WIVES ARE being forced into unfair post-nuptial agreements that are simply a “fast route to a cheap divorce”, a woman who was left with just two per cent of her multi-millionaire partner’s fortune claims.
Caroline Hopkins, 62, signed a “post-nup” against the advice of lawyers because her priority during the breakdown of her marriage was to stay on good terms with her husband for the sake of their son.
She also claims that she was placed under “emotional pressure to sign the deal”.
As a result, William Hopkins, 66, a property tycoon worth more than £38million, was able to walk away from the relationship having left her two small properties, an “old” car and a £200,000 share of his pension.
Mrs Hopkins went to court to boost her claim to £2million but the judge threw it out after dismissing her argument that she felt “under pressure” to sign the agreement.
Lawyers are describing that judgment as a “watershed” case that helps to cement into law the position of the controversial contracts that are increasingly used by couples as an attempt to reconcile a troubled marriage or to avoid a drawn-out divorce.
In her first interview since the ruling a week ago, Mrs Hopkins, from Wincanton, Somerset, warned couples that post-nups may be used by partners who plan to divorce anyway and are seeking to minimise the amount they have to pay out.
She told The Sunday Telegraph that there should be minimum time limits to be introduced between when divorce proceedings are issued and post-nuptial agreements are signed so it is “clear that the two are not tied”.
She said solicitors who suspect that one party “feels under pressure to sign” a deal that is patently unjust should be duty-bound to refer their client to get a second opinion.
She told The Sunday Telegraph: “To say do not sign a post-nuptial agreement is too simplistic. But before it ever gets that far both partners should have equal advice and equal motivations.
“For those having problems within their marriage I would say do not enter into a postnuptial, it won’t save the marriage.”
Issuing a warning to spouses in a similar situation, Mrs Hopkins said: “If a person is being emotionally abused they can easily be manipulated into entering a post-nuptial agreement.
“It could be a trick. Vulnerable people should be directed to something much more helpful and independent.
“Solicitors should not bypass responsibility for a vulnerable person by insisting that they sign disclaimers if they feel injustice is being done. They have a duty of care.
“Vulnerable people have likely had years of being made to feel rather worthless. They are in a poor situation to handle legal issues.”
She has written to Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, asking that a new law on domestic violence, which makes it illegal for someone to exercise “coercive control” over their partner, is taken into consideration in similar cases.
Post-nups are not often used in the UK. They can protect a spouse who comes into a sudden windfall during the course of a marriage but are more often used in a bid to reconcile a marriage that is failing.
In the Hopkins’s case, Mr Hopkins told his lawyer, Baroness Shackleton, to issue divorce proceedings on February 23, 2011. He suggested to his wife that they enter into a post-nuptial agreement just five days later, on February 28.
The couple had married in April 2009 but had lived together since 2001 and had enjoyed a brief affair in the early Eighties, which resulted in the birth of their son.
Marilyn Stowe, a senior partner at Stowe Family Law, said: “Mrs Hopkins’s reasonable needs would have been more generously interpreted in a divorce case.
“Judge Cusworth pared her needs right down to the bone and was not generous at all. This was textbook application of the law and a classic example of how cruel it can be.
“If you stand back and look at the overall picture of what they are both worth, the disparity is substantial.”
She added: “If you are a poorer party and unless your contract deals with ‘reasonable need’, then don’t even think about signing. It cannot possibly be to your advantage.”
James Brown, a family lawyer, said more of his clients were expressing interest in the documents.
“It is widely felt to be better to have a pre-nup or a postnup agreed by husbands and wives to effect a quicker, less rancorous split than an expensive process … which ends in a court hearing, the outcome of which cannot be predicted. The Hopkins case might, in time, be thought of as a major advance in the standing of post-nuptial agreements.”