Can somebody please help?
Married for 16 years, Separated in Apr-2017 but has been living in under same roof, Divorce applied in Aug-2019 based on 2 years mutual separation. I have build up new limited company in May-2019 so my question is Can I Ring fence my business from Matrimony pot? If yes then what is the Legal process of Ring fence the Business? Thanks
There is no special legal process that you can trigger at this stage to ring fence the business.
There is no single rule on such ring fencing that applies to every single case.
However, as the marriage was long and the period of separation short - then I suspect that the business would be viewed as part of the pot. I assume there is no divorce settlement in place yet.
But in practice it may not have any great asset value. One man band type businesses which generate a normal income for the owner commonly do not have any asset value - in that they cannot be sold for a big lump sum to a 3rd party buyer.
A new business also has future tax liabilities etc that reduce any value you could assign to it.
So its probably in the pot - but also probably doesn't have a huge value.
Thank you soo much for the response.
One more question please.
I have added my brother as another Director and Shareholder in the business as because of Covid Business is impacted and We both are from from same field and he has been helping me out in the business and my intention is to help/expand the business with him.
Stbx found out about this from somewhere raised a question on that, asked the reason to add him, blaming me and asked me to disclose Limited company accountant, bank statements etc.
My question is : As it is a Limited company and Business and Myself are separate entities so what should be my response to it?
I will be really grateful if you can shed some light on this?
I previously stated that one-man band small businesses are generally viewed as just providing an income (e.g. are equivalent to that parties salary if they had a normal PAYE job). And their asset value is negligible.
So in those types of cases there is no need for the business details to appear on the form E anywhere other than the income that is generated.
So by default you can fill in a form E with just your personal finances and disclose the business only in that it is mentioned by name somewhere and the income is specified.
It is then down to the other side to ask for further business disclosure if they think it is merited.
And your response depends on what stage you are at:
If you are doing voluntary form E disclosure for our of court negotiations/mediation then as it is voluntary you take your own view on what extra disclosure you are prepared to offer if it will help the process to move forward.
If you are in the court process (for financial remedy) and answering the other parties questionnaire after form E disclosure and before the FDA then its a similar thing - you can offer to provide extra info if you think it will help and is relevant.
If you don't provide something they asked for then they will raise it with the judge at the FDA hearing and the judge will decide if it is relevant to the case. If the judge deems that certain documents should be disclosed then he/she will make an order to that effect.
So if you do not wish to disclose you can decline at this stage - but rather than just say no - you would be better off preparing and sending a little statement saying you don't feel that it is necessary for x, y, z reason - including some basic stats about the business that show that it has no meaningful value e.g.
- business only started on x date
- has only y amount of cash on hand
- has no debtors (people who owe business money)
- has liabilities for future tax / VAT of z
The point of the above is to demonstrate (without doing a lot of work) that the business falls into the category where it is not worth digging into.
You can show this statement to the judge when the issue of business disclosure is raised at the FDA.
Thanks a ton for your response.
I have sent a private message to you with the letter which I received.
I have one more question on this letter which I asked in the message.
Your valuable input on that is really appreciated.