Pre-Nuptial Agreements - A Fresh Start?

Pre Nups

If you are planning your wedding, or getting ready to move in with a partner, the last thing you want to think about is the possibility of splitting up. It hardly sits well with the idea of the fairy tale wedding and lover everlasting. However, just as you buy home insurance and hope you won’t be burgled, it makes sense to consider a pre-nup or cohabitation agreement, even though you hope that you will never need it.

Both pre-nuptial agreements and cohabitation agreements are becoming increasingly common and have just been given a boost by the Supreme Court in their judgment in the landmark case of Radmacher v Granatino, which was handed down on 20th October 2010.

The Supreme Court upheld the wife’s contention that the parties should be held to the terms of their pre-nup. This is not an absolute rule: the court will always consider whether it is fair to hold couples to the terms of an agreement, and that changes in circumstances such as the birth of children will also have to be considered, however this is a clear indication that a pre-nuptial agreement will not lightly be ignored or disregarded.

The court also gave a strong indication that post-nuptial agreements would also be given significant weight, and that while this particular case concerned a marriage, the same would apply to couples in a civil partnership.

Discussing attitudes and expectations about finances with your partner in advance can help reduce the likelihood of falling out over those issues in the future, and if the worst happens, having a pre-nup can significantly reduce the cost and stress of a divorce, and can allow you to have a clear idea of where you would stand in such an event.

Contact Marjorie Taylor on 01761 417575 or Andrea Boutcher on 01373 463311 for more information or help.

Read more on Radmacher V Granatino here:

Full judgement available here:

Sponsorship

“We have a long tradition of supporting the communities in which we operate……” so begins the Community and Sponsorship page of FDC Law’s website.

And its true. We do. And there are many reasons why we do, ranging from “we think it’s the right thing to do” to, “many of us live in the area and our children and families will use the organisation” to, “it’s a sensible bit of marketing that might make people more likely to use the firm”.

Whatever the reason, it works for us and it seems to work for the many organisations that we help - you can see a list on our website:

But although we do try to help as many organisations as possible, it is not possible to help everyone and we receive more requests each year than our sponsorship fund can help. This creates a problem - who should we support and why? And what are the implications for supporting one request and not another?

These questions become even more relevant in recessionary times as, inevitably, sponsorship budgets are looked at more carefully at the same time as other avenues by which, for example, sports clubs or art organisations can obtain funding are cut.

This issue was highlighted recently when we received a request from a local under 8s youth football team for some sponsorship support. The club had come up with a new idea to try to raise the £400 to purchase a new kit by selling raffle tickets at £50 each to a number of local businesses. The successful ticket would then “win” their name on the team’s kit for the year.

We bought our ticket and awaited the result. Some weeks later, we were told that, despite promises from other businesses, we were the only organisation to have actually bought a ticket and the club needed more money. We have managed to find some extra funds to help the club buy the kit and so it seems that the story may have a happy ending; the children will get their new football kit and, hopefully, word of mouth will be positive about the firm.

But, of course, with only finite marketing budgets, some future requests may have to be turned down and this illustrates the problems of trying to help as many organisations as possible in these difficult times.