Short Marriages in Financial Remedy Proceedings

Short marriages are a factor which might be raised in financial remedy cases as an issue which should affect the outcome. This blog is written to help readers consider how the court will view this distinct factor when exercising their powers in relation to the division of financial resources from a marriage, as well as future income division.

Some may consider that short marriages should be considered atypically, where there are few matrimonial assets and where non-matrimonial assets have not mingled or merged. It may be argued that a short marriage can only provide evidence of a limited history of financial interdependence.

What is a short marriage?

There is no definition of a short marriage in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, nor is it defined in exact terms in case law. This means that it will be dependent on the individual circumstances of each case.

A period of cohabitation will be included in the duration calculation. However, the cohabitation must be quasi-marital in nature for it to be considered part of the duration of the marriage and there is a substantial body of case law confirming this. The end date of the marriage is also usually taken as the date of separation rather than the date of legal termination of the marriage, although this view may not prevail should the parties separate but continue to cohabit. Whether the parties cohabit or not during the course of the marriage is not a relevant factor.

Trying to set a yardstick, most courts would consider a marriage of less than 3-5 years as a short one, though there are cases where 6 years has been considered a short marriage. With recent data for marriages from the Department of National Statistics indicating that those who are married are staying married for longer compared to previous years, it may be arguable that the duration of a marriage deemed to be short could shift upwards.

Short marriages and income

Often when the court sees a marriage as short, it will limit ongoing periodic payments to rehabilitative in nature and often for a shorter fixed term. This limits the duration and quantum of payments. However, the court will not usually take characteristics in isolation and will instead consider how a short marriage impacts on the parties as a whole. In cases where need is at the forefront, and where finances allow, the court may be more willing to allow longer terms of periodic payments – for example, to a spouse whose earning capacity has been limited because of childcare responsibilities during the marriage.

Short marriages and capital

The leading authority in relation to short marriages comes from the House of Lords decision in the conjoined appeals of Miller and McFarlane. This decision set the footing on which short marriages has settled “A short marriage is no less a partnership of equals than a long marriage. The difference is that a short marriage has been less enduring. In the nature of things this will affect the quantum of the financial fruits of the partnership”.

In other words, if assets are not matrimonial assets a short marriage may justify a departure from equality. However, in cases where there are not enough matrimonial resources to meet needs then, even where the marriage is short, the court will deploy them to meet both parties needs.

Short marriages and needs

An example of a short marriage needs case is AB v FC [2016] EWHC 3285 Fam, which was a marriage of 19 months with one child from the relationship. Here, although the marriage was short, the Judge awarded sums for a deposit for a home and stamp duty; periodical payments of £80,000 per annum to stockpile for mortgage repayments in the future; and payment for income needs of the wife and child. In this matter needs were weighed substantially against the short duration of the marriage because meeting the needs of the parties, especially the needs of a child, will be at the forefront when considering division of resources.

The simple fact is that no matter how long a marriage lasts, a child will require their needs to be met until majority (and sometimes beyond) and so the child’s need is quantified irrespective of the duration of the marriage.

To conclude, the duration of a marriage is one of the s25 factors. It will not be considered in isolation. Irrespective of the length of the marriage, matrimonial assets will normally be shared. However non-matrimonial assets can be deployed to meet the parties needs. In a short marriage, the court might quantify the parties needs more conservatively, but the welfare and needs of the children will always be the court’s first consideration.

Sam Steggall specialises in family and civil litigation. He is personable, reliable and building a strong financial remedies practice. To instruct Sam, please contact Jay Dorton.