Available in other languages: français
Family law in Switzerland: How to protect your finances following a separation
Marriage is a contract easily concluded. However, putting an end to it may turn out more complicated and lengthy than you may think.
Where spouses jointly request a divorce and lodge a comprehensive agreement on the consequences of the divorce in Switzerland, the Court will usually approve the agreement and render a divorce judgment promptly. The proceedings will take approximately 4 to 6 months.
If spouses jointly request a divorce and do not have an agreement on the consequences of the divorce, or only have a partial agreement, the consequences of the divorce will be decided by the Court after it has been instructed on the case. Where there are disputes over the custody of children and visitation rights, or in cases of disputes concerning assets abroad, such instruction may take up to 2 years or more.
If one spouse does not agree to the divorce, Swiss law imposes a two-year period of living apart before one of the spouses may petition for divorce. The two-year period applies irrespective of whether the marriage lasted for 2 months or 40 years+.
During this two-year period, any dispute arising from the separation may be dealt by a judicial procedure known as “Protective Measures of the Marital Union”. As indicated by its name, this procedure has as objective of resolving the disputes between parties where the marriage has not yet irretrievably broken down and there is still a chance for reconciliation. The Court frequently makes interim decisions about custody, visitation rights, maintenance allowance for the spouse and the children as well as accommodation.
This procedure is, however, used more of as a strategy than as a necessity. In practice, it is very rare that spouses litigating for protective measures to ever reconcile. How the protective measures procedure unfolds does not help - its duration is of 1 to 2 years, which leaves the parties with uncertainty for too long a period, and tends to have the effect of raising tensions.
Why, then, might an application for protective measures be considered?
The law provides:
“1. The spouses jointly provide for the proper maintenance of the family, each according to his or her ability.
2. They agree on the contributions each of them will make, notably by providing money, looking after the household, caring for the children or supporting the other’s career or business.
3. In so doing they take due account of the needs of the marital union and of their own personal circumstances.”
Reciprocal spousal maintenance applies during marriage but also when there is a separation (even if there is no real prospect of reconciliation) until divorce is pronounced.
To set the maintenance contribution during protective measures the judge must start from the agreement (express or tacit) that the spouses have concerning the distribution of tasks and resources between them during their marriage. If the couple stops cohabiting, the judge must take into in fixing an interim award: the proper maintenance of the family imposes on each of the spouses the duty to participate, according to his faculties, in the additional costs engendered by the separated life. If a couple have “favourable” finances so that the additional costs linked to the existence of two separate households are sufficiently covered, the creditor spouse can claim that their pension provisions are fixed in such a way that his/her previous lifestyle, which constitutes the upper limit of the right to maintenance, be maintained. When it is not possible to maintain this standard of living, the spouses have the right to a similar standard of living.
What this means in practice is that in cases of great disparity in the finances of the spouses, it is in the “less well off” spouse’s financial interest to request protective measures instead of petitioning for a divorce, in order to maintain his or her lifestyle for at least two more years even though the spouses have no intention to reunite. In fact, after divorce, the principle of clean break applies and each spouse should bear his or her own expenses and become financially independent insofar as it is possible. This is particularly the case where the marriage duration was short; the parties are under 50 years-old and able to work; and the childcare still required of the spouses does not constitute an important limitation.
Generally, maintaining a lifestyle involves not only financial contribution but also accommodation for the spouse. Therefore, the “less well off” party may obtain under protective measures the right to use the home and the household effects. The reason for this is generally that the “less well off” spouse is usually the one providing childcare and who has less financial resources, hence less chance to find another adequate accommodation (ie. obtaining a lease).
The directions given by the Court regarding the use of the house or the household effects under protective measures will be very often irrespective of which spouse owns the real estate, how it was financed, or to whom it will be attributed after divorce.
The protective measures rendered by the Swiss Court apply until a divorce judgment is handed down. This means the spouse who benefits from protective measures may strategically attempt to postpone the divorce proceedings, consequentially feeding the relationship conflict for several years.
Spouses should be aware that protective measures can be used successfully to maintain lifestyle. At the same time, such measures can be open to abuse.
Our Geneva family team has acted on multiple cases seeking to defend or overturn protective measures.
Employment and GDPR - Landed Estates and Heritage Property Webinar Series: Part 4
All things employment and returning to 'normal' and a data protection update (focusing on back to work issues).
Planning and Property - Landed Estates and Heritage Property Webinar Series: Part 3
Current planning considerations, how the new Electronic Communications Code is working, and discussing mast apparatus.
Business Interruption, branding and estate based filming - Landed Estates and Heritage Property Webinar Series: Part 2
Business interruption, building and protecting your brand and commercialisation and Estate based filming
All things trusts and tax - Landed Estates and Heritage Property Webinar Series: Part 1
The Spring Budget update, what trusts are, corporate trustees vs individual trustees, liability issues and varying trusts.
Sophie Dworetzsky quoted in the Financial Times on the increase to corporation tax
Following the Chancellor's Budget this week, Sophie provides her expertise on the rise in corporation tax.
Property Professionals: Spring Budget Announcement
Join us as we discuss the highlights of the recent budget announcement.
A vote of confidence in the UK arts sector: Chancellor announces £408m funding boost
Mixed news for corporation tax payers in today’s Budget
The announcement brings good news for the short term - and bad news in the longer term for corporation tax payers.
Domestic Abuse Bill - strengthened protection for victims
The latest phone hacking settlement achieved on behalf of six celebrity clients from Mirror Group Newspapers reported in the press
The news of the latest phone hacking settlements from MGN reported by The Telegraph, Sky News, Yahoo and New Law Journal
Phone hacking: Charles Russell Speechlys achieves settlement for celebrity clients from Mirror Group Newspapers
Charles Russell Speechlys can today confirm the settlement of privacy claims for unlawful voicemail interception on behalf of six clients.
The conveniences and inconveniences of forum non-conveniens
Graeme Kleiner, Hugh Gunson and Tom Watts write for Trusts and Estates Law & Tax Journal on the implications of the decision in Mackay v Wesley
Those taking on a trusteeship must be fully informed.
Spring Budget 2021 – Predictions
Spring Budget 2021 - predictions
Spring budget 2021 - what will the Chancellor do?
Julia Cox quoted by Citywealth on the shared home exemption
For those who purchased a second home during the past year, they might want to explore the shared home exemption.
Dominic Lawrance, Hugh Gunson and Catrin Harrison write for Tax Journal on Embiricos and the future of partial closure notices
A look at the Upper Tribunal's decision in Embiricos and the implications for those faced with a domicile enquiry.
Enforcing judgments in England and Switzerland post-Brexit
For the first time, there is no framework for the enforcement of Swiss judgments in the United Kingdom and vice versa.
Piers Master named in eprivateclient’s 50 Most Influential 2021
Piers Master has been included in the rankings recognising the key players in the UK and offshore private client practitioner sector.
William Marriott quoted by The Telegraph on the impact of Land Registry delays on the UK property market
Home buyers and sellers are at risk of missing the stamp duty holiday because of hold-ups, which could cause deals to collapse.