What is spousal maintenance?
Spousal maintenance (also known as periodical payments) means regular income payments to support a former husband or wife. Spousal maintenance may be used to assist in achieving a fair outcome on divorce, nullity or judicial separation. The court will take into account the principles of needs, compensation and sharing when determining whether spousal maintenance is required.
A spousal periodical payments order is a continuing obligation for one party to pay the other a weekly or monthly sum. In some cases, periodical payments can be secured by a capital deposit, where the paying party makes an upfront payment into a fund; the money in the fund is then used to pay the party receiving the payments. In financial proceedings the courts in England and Wales have a wide discretion as to how they deal with each case, and it will consider the individual facts of each case when determining the duration and amount of any spousal maintenance it thinks should be paid.
Spousal periodical payments may be made for such term as the court thinks fit. The term for which spousal periodical payments are made can be extendable or non-extendable. If the term is non-extendable, the court can direct that the party receiving the payment may not apply to extend the term of the order. If the term is extendable, there must be ”exceptional justification” for the term to be extended.
Regardless of the duration of any spousal maintenance order, if the party receiving payment remarries or enters into a civil partnership the payments will usually cease.
Spousal periodical payments will stop if either party dies, unless they are secured periodical payments, in which case they will only stop if the party receiving the payment dies. If the paying party dies, the secured periodical payments will continue to be paid to the surviving party out of the capital deposit that was paid by the deceased party at the outset.
Spousal maintenance can be a complex area of law and therefore if you wish to discuss this further we would advise that you speak with one of our specialist matrimonial solicitors.
Related FAQs
Directors of a company that is in, or potentially facing, financial difficulty have a duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Failure to comply with that duty can have consequences for directors (including personal liability and disqualification if directors get it wrong).
The duty to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole begins when the company is (or in some cases is potentially or at risk of becoming) insolvent i.e. its assets are worth less than its liabilities and/or the business is unable to pay its liabilities as and when they fall due. However, just because a company is insolvent doesn’t always necessarily mean than an insolvency process is inevitable. Sometimes, the insolvency might just be caused by a temporary cashflow problem or perhaps wider problems in the business that can be overcome by making changes to the business itself.
In addition to that, the potential liability of directors ramps up even further when the company reaches the stage that the directors have concluded (or ought to have concluded) that there was no reasonable prospect of the business avoiding liquidation or administration. If the business reaches that stage, in addition to having to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole, directors can find themselves personally liable unless, from the time the directors ought to have reached that conclusion, they took every step that they ought to have done to minimise the loss to creditors. This is known as wrongful trading.
On the 25th June 2020, the government introduced new legislation – the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 – which includes measures to temporarily relax the rules around wrongful trading with the proposed changes to take effect retrospectively from the 1st March 2020. Essentially, the changes say that any court looking at a potential wrongful trading claim against a director is to assume that the director is not responsible for worsening the company’s financial position between 1st March 2020 and the 30th September 2020. Whilst the wrongful trading rules have relaxed, directors still need to proceed with caution if the business is potentially insolvent as the new Act does alter other potential pitfalls for directors, like the risk of breaching their duties or allowing the company to enter into transactions that can potentially be challenged.
The support being offered by the government is potentially a lifeline for businesses under pressure through no fault of their own, but notwithstanding the recent changes to the wrongful trading rules it is still likely to be important for the board to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to make use of the loans, grants and tax forbearance that are on offer.
Exactly what the board should consider will vary from business to business and getting it right can sometimes involve balancing several different (and at times conflicting) priorities, challenges and concerns.
The coronavirus outbreak has seen State support being given to businesses on an unprecedented scale.
This issue is likely to be increasingly relevant as Governments seek to protect and stimulate their economies as they emerge from lockdown.
How have the rules been relaxed in the context of the crisis and what facets of the existing law can be used for the State to provide support to undertakings?
Again, the primary point must be that an open dialogue is held with that individual to understand their concerns and to properly consider the impact that not wearing PPE will have on their abilities to undertake their duties. Consideration must be given as to whether there are any parts of their duties that they can undertake and whether they can remain in their role. Engage with the individual to ensure that you understand their point of view. What other duties can they do if they cannot do fulfil all the duties of their role?
Yes. It is possible to bring a financial provision claim under the 1975 Act to ask the court to decide that the amount which you would receive under the Intestacy Rules (which apply if the deceased person has no valid Will) do not make reasonable or financial provision for you. Please see below FAQs on financial provision for more information.
Within divorce proceedings, the court can order that a property is sold and that the mortgage is discharged from the proceeds of sale before the remaining balance is distributed to the parties, thus bringing the mortgage to an end.
The court also has the power to order that a property owned in joint names is transferred into one of the spouse’s sole name. However the court cannot order the mortgage provider to transfer the mortgage into one of the parties’ names. A number of options are available to resolve this. Depending on the financial circumstances, the spouse receiving the property may be able to re-mortgage the property into their sole name. If that is not possible and the mortgage has to remain in joint names, the court may require the spouse retaining the property to be responsible for the mortgage and provide an indemnity to the other party so that if they stop paying the mortgage, the other spouse can take action against them. Alternatively, in certain cases, a court may transfer the property into one spouse’s name but order that the other spouse continues to pay the mortgage, perhaps for a period of time such as until children reach a particular age.