In a recent high profile divorce case, the High Court clearly restricted claims for future maintenance payments from post-separation earnings.
The case involved Mr and Mrs Waggott, a wealthy couple who were married 21 years before their divorce in 2014.
Both agreed that their capital resources (housing, cars, savings etc.) should be split equally, with Mrs Waggott awarded a £9.76m sum and £175,000 maintenance per year for the rest of her life.
Despite this, she felt entitled to more, making a claim that she came to regret.
After appeals from the couple, Mrs Waggott ended up with a reduced sum of £8.4m, receiving her £175,000 maintenance payments up until 2021 only.
She was also awarded an additional £1.4m for deferred income post separation, whilst her husband received £7.8m overall.
As this shows, getting expert legal advice before or during a divorce can have an invaluable effect on the outcome, particularly if an appeal is made.
On top of this, there are a number of other key lessons that anyone going through a divorce can learn from.
The appeal
- Mrs Waggott’s barrister claimed that maintenance payments of £190,000 would be a fairer share of her husband’s income
- She felt that Mr Waggott’s earning capacity was a matrimonial asset to be shared (as it had built up during their marriage) and claimed for 35% of his net bonuses
- Mr Waggott also appealed, arguing his earning capacity is not an asset to divide up
- His barrister favoured a clean break between the parties and suggested maintenance payments should only be for a fixed period, giving Mrs Waggott time to adjust
- The barrister also suggested that Mrs Waggott should return to work
The outcome
- Mrs Waggott’s appeal was rejected by the court whilst her husband’s appeal was accepted
- Maintenance payments were ruled to end after just three years, due to concerns over the lack of ‘financial incentive’ for her to earn money
- This maintenance period would allow for adjustment, allowing Mrs Waggott to avoid “undue hardship” when the payments end
- Earning capacity was not shared as a matrimonial asset, as Mrs Waggott’s needs could be met by her own earned income or captial
- To summarise, Mrs Waggott’s wish to gain a ‘meal ticket for life’ was not granted
Key lessons
- An appeal can leave you in a much less favourable position than you were in beforehand
- To claim on your spouse’s future earnings, you must be able to prove that you need it
- Capital settlements will often be used to compensate those that have given up their career for marriage – like Mrs Waggott
For more information or advice on this or any other Family Law issue, please get in touch with our team of specialist Family Lawyers on 0115 9 100 200 or send us a message.
Posted on June 13, 2018