a lot of wealth together. The same problems arise where the spouses had children who would get affected by the pending divorce. However, the partners will expect to get a fair judgment on property distribution irrespective of the situation. in this study. The paper scrutinizes the justice system to see if it offers enough remedies for such situations. In this case, the focus is whether both parties can receive a fair allocation of the resources.

The study looks into the divorce cases that involve the distribution of their accumulated resources during the divorce. There have been several cases presented before the courts seeking fairness of such situations. Such cases include the White v White [2001] case, which involved property distribution among the couples. However, in most cases, some elements of dissatisfaction arise from one party prompting several appeals in court. Judges can decide to listen to such appeals or reject them, as in the Cooper-Hohn v Hohn case. The statutes put were established to provide a level platform for the parties to get their fair share. When there arises a property distribution case, everyone turns to the statutes to save the situation.

Ancillary Relief

Ancillary relief is a provision that allows the court to decide the distribution of assets between the divorcees.[1] It forms part of the divorce, which deals with financial arrangements including pension sharing, maintenance, mortgages, and sharing financial assets. However, the parties involved have an option of settling the financial issues without involving the court. Settlement out of court is not an advisable method since such agreements are not legally binding. Many people opt for the court to provide subordinate help when they can not settle issues outside the court.[2] The divorcing partners are allowed to make the application after they have taken their case to court. The set guidelines in the statutes aim at settling such cases to the satisfaction of both parties involved in the divorce.

The Statutes

Several statutes have been put in place to help settle financial distributions during divorces. One such statute is chapter 18 of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973. To address the fair distribution of finances and other assets during divorce, the MCA, 1973, laid down some guidelines. The statute works to permit the court a comprehensive discretionary ability when sharing assets during divorce. Section 23 of the act provides the legal path to follow in distributing resources between the parties. Among the factors to be looked into are any children in the family connected to the divorce proceedings.[3] The act requires that the court make payments in favor of any child born in the family. It also captures any lump sum in favor of a party under the same section 23.

Section 25 of the act contains prominent statutory provisions that influence such discretionary powers. It puts into consideration several issues which the judiciary must look into when reallocating possessions. The act requires that the judges exercise high levels of fairness when handling such cases. Judges have the power to reject a prior agreement if they sense any signs of unfairness. Whether viewed through the lens of the law or as a prerequisite of overarching, the objective should be fair wealth division. However, there is no guarantee that the judges will always be impartial in the eyes of the divorcing couples. There are instances when one party might not be satisfied with the decisions reached.

Away from the Matrimonial Causes Act, the Family Procedure Rules offer legal guidelines for solving financial cases. The statute provides that the parties must approach the issue very openly and without any reservations. It encourages exhaustive discussions, majorly aimed at settling the dispute between the involved individuals. It directs that the courts obtain offers and proposals from the parties and give proper considerations to them. However, the submissions or suggestions made in court do not apply to those made outside the court. All the procedures that the court follows in the financial dispute resolutions are to bring fairness. Allowing both parties to make offers and proposals increases the chances of knowing what amounts each should receive.

The Case Studies

In the White v. White case, many factors need deep consideration before settling on a particular method. Due to the complexity of the matters in hand, many court cases and appeals came up.[4] However, the court held out that Mrs. White was entitled to receive a lump sum of £1.5 million. It was compensation due to her contribution both to the family and the business as well. Therefore, it means that Mrs. White was treated fairly by being given an allocation equivalent to her contribution. People can assume that such compensations are hard to achieve had they decided to solve the issue outside the court. The court’s decision was a binding protocol that either party could not breach.

In the Cooper-Hohn v Hohn case, another instance about distribution arises where the court has to make a fair decision. The court established that both parties had periods when they were not employed, resulting in financial difficulties.[5] The court considers all other investments made by the couple, which were subject to distribution. Because of the children born during this marriage, the court allocates some money to them for their upkeep. The wife receives an award of up to US$530, representing approximately 36% of their wealth. It was fair for the court to listen to both parties and seek more information about the wealth in dispute. Therefore, it is evident that the courts can offer more fairness when it comes to allocating shared resources. Together with several other cases, the judiciary will provide a suitable platform for both parties to express themselves.

Shortcomings of the Statutes

Even though the statutes provide a platform for fairness and equality, they have had their share of public criticism. Some people were not satisfied by the application of the laws in their cases. As a result, there were many appeals and cross-appeals as members sought clarity on the statutes. It has become impossible for the court systems to lay strict guidelines for handling the cases. The scenario comes up due to the numerous factual methods in matrimonial cases before the court. Therefore, it calls for extra carefulness when taking and giving verdicts on such matters. The fairness in the cases will often shift due to the dynamic life as years come and go.

However, giving the courts the full responsibility of deciding on all the divorce and distribution of issues is a burden. Therefore, other professionals need to be involved in such cases to help in solving them. Using professionals such as psychologists, financial advisors, and psychiatrists will give the court an easy time. With their help, partners can get some advice on the advantages and disadvantages of dissolving an existing business to start independent ventures. Financial advisors can do such work after assessing the outcomes of splitting their investments. Psychiatrists and psychologists can help in determining the partners’ state of mind. Doing such evaluations will allow the court to handle the cases more appropriately. However, fairness should always have the priority when carrying out such cases involving property distribution.

References

Cases

Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 4122 (Fam); [2015] 1 F.L.R. 745.

White v White [2001] 1 A.C 596; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1571.

Statutes

Family Procedures Rules 2010 (SI 2010/2955), Pt 6, Pt 7

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

[1] Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

[2] Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

[3] Family Procedures Rules 2010 (SI 2010/2955), Pt 6, Pt 7

[4] White v White [2001] 1 A.C 596; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1571.

[5] Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 4122 (Fam); [2015] 1 F.L.R. 745.