Rural estates rival London for divorce complexity
New research into the financial complexity of divorce settlements across England and Wales has found that agricultural estates and family businesses can be harder to untangle than the property portfolios and City wealth typically associated with London divorces.
The findings, compiled by Stowe Family Law using data from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), HM Land Registry, the Ministry of Justice and the Office for National Statistics, rank the City of London as the single most complex location for divorce, but Suffolk and Norfolk follow close behind.
This places these two rural counties ahead of every other London borough. Eight of the ten most financially complex areas for divorce are in London, the South East or the East of England, pointing to a clear regional divide.
However, within that divide, it appears that farmland rather than City wealth is driving much of the complexity.
Agricultural land, inherited estates and multi-generational family businesses are proving harder to value and divide than pensions, investment portfolios or company shares, since land cannot be sold or valued as easily as cash assets or shares.
As Roger Isaacs, Forensic Partner at Milsted Langdon, explains, untangling the money tied up both at home and abroad in investment portfolios, company shares, multiple properties, land, inherited wealth and large pension pots benefits from the expertise of a forensic accountant.
He adds: “Suitably experienced agricultural chartered surveyors will need to be instructed to value farming assets in a divorce, such as farm land, farm machinery, livestock and growing crops.
“However, accountancy input is then often needed to address issues, such as liquidity, taxation and sustainable income.
“We give our clients accurate business valuations, trace hidden assets and analyse complicated financial arrangements both in the UK and overseas.
“We can also test the financial disclosures put forward by a spouse who is suspected of being obstructive in their financial disclosure.”
