Divorcee seeks change in law to protect her home
Wednesday 14 November 2007
Latest in Crime
On Facebook
From the blogs
Something for the weekend in London: February 17-19
To some, February is the month of lurrrve, to others it's the month of rain, snow and flu, but for u...
CC kills more people than cervical cancer; why haven’t we heard about it?
There is a disease whose incidence is rising in the UK and most of the industrialised world. However...
We need to avoid another ‘lost generation’
A tiny green shoot one day, and then a chill wind the next. Anyone hoping for signs of economic spr...
More than half of Afghanistan’s families live in extreme poverty
Leila is watching her baby intently, as his mouth moves trying to swallow the small blob of yellow p...
A divorcee who faces losing her home after her former husband was declared bankrupt will today seek a change in the law which could benefit thousands of other ex-wives threatened with financial ruin by their spouses' creditors.
Barristers for Wendy Haines will try to persuade three appeal court judges to grant her protection against her ex-husband's creditors, who are trying to recoup money on the home she was awarded in her divorce settlement two years ago.
Under existing law, any spouse who has been paid a lump sum or awarded property can be forced to hand it back if their partner is declared bankrupt within five years of a marriage dissolution.
Mrs Haines jointly owned a property near Stourport-on-Severn, Worcestershire, with her husband, David. The couple divorced in early 2005 after an acrimonious court battle culminated in a two-day hearing at which it was decided Mrs Haines should be given a 100 per cent interest in the former matrimonial home.
After months of legal proceedings, Mrs Haines thought matters had finally reached a conclusion.
She was not granted a lump sum because of the risk, the judge said, that Mr Haines might become bankrupt in the near future. In March 2005, he filed for bankruptcy with liabilities estimated at £132,000.
At the time, lawyers predicted that trustees in bankruptcy would start "rummaging through their files" to see whether there were assets in other divorce cases they could proceed against. It is estimated that the decision could affect at least 20 per cent of the 120,000 people expected to file for bankruptcy this year.
As a consequence of his bankruptcy, Mr Haines's estate became vested in the trustees, who were responsible for securing any assets so that his creditors might be paid at least part of what they were owed.
In December 2006, the trustees went to court to challenge the divorce settlement in an attempt to help pay off Mr Haines's creditors.
But the judge ruled in Mrs Haines's favour, allowing her to keep her home. The decision had wide-ranging ramifications for the insolvency profession as a whole.
Transactions concerning transfer of property just before a bankruptcy are often investigated by trustees as a potential source of recovering assets to the benefit of creditors.
At the High Court in London earlier this year, Mrs Haines was ordered to hand half of the proceeds from the sale of her home to her husband's trustees.
That ruling was confirmed in June when Vivienne Avis, a divorcee from Kirkby, Merseyside, lost a similar case. A court ruling made it clear that divorce settlements can be overridden if the partner moving out falls on hard times and is declared bankrupt.
Mrs Haines is being represented by the Worcester-based law firm Harrison Clark and barristers from St Philips Chambers in Birmingham.
Her team is expected to argue today that the case is hugely significant because it goes to heart of the principle of the "clean break" settlement, which allows divorcing couples to make plans for their futures after separating.
Before the Haines ruling, divorced wives enjoyed the certainty that they could stay on in the marital home until their children grew up, or either they or the ex-husband remarried, or if one or other of them died.
A spokeswoman for Harrison Clark said yesterday: "Parties who previously thought a clean-break order from the divorce courts was sacrosanct will have to think again unless Mrs Haines is successful in her appeal.
"On the basis of the present law, a nasty letter could always drop through the letter box of a divorcee."
- 1 Cameron's 'drunk tanks' are dangerous, say police
- 2 Can you master a language in a weekend?
- 3 Ninety gaffes in ninety years
- 4 Rothschild loses libel case, and reveals secret world of money and politics
- 5 You couldn't make it up: Sun staff hope Strasbourg can save them from Murdoch
- 6 Cameron: More power for Scotland if it rejects independence
- 7 No secularism please, we're British
- 1 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 2 Ninety gaffes in ninety years
- 3 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 4 Can you master a language in a weekend?
- 5 Rothschild loses libel case, and reveals secret world of money and politics
- 6 No secularism please, we're British
- 7 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 8 Jonny Lee Miller to play Sherlock Holmes in US series
- 9 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 10 Did Banksy's latest work bring misery to a homeless man?
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
Dawn of the age of wireless medicine
Pete Doherty: I was a bit unhinged
Is there such a thing as a gastronomic gender divide?
The day I danced for a place in Danny Boyle's Olympics spectacular




Comments