Spousal maintenance is the most contentious area in family finance. Ex-husbands bitterly resent paying it and ex-wives fight tooth and nail to keep it. It is a tax-free income that some see as a continuing windfall and others a hard-earned necessity.
I wholeheartedly support the fact that judges have flexibility in deciding how to settle financial matters during a divorce, because a system based upon rigid percentage divisions can make for grave injustice.
However, every so often, judges dig themselves into holes. We have seen it with capital settlements to wealthy wives and also with pre-marital agreements.
Now we are seeing it again.
There is little judicial guidance on the correct period of time for maintenance payments to continue for less wealthy ex-wives. At what point should maintenance cease – if at all – during the joint lives of the parties, assuming the wife never remarries?
It all depends on the facts of each case and the opinion of the judge. Only if the judge is “plainly wrong” is his or her decision subject to appeal.
This problem becomes particularly acute when children are involved. Take a wife whose income prospects, unlike her husband’s, have been damaged following years of full-time childcare. Should she have her maintenance terminated before or even after the children have flown the nest? Should a poorer wife (unlike her wealthier sister, whose income claims have been bought off by a lump sum) be required to go to work, irrespective of the additional pressures it places upon her and her children? Should the husband or the father be entitled to keep everything he earns, despite the permanent disadvantage to the mother of his children?
The recent Court of Appeal case of N v N, innocuous at first glance, raises some very important issues to this extent.
Mrs N agreed to a fixed term of maintenance when she divorced in 2005, despite having two young children. When the fixed term was due to end, Mrs N’s circumstances and those of her children were such that she applied for an extension.
She represented herself, while her husband was able to afford solicitors and counsel. The district judge ordered that the term to be extended by little more than two years, to April 2012, by when her youngest child would still be a minor.
Mrs N appealed. The circuit judge set aside the original order, substituting a further term to August 2015.
A written application to appeal to the Court of Appeal was made by the husband’s lawyers and refused by Lady Justice Black. Mr N was then able to fund an oral hearing of the application at the Court of Appeal. Mrs N, representing herself, attended.
Lord Justice Thorpe granted permission for the husband to appeal. The judge praised Mrs N’s abilities in court, but then re-imposed the April 2012 order.
At least four judges have wrestled with the facts of this case so far. Each judge has their own opinion as to whether or not Mrs N’s maintenance should continue and for how long.
Mrs N is seeking permission to have her case heard by the Supreme Court, and perhaps – if this innocuous case advances that far – their Lordships will seize the opportunity to clarify the law.