For many people, the final order is regarded as the point at which a previous marriage, and the matters connected with it, have been brought to an end. That assumption can be misplaced.
A final order ends the marriage. It does not, of itself, bring to an end the financial claims that former spouses may have against one another. Unless those claims have been resolved by a court-approved order, they may remain live long after the divorce itself, sometimes for many years.
When informal arrangements are not enough
Many couples make informal arrangements for their finances at the point of separation. The family home may be divided, savings may be shared and personal belongings distributed, with both parties proceeding on the basis that the matter has been concluded. However, an informal arrangement, even where it was followed at the time, will not necessarily bring either party’s financial claims to an end.
The issue often comes into focus only when circumstances have changed. One party may have built a successful business, acquired further property or received an inheritance long after the divorce. If no clean break order was obtained, a former spouse may still be able to bring a claim against that later wealth, irrespective of the time that has passed or how amicable the original separation appeared to be.
The effect of the remarriage bar
Remarriage introduces a further and often overlooked complication. Under section 28(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a person who remarries before applying for a financial provision order or a property adjustment order will lose the right to make that application against their former spouse. The bar takes effect automatically. The court has no discretion to reverse it, and it does not depend on either party raising the point. It does not, however, apply to pension sharing or pension attachment orders, or to financial provision for children, which remain unaffected by remarriage.
The effect is not necessarily mutual. The party who remarries may lose the ability to pursue certain claims, while their former spouse’s claims against them may remain unaffected. For someone contemplating a second marriage, establishing whether the financial consequences of the first marriage have been properly resolved is therefore not an administrative formality. It may determine whether a claim is still available at all.
The effect of remarriage on spousal maintenance
Where spousal maintenance is already being paid, the remarriage of the recipient brings that obligation to an automatic end. No further court order is required and there is no transitional period. If that income forms a material part of the recipient’s household finances, the consequences can be immediate and significant.
The position is different where the paying party remarries. Their remarriage does not, in itself, bring the maintenance obligation to an end, although a material change in circumstances may become relevant if either party later applies to vary the order.
The financial consequences of remarriage are not confined to claims arising from the previous marriage. They can also affect the arrangements a person has made for death benefits, estate planning and the protection of wealth built up before the second marriage.
Wills, pensions and beneficiary nominations
Remarriage will generally revoke an existing Will, unless that Will was made in contemplation of the marriage. If no new Will is put in place, the intestacy rules will determine how the estate is distributed. That can produce an outcome very different from the one intended, particularly where there are children from a previous relationship.
Pension death benefits and life insurance nominations are not treated in the same way. They do not necessarily update automatically on divorce or remarriage, and a former spouse may remain the nominated beneficiary for years without either party realising. Reviewing these arrangements is therefore not simply an administrative exercise. It can determine who benefits from wealth accumulated over a lifetime.
The role of a nuptial agreement
The financial circumstances surrounding a second marriage are often very different from those surrounding a first. By that stage, the parties may have built up property, pensions, business interests or an expectation of future inheritance, often in unequal measure. Following Radmacher v Granatino, the courts will generally give effect to a nuptial agreement that has been freely entered into by parties who understood its implications, unless it would be unfair to hold them to it.
An agreement negotiated well in advance of the wedding, with proper financial disclosure and independent legal advice on each side, is likely to carry considerably more weight than one produced under the pressure of an approaching wedding.
Why advice before remarriage matters
None of this suggests that a second marriage is any less committed than a first. The issue is whether the financial consequences of the earlier marriage have in fact been brought to a close. A final order ends the marriage itself. It does not, without more, end the financial relationship between former spouses. That distinction can become most significant at precisely the point when it is most difficult, and most sensitive, to address.
Anyone contemplating remarriage should take advice before the wedding takes place, particularly where there has been a previous divorce, unresolved financial claims, maintenance arrangements, pensions, business interests or children from an earlier relationship.
