The recent filing for divorce by David Geffen, the 82-year-old media magnate estimated to be worth $8.7 billion, from his 32-year-old spouse David Armstrong has attracted considerable attention—not least due to the notable disparity in wealth, the absence of a prenuptial agreement, and the relatively short duration of the marriage. Armstrong has applied for spousal maintenance in the Californian courts, where proceedings are underway. The exchange of financial disclosure has been ordered and is awaited.

Although this case is taking place in the United States, it provides a useful lens through which to examine how family law in England and Wales treats divorces where there is significant financial asymmetry between spouses. The matter also raises questions about the treatment of non-liquid wealth, the relevance of age disparities, and whether same-sex couples are treated any differently under current legal principles.

Treatment of non-liquid wealth

A frequent issue in high-net-worth cases is the treatment of assets held in forms that are not readily realisable, such as shares, private equity interests, or valuable real property, which may be owned by a company or trust. David Geffen is reported to have a high level of illiquid assets, with a small proportion of his wealth consisting of cash or readily saleable property. This begs the question of how any award to Armstrong might be formulated or structured. The English Family Court has wide-ranging powers to order the sale or transfer of property, but will always have regard to the potential tax consequences, penalties and/or adverse financial consequences to any party of ordering the liquidation of otherwise illiquid assets. When dealing with the division of assets, the Court is afforded a wide ambit of discretion and can adopt a more flexible approach by way of:

Deferred lump sum payments;
Periodical payments (maintenance);
Transfers of property or shares in kind;
Structured settlements over time

Age disparity – the 50-year age gap

There is a significant age gap as between Geffen and Armstrong. English law requires the Court to consider the age of the parties as one of the many relevant factors when it comes to financial remedy proceedings. The duration of the marriage is another relevant factor. Where there is a substantial age gap, the Court will likely take this into account in assessing future earning capacity, dependency, and overall financial needs. Ultimately, the younger party (in this case, Armstrong) is likely to have longer to increase their own earning capacity and build up their capital wealth, which can include making their own pension contributions and saving for their retirement. The opposite generally applies to the older party. Armstrong has many years ahead of him to build up his capital wealth once his divorce has been finalised, and this will likely be relevant to any award that he receives, or certainly it would be in the English Courts.

A marriage of just 2 years

The Courts of England and Wales generally apply the “sharing principle” to the matrimonial assets – i.e. the fruits of marriage are divided equally. David Geffen was already an extremely wealthy man by the time he entered into a relationship with Armstrong, and as such, the vast majority of his assets will not be linked to the marriage and/or generated through its short duration. In such cases, the English Court would focus on Armstrong’s “needs”, ringfencing any pre-acquired wealth unless required to meet Armstrong’s capital (e.g. housing) and income needs. It is of coursepossible that assets which either party had prior to the marriage have been “mingled” and therefore have become matrimonial – however the brevity of the marriage will have likely limited the extent of this.

Equal Treatment of Same-Sex Couples

The legal framework in England and Wales makes no distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages in the context of financial remedy proceedings. The principles of fairness, needs, and sharing are applied consistently across all legally recognised marriages and civil partnerships, without reference to the gender or sexual orientation of the parties.

Consequently, same-sex couples are subject to the same statutory tests and judicial discretion as heterosexual couples.

Conclusion

The Geffen–Armstrong divorce highlights a number of salient issues frequently encountered in family law practice, particularly where parties are of unequal financial standing and the wealth at issue is non-liquid or pre-marital in nature.

Practitioners in England and Wales will recognise the familiar themes: classification of assets, assessment of needs, and the relevance of both age and duration of the marriage. While the law offers broad discretion, the core principle remains the same: achieving a fair outcome based on the facts of each individual case, irrespective of the parties’ gender or the nature of their relationship.

Rosanne Godfrey-Lockwood is a barrister at 4PB

Topics: queer family law