This month the announcement that celebrity couple Molly-Mae and Tommy were to separate, was headline news. The celebrity couple made their names, and some would argue, fortunes on Love Island back in 2019 and now share a daughter together. However, 5 years later they are now faced with a public separation.
Lauren Power, Head of Family Law at Rowlinsons Solicitors, takes a look at some of the issues that the couple may need to consider.
As Molly-Mae and Tommy are not married, they have different rights to those available to married couples and as such, we cannot rely on the Matrimonial Causes Act when looking at how to separate any assets or deal with any property. Both Molly-Mae and Tommy Fury are incredibly successful with respective businesses, earnings from sponsored posts and of course Tommy’s earnings as a boxer. What will happen to their savings and income? Lauren explains that the general principle for unmarried couples is that they each retain what they have in their sole names, which would of course include any savings, property, gifts, income and any debts. Put simply, both parties would look to retain anything in their sole name.
What we don’t know is whether Molly-Mae and Tommy entered into a cohabitation agreement when they started living together. A cohabitation agreement is a written agreement setting out any assets owned and how they should be dealt with in the event of a separation. Certainly, if a cohabitation agreement has previously been entered into, this would help in determining what would happen and provide the parties with a clear route forward when navigating their separation.
A key issue that will need to be resolved is the family home in Cheshire, which we assume in registered in Molly-Mae and Tommy’s joint names. The starting point when looking at how to deal with unmarried property is to see whether the parties own the property as joint tenants or tenants in common and also whether any declaration of trust was entered into. It could be that they own the property equally and if so, any sale of the property could mean that the equity is shared 50/50 between the parties. Alternatively, one may look to buy the other out of their interest in the property for a lump sum. There may of course be arguments raised that a 50/50 share is not fair and expert advice will be needed. If the property is owned in just one of the parties’ sole names, then the non-owner could still look to claim a beneficial interest in the property, as opposed to a legal interest in the property.
Lauren also noted that a further issue that may arise is regarding the parties young daughter, Bambi. Unfortunately, a separation is likely to result in two separate households and consideration will need to be given as to who Bambi will primarily live with and the amount of time spent with the other parent. The starting point is for parents to try to reach an agreement directly as to the arrangements and failing that, they can look to attend mediation or engage in collaborative law. The later options provide a safe environment to have such discussions with the benefit of a mediator who is neutral or in the case of collaborative law, with both parties’ legal representatives engaging in the process. If a resolution cannot be reached, then either party is able to issue an application to court for a child arrangements order. This is a court order which is binding on both parties and sets out who the child will live with and the amount of time spent with the other parent. This however is to be viewed as the last resort.
Only time will tell how this separation plays out and irrespective of Molly-Mae and Tommy’s profile and wealth, the general considerations and issues are similar to those of any other separating couple. Albeit most do not have the eyes of the media watching and speculating.