
Separation or divorce? The legal risks of staying married to your ex
But maintaining separated status for a prolonged period, sometimes for years after parting ways, is typically not advisable due to the financial risks, according to lawyers.
Cara Nuttall, head of family at Brabners Personal, says that choosing separation over divorce can be an emotional decision, but there can also be financial, religious or cultural reasons.
'I have also seen clients who simply didn't want the admin headache,' she says. 'Though it's important to understand not addressing financial matters at the time can make it far more complicated down the line.'
What are your options if you decide to separate but not divorce?
Nuttall is keen to stress that there is no 'one size fits all', and that an immediate legal divorce isn't always the best or most appropriate option.
And for those who do decide to separate at first, there are several different ways to do this.
'In some cases, former couples may feel an informal separation, where they just live apart and with separate finances, will suffice,' says Nuttall.
'Others choose to amicably follow the details agreed in their pre- or post-nup.
'Some may negotiate and record a more formal 'deed of separation' or a have 'judicial separation' to agree on financial and child arrangements, all without legally ending a marriage.'
Zanariah Webster, a senior associate at Stowe Family Law, says: 'If you are separated, a 'separation agreement', whilst not legally binding, can lay out your and your ex's financial obligations and expectations and can minimise - although never fully remove - risk of future claims.
'Whether you decide to separate or divorce, it is important to update your will to reflect your current relationship and intended beneficiaries.'
What are the risks of not divorcing your ex?
'Just compiling evidence can become difficult and expensive'
The decision to divorce will always be an intensely personal one but simply from a financial standpoint it has several advantages, says barrister Harry Gates of 4PB.
'The first is certainty. If you resolve your finances as you divorce, you can ask the Family Court to approve your deal in a court order, which will be binding on you both for evermore.
'Financial agreements reached between you on separation do not have the same force and can in principle be revisited in future.
'The second is clarity. If you initially separate, but then decide to divorce some years later, there is every possibility of protracted argument about how your finances have changed in the period since and how this should be taken into account.
'Just compiling the evidence in those cases can itself be difficult and expensive.
'Finally, tax. As a general rule, the longer you take to formalise the financial consequences of relationship breakdown, the more likely it is that unwelcome tax issues will arise.'
Gates says early legal advice on what best suits your circumstances is a must and likely to save both partners money in the long run. He suggests couples consider getting a shared lawyer, if appropriate.
'Ambiguity always buys a lawyer lunch'
'In my experience, it is always a terrible idea to separate and not divorce, or to divorce later down the line after years of separation,' says Ursula Rice, solicitor-advocate and managing director at Family First Solicitors.
'Separation and divorce is exhausting, so taking a break before formal proceedings begin is understandable, but the longer this goes on for, the more challenges this creates.'
Rice reiterates the point above about it becoming harder to untangle matrimonial assets, because people become more established in their lives after a year or so of separation.
This can all make a divorce process more expensive later.
'If a couple separates but doesn't divorce for five years, there are five years' worth of pension contributions to consider,' points out Rice.
'Similarly, if one partner has moved out and established their own living arrangements, it's difficult to argue that the matrimonial home needs to be sold with any urgency.'
Rice concludes: 'My simple takeaway is - if you are separated, get a divorce and do it sooner rather than later.
'Prolonging a divorce leads to ambiguity. And ambiguity always buys a lawyer lunch.'
'Anything owned during a marriage is classed as marital assets'
'If you choose to remain separated, because you are still legally married, you risk potential claims on your finances in the future, for example if you came into inheritance or won the lottery,' says Zanariah Webster of Stowe Family Law.
'Even separate bank accounts, properties and so on would still potentially be subject to division if you decided to divorce in the future, as anything owned or built during the marriage would be classed as marital assets.'
Webster warns that even legally ending your marriage or civil partnership through divorce or dissolution with a 'final order' will not sever your financial ties to your ex.
You also need a legally binding 'consent order', setting out the financial arrangements, to quash any future claims in both your life and after your death.
Cara Nuttall of Brabners Personal says: 'A common misconception is that certain financial claims and obligations automatically end at separation, when in truth some financial claims from an ex-partner remain enforceable.
'Further, post separation finances are not automatically ring-fenced either, so if you hit good fortune after the separation, it's not a given your ex can't claim against that money, just because you haven't lived together for some time.
'For some people, that risk means divorce and the associated financial order is the only option.'
> Why you should get a financial settlement at the same time as a divorce
Separation vs divorce: How to make your decision
Cara Nuttall of Brabners Personal suggests weighing up the following matters when deciding what is right for you.
1. Emotions: Do you know the marriage is over, or would a trial separation help you make the decision? Even if the marriage is at an end, are you emotionally ready for divorce at this stage?
2. Religious and cultural considerations: For some people, there are important religious or other family complexities that need to be factored in.
3. Tax: It may sound crazy, but there can be significant tax considerations, depending on your assets and your circumstances – for some people, it may make more sense to remain married, for others, delaying a settlement could make it more costly.
4. Costs: Some people avoid a divorce and financial settlement to avoid the cost, not realising that it can become more expensive to unpick it all after time has passed.
5. Trust: Not having a divorce and financial order means a settlement can still be pursued any time in the future – do you trust your partner not to come after you for more, even if they have said they won't.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Finextra
18 minutes ago
- Finextra
Sainsbury's sells travel money business to Fexco
UK supermarket group Sainsbury's is offloading its travel money business to Ireland's Fexco. Financial terms were not disclosed. 0 Fexco will take over all operations of Sainsbury's Travel Money, including digital platforms and more than 220 bureaux within the supermarket's stores. Services will continue to operate under the Sainsbury's brand with the company receiving an ongoing share of revenue and rental income. The deal increases Fexco's UK retail footprint to more than 460 locations, making it a top five player in the sector. Bláthnaid Bergin, CFO, Sainsbury's, says: With specialist expertise and a strong track record in foreign exchange, Fexco Group is a strong fit for our business. I'm also pleased to confirm that there will be no immediate changes, and customers can expect the same high level of service they know and trust.' Sainsburys has been withdrawing from financial services in the last two years, selling its retail banking operations to NatWest, offloading is mortgage book to Co-operative Bank, and handing over its ATM business to NoteMachine.


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ofwat chief executive David Black to stand down
The chief executive of Ofwat is to step down as the embattled water regulator prepares to be abolished. David Black will leave the role at the end of August and an interim chief executive will be appointed in due course. The Government last month announced the regulator would be axed in a regulatory shake-up that comes as part of its response to public outrage over rising bills, sewage pollution and large bonuses for bosses. Ofwat may not be formally axed until at least 2027, with the process to overhaul the current system likely to be complex. The regulator said Mr Black, who took over as chief executive in 2021 and had worked in various roles at Ofwat since 2012, had decided the time is right for him to pursue new opportunities. In a statement on Tuesday, he said: 'I have been privileged to be able to lead Ofwat over the last four years, during which time we have achieved a huge amount together as a team for customers and the environment. 'I wish the team every success as they continue their important work.' The four bodies responsible for regulating the sector have faced intense criticism for overseeing companies during the years where they paid out to shareholders and accrued large debts – while ageing infrastructure crumbled and sewage spills skyrocketed. Currently, Ofwat oversees how much water companies in England and Wales can charge for services, the Drinking Water Inspectorate ensures that public water supplies are safe, while the Environment Agency and Natural England have regulatory functions to monitor the industry's impact on nature. Under Government plans, measures will be rolled out to merge their regulatory responsibilities into a 'single, powerful' regulator – one for England and another for Wales. The move was recommended by an independent review into the sector, which was commissioned by ministers to answer public fury over the ailing state of the water sector. Led by former Bank of England governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, the review advised far-reaching changes to the way the water system is regulated as one of 88 measures to tackle problems in industry. As part of its own response to the crisis, Ofwat said it would allow firms to raise average bills from 2025 to 2030 to help finance a £104 billion upgrade for the sector as part of its so-called price review, published in December. In his statement on Tuesday, Mr Black said: 'The 2024 price review backed an investment programme of £104 billion, along with a further £50 billion investment in major new water resources, which will improve service, environmental outcomes and resilience in the years to come.' Consumer groups at the time warned that the increases were 'more than what many people can afford', with companies able to raise average bills by £157 in total over the next five years to £597 to help finance the £104 billion. Ofwat chairman Iain Coucher said: 'David has worked, tirelessly, to bring about transformational change in the water sector. 'He has sought new regulatory powers and resources to hold companies to account, taken major enforcement action and provided funding and incentive packages that drive continual improvements for customers. 'On behalf of the board and everyone at Ofwat, I would like to thank David for his leadership and his service over the last 13 years and to wish him every success in the future.'


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Embattled Ofwat boss resigns amid sewage crisis
David Black has resigned as chief executive of Ofwat, just weeks after the Government called for the beleaguered water regulator to be scrapped. The watchdog confirmed on Tuesday that Mr Black will step down from his position at the end of August, with an interim successor to be announced in due course. It brings an end to Mr Black's tumultuous stint in charge of Ofwat, which has been subject to increasing criticism over its failure to tackle sewage spills. He has been the chief executive of Ofwat since April 2022, having initially joined the regulator in 2012. His planned departure comes after a review published last month by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which called for the water regulator to be abolished. In a damning assessment of Ofwat, the former deputy governor of the Bank of England criticised the 'deep-rooted, systemic' problems in the water sector, which have led to worsening pollution. It added that Ofwat had failed to prevent businesses in the water industry from 'making imprudent financial decisions'. This culminated in the crisis at Thames Water, which is facing the threat of nationalisation after failing to tackle a £17bn debt pile. Prior to the Cunliffe review, Steve Reed, the Environment Secretary, said Ofwat was 'clearly failing' as it had created a regulatory system that allowed the industry to 'get away with it'. He went further last month by scrapping Ofwat altogether, as he said that a new regulatory body will be introduced to mark the 'biggest overhaul of water regulation in a generation'. He added that a new regulator for the water industry would be given legal powers to intervene if customers are overcharged. The date of Ofwat's abolition has not yet been announced. After announcing his departure, Mr Black said: 'I have been privileged to be able to lead Ofwat, over the last four years, during which time we have achieved a huge amount together as a team for customers and the environment. 'The 2024 price review backed an investment programme of £104bn, along with a further £50bn investment in major new water resources, which will improve service, environmental outcomes and resilience in the years to come. I wish the team every success as they continue their important work.' Iain Coucher, the Ofwat chairman, added: 'David has worked, tirelessly, to bring about transformational change in the water sector. He has sought new regulatory powers and resources to hold companies to account, taken major enforcement action and provided funding and incentive packages that drive continual improvements for customers.'