A British woman who “sacrificed” her career as a lawyer so she could be a stay-home mum and raise her children has won an unequal property division on top of an equal share of the family’s wealth after her divorce. This case proves that the interruption of your career can impact your divorce.

Merry in England

A woman who “sacrificed” her career as a solicitor so she could look after her children has won compensation on top of an equal share of the family’s wealth after her divorce.

The ruling could have implications for other divorce cases in which one partner has stepped back from their career for the good of the family, a lawyer said. The Cambridge graduate was embroiled in a fight over cash with her millionaire husband, who is also a solicitor, after the breakdown of their marriage.

A judge has decided the pair, who were married for about a decade and have two children, should split assets of nearly £10 million equally but that the woman should get another £400,000 in compensation for curtailing her legal career.

Mr. Justice Moor said there had been “relationship-generated disadvantage” as the husband was still able to enjoy a “stellar” career.

[The woman] viewed herself as the parent who would take primary responsibility for the children. The husband’s career took precedence. I accept that it is unusual to find significant relationship-generated disadvantage that may lead to a claim for compensation but I am clear that this is one such case. I have come to the conclusion that an appropriate sum to award for relationship-generated disadvantage, over and above her half share of the assets, is the sum of £400,000.

As a talented lawyer, our client sacrificed a potentially lucrative career for her family and to care for the children. Although Mr. Justice Moor has made clear this decision should not open the floodgates to a raft of relationship-generated disadvantage claims, the judgment affirms that in truly exceptional circumstances the principle of compensation still exists in family law, and rightly so.

Florida Property Division and Careers

I have written about property division before. Florida’s equitable distribution statute begins with the premise that the distribution should be equal, but the trial court may make an unequal distribution when proper justification is demonstrated.

The equitable distribution statute lists several factors for a trial court to consider in making this determination, and the court must support its equitable distribution scheme with specific factual findings.

As in the recent England case, a Florida trial court follows several factors to support an unequal distribution, including: what were the contributions to the marriage by each spouse, the economic circumstances of the parties, the duration of the marriage, and the interruption of personal careers.

Generally, the fact that one spouse is the primary bread winner won’t support an unequal distribution in Florida.

Stiff Upper Lip

In another British case, a businesswoman who left behind her career in order to become a “stay at home mum” while her husband continued with his high-flying career has been awarded virtually all of the family fortune by a divorce judge.

Jane Morris, 52, had been criticized by her former husband for not bringing more money in after they split, having quit her career as a recruitment consultant to keep house for him and their three children for 20 years.

However, it emerged that she was awarded half a million pounds while husband, Peter Morris, the managing director of a software company with a seven-figure turnover, was left with just £66,000.

Details of the case came out as he launched a challenge in the court of appeal against the financial outcome of the divorce and a six-week prison sentence which is hanging over his head after it was imposed on a suspended basis for non-payment of alimony and support.

The court heard that the 51-year-old businessman “took credit” for the “high standard of living” the couple enjoyed in their £1.2m cottage in the Chiltern Hills.

However, the couple’s “extravagant” spending, both during their marriage and after their “bitterly contested” break-up in 2013, brought them “to the brink of financial disaster”, reducing multi-million-pound family assets to just £560,000.

Awarding 90% of the family assets to her, the judge had said that she “needs adequate maintenance” because sacrificing her career had left her with a “low earning capacity… in her middle fifties with rusty skills.”

Morris had hit out at his wife’s own expenditure and criticized her for not earning more, having re-entered the labor market since they separated. But she was ruled to be “a sensible woman” who was “probably in need of emotional and psychological comfort” during her own spending sprees.

The Guardian article is here.