- What We Do
- Your Options
- Meet the team
- Join Us
As you may have read in my previous blog on spousal/civil partner maintenance – or periodical payments – ‘orders’ have the potential to be varied (in other words, changed) by either the paying or receiving party.
What does this mean? Put simply, in variation proceedings (or better still through a focussed dialogue using a dispute resolution model payments can be reduced, increased, rolled up into a one-off payment (known as capitalisation) or dismissed altogether.
The fact an order can be varied may cause feelings of uncertainty and/or vulnerability for both the payer and the receiver. For example, imagine a scenario where you have been receiving maintenance for a number of years and have ‘relied’ upon it to meet your weekly outgoings. Your ex then says he/she has to stop paying you because he/she has lost his/her job. The impact of this will be difficult enough but what if they just resent paying and unilaterally reduce it or simply stop paying? Come what may your “income” is at risk and outside your immediate control.
Spousal/civil partner maintenance is inherently uncertain. Neither party can’t control what happens in the other’s life and so it can often feel like having the rug pulled from under you without warning. A difficult divorce/dissolution won’t get easier if dealing with this issue.
Life is unpredictable and it is simply impossible to build into a maintenance agreement/order protection for all possible scenarios in the future. Quite simply, if the money isn’t there the ability to pay maintenance will be affected.
All manner of things could make the original order outdated or inappropriate. These may include changes in either party’s financial position, the start of a new relationship; the ending of a new relationship, the birth of children etc.
Significant changes to either party’s financial position might include losing their job or starting a new one on a much lower salary, ill health, disability or retirement. Conversely, it might include a new job with a much higher salary or inheriting or winning a large sum of money.
If the receiver starts a new relationship which would involve them living together the court has to look closely at the financial circumstances of the new partner and what they ought to contribute to the household. If the new partner is ‘poor’ and has no job, for example, then it follows that their contribution will be minimal.
However, the court can infer a ‘theoretical’ income based on what it is likely he/she would be earning if they had a job.
If the payer starts a new relationship it might mean that there are more resources coming into the household, therefore increasing what might be available to pay to a former spouse. Furthermore, if the receiver ends a relationship and no longer lives with their new partner the household income they were expected to receive is unlikely to be available in the future, which could also warrant an increase in the amount they receive.
Circumstances where the payer has a new family to support may justify a variation application but in my experience this tends to be quite a difficult position to advance. The court will still be concerned, primarily, with regard to the children of the first family if they are under 18.
What is clear is that neither party can apply for a variation without being able to show that there has been a change in circumstances from when the original order was made.
If you’re having significant difficulties managing on the amount of money you have, or if the income of your former spouse/civil partner has increased significantly, then it may be possible to have payments to you increased.
In the same way, if you make payments to your former spouse/civil partner and your income position worsens, you can ask for the level of the payments to be reduced.
In either scenario, a variation application is not something to be embarked upon lightly and it is very important that you do not simply stop paying without first reaching agreement with your former spouse or following an order made by the court. If you stop paying this could lead to an application to enforce the original order and payment of arrears with possible cost consequences.
Maintenance payments do, however, cease automatically if the recipient remarries or enters a new civil partnership. Conversely, they do not stop automatically if the payer remarries or enters a new civil partnership.
On an application for variation the court can consider capitalising spousal maintenance. This would mean the payer paying a lump sum to the other to achieve a clean break. If this is an option, the court would consider whether the original order should be varied downwards or indeed upwards and then a formula is used to calculate what would be an appropriate lump sum payment depending on whether the original order was intended to be paid for a specified term or on the basis of the parties’ joint lives. You can read more about capitalisation and what it means here: https://www.familylawpartners.co.uk/blog/capitalising-spousal-maintenance-what-does-this-mean?
If you and your former spouse/civil partner cannot agree a change in the payments then mediation or the collaborative process should be considered in the first instance. However, only a court can vary the order and so if you reach another agreement with your former spouse/civil partner it is important that you apply to the court for this to be endorsed. Otherwise, the original order will keep running which could lead to difficulties over arrears.
Before proceeding with an application, it is worth understanding the potential risks and scenarios which may affect the outcome for you:
As we have seen, putting forward an application for variation is not simple. The most important piece of advice I can give clients on this issue is to seek legal advice at the earliest stage and take time to consider all of the possible outcomes.
For more guidance about your specific circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact us.