Spouse traps
Sir: If the cautionary tale contained in R. A. Cline's article (9 May) is followed to its con- clusion it is at least probable that the characters involved in it will be seen to be not a world-weary lawyer and an innocent bride but rather a world-weary wife and an innocent lawyer.
The reason for this is that, if the wife-to-be follows her lawyer's advice to 'sit round the table and thrash out a good clear agreement with the proposed spouse,' she will discover that when it comes to a separation the agree- ment so reached cannot be enforced. For it is a rule of law that such agreements are not valid. Chitty on contracts, for example, says (Vol. II, p. 1189): 'An agreement for future separation is entirely void whether made before or after marriage; and so is a clause in settle- ment which divests interests in the event of a future separation.'
Presumably the justification for this rule is that to enforce separation agreements made before a break-up of marriage would encourage a class of 'hit and run' wives (or husbands!). This is very arguable, which is more than can be said for the need for a thorough revision of this area of our law which Mr Cline's article so ably demonstrated in all but this one small detail.
Previous page
