Financial Provision On Divorce - Shula Biros' Essay.

Shula Biros and her husband married on 5^th July 2005 at Marylebone they used to live in a flat which was bought by Shula couple of years before. Now the couple are living in the property which is 4 bedroom house which was of euro 250,000. As this property was bought by both husband and wife as 120,000 euro has been submitted by deposits and 100,000 was from the savings and 20,000 was from the profits which Shula Biros has made it from the flat she owned. Shula’s parents also contributed 10,000 euro for the purchase of the flat. Jeff has contributed the sum of 80,000 after receiving the money of inheritance. They also took 130,000 mortgage with Hatfield Building Society. The couple had three sons named Miles, born on 23rd October 2009 and twins Lewis and Ronan born on 1^st March 2014. Miles is in Year 8 at a secondary school in St Albans, a couple of miles from the family home and Lewis and Ronan are at the local primary school close by. Shula wants divorce from her husband and has approached us for seeking the advice on the financial matter. The main ground for divorce that has been seeked by the Shula Biros is that Jeff Biros her husband has been more controlling over the years. In terms of money and always scrutinizing the bank accounts and her expenditure and questioning her for buying anything for herself and for her children. Shula also stated that she has been diagnosed with MS couple of years ago and this was a very huge shock for her. Due to her disease she has been taking a lot of medication. The client has also stated that she has also not got any support from her husband and due to which she is seeking divorce from her husband. Further it has also stated by Shula that she has been made as a burden on her husband by the behavior of her husband.

Shula is presently working with the bank at local high street in St Albans where she used to go for 3 days from 9am to 3 pm. This supports her for herself and to expend for her children also. Earlier she was working with HSBC in Canary Wharf on a management scheme and was earning good but when she had children her husband stated that she should leave the job and look after her family and house. As Jeff has got big promotion as now they are advertising director of the same company. Jeff is earning around 100,000 euro also taking the3 annual income home and his net income is around 5,200 euros per month. After she had twins she returned to work for the part-time. When Shula explained her husband that she wanted divorce and wanted the children also to live with her. She further stated that Jeff could see the children whenever he wanted to meet them. Shula also wanted to stay in their family home. Jeff stated that if she wanted to stay in the family home then she has to join the full-time job and also to take all responsibility for the maintaining the children and pay the mortgage. He further, demanded his share of house and his amount of inheritance which he paid. She is now worried as she stated that her husband is money minded and would raise the dispute regarding the money as he is obsessed with money. Along with this she is also worried for the disease MS she is diagnosed with that what impact would it made on her future work and economic conditions. Due to which she has approached us and wanted advice over the financial provisions as per the law.

Financial Distribution

As here the court has also stated that equal distribution should be made of the property as each party would be getting their own share as divided half of the property. This has also been stated in a similar case of Miller, Mc Farlane [2006].as here in the present case the property which was bought together at Hatfield Building Society for 130,000 Euros. Here also the equal share should be divided but then the mortgage which Jeff is asking Shula to pay should also be divided. As the principle of equity stated that the children’s need should also be entertained and due to which the parent who is having the responsibility of children should get more share.  As there are three elements of the principle of equity which are financial needs of the party, compensation, Compensation for economic disadvantage caused by the way the  parties conducted their marriage, for example where the wife has  given up a career to look after the children and sharing – i.e. the principle set out in White.

Section 25 of Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 which stated that the court should deal with the criteria which has been mentioned while dealing with the case of application of financial relief. As here in the case of Cordle v Cordle [2002] where it has been considered that the first priority is of mother in the housing and also the house is the primary need for the children. Also while the court orders there are certain factor that needs to be considered are income and resources, needs, standard of living, age and duration of marriage, disability, contributions, conduct and loss of a benefit. As here in the present case the Shula is working part-time and her income is not sufficient to maintain the children and the responsibility of home itself. As in the case of Juffali v Juffali [2016] where the court has stated that the here the judge would be providing the decision based on the needs of the children and the standard of living, available resources. As here in the present case Jeff has ample resources which would be able to maintain the children but here the wife Shula need more money to take the responsibility of their children and as she is also suffering from the disease so the expenses are more. As in the case of White v White [2001] where it has been stated that the assets should be shared as marriage is the partnership of equals. Here also the discrimination principle was also introduced.

Lump sum orders Section 23(1) (c) which focuses on the financial provision in connection with the divorce proceedings where it has been stated that if the couple wanted to take divorce or separate from each other than this will be beneficial that as per this section the court may order the party to pay lump sum amount as per the needs of the party. As here the wife is in more need of the money as she would be looking after the children and also working full time to meet the expenses along with this she is also suffering from the disease which would detoriate her health. This would also cost more money as she has to look after her medical expenses as well. Along with this Section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 states that property adjustment order in connection with divorce proceedings where it has been stated that her the property that is in dispute need to be decided and according to the needs of the parties. As per the clause (1) (b) where it has been stated that the needs of the party needs to be considered before such as the responsibility of children and also here Shula had her own responsibility as her medical expenses are increasing day by day. As here the transfer of property needs to sole names of one spouse as per this here in the present case Shula should get the property as on her shoulders the responsibilities are more. As here the order requires that one party should pay the lump sum amount to the other party here the husband need to pay the lump sum amount to wife as she has more responsibility and the division of the assets needs to be done. Here the deal is with the matrimonial homes which are the matter of division here. If lump sum cannot be raised, transfer could be subject to transferor having charge on the property. In case of Parlour v Parlour [2004] here the joint live maintenance concept was explained. Along with this it has also been stated that the mutual sharing of the responsibility needs to be considered if there is involvement of children. Here the responsibility is on Shula of children and other expenses of the house along with her medical expenses.

Factors to be Considered

The best order for the client would be that husband Jeff needs to maintain the children and the wife.  As here the wife needs divorce from the husband and she is also seeking that the children will stay along with her. If the children will stay along with her she will have many responsibility over her along with this she is also not having a healthy body as she has been diagnosed with the disease. This disease will slowly and slowly detoriate her body and this will also increase the burden on Shula. Here the property which is the matrimonial home for which the dispute has been arisen the court should consider the needs of the individuals and then based on the needs the division of property should be done. As here Shula has more need of money and property as she has more responsibility of children and expenses. The husband Jeff need to pay a lump sum amount to Shula for maintenance of herself and her children although she would be working but it will be difficult for her to manage every expense along with mortgage and Jeff is having more income and saving than Shula he should pay the mortgage as the amount which was saving that had been deposited belongs to both the spouses.

Conclusion

At last, it can be stated that Shula and Jeff are both Husband and wife and they have two children. They both are minors and need the care and guidance of her mother. The reason for her seeking divorce is due to the reason as she has been stating is that her husband was becoming more and more controlling over the period of time. She wanted to stay in her matrimonial home where they both were living together but after she had stated that she and her children would stay together but they would be allowed to meet the children on weekends. She had also been stated that she has been diagnosed with the MS which has also been one of the factors as her husband Jeff is not supporting her for anything as if she is spending any extra money on her or on children then she is being questioned by her husband. She was working for half time and after she will take divorce she would have to work full time and also she would have to meet the requirements and all the responsibilities of the children with whom they are living. Here the best decision for the couple would be that here the husband should pay the lump sum amount to the wife as he is earning more and also have savings. The wife is not having the savings and along with this the needs of the wife is more than of the husband as her responsibility is more than husband. She would have to look after her children along with this she would also need to pay the bills for her medical expenses. This disease will slowly and slowly detoriate her body and this will also increase the burden on Shula. Here the property which is the matrimonial home for which the dispute has been arisen the court should consider the needs of the individuals and then based on the needs the division of property should be done. As here Shula has more need of money and property as she has more responsibility of children and expenses. Due to which she has approached us and wanted advice over the financial provisions as per the law.

References

Primary sources

Legislation

Matriminial Causes Act 1973, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18/section/24 

Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18/section/23 

Secondary sources

Cases

Cordle v Cordle [2002] 1 FCR 97

Juffali v Juffali [2016] EWHC 1684

Parlour v Parlour [2004]

White v White [2001] 1AC 596

White v White [2001] 1AC 596