The Remarriage Trap: Why Getting Remarried Before a Consent Order Could Cost You Everything

Divorce ends a marriage — but it does not end financial claims. Once your Conditional Order is granted, you can begin securing a Consent Order. If you instead fall in love again, plan a new wedding, and walk down the aisle before that order is sealed, you trigger one of the most consequential — and easily avoided — legal traps in English family law.

It is called the Remarriage Trap. It catches thousands of people every year. And by the time most people discover it, it is too late to do anything about it.

This guide explains precisely what the Remarriage Trap is, which financial claims it extinguishes, what the courts have consistently said about it, and — critically — how to protect yourself before it is too late.

What Is the Remarriage Trap?

The Remarriage Trap refers to a specific provision under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973). Under section 28(3), a party who remarries before applying to the court for certain financial orders permanently loses the right to pursue those claims.

In plain terms: once you are married to someone new, you cannot apply for a property adjustment order, a lump sum order, or a periodical payments (spousal maintenance) order against your former spouse. The right is extinguished. Not suspended. Not delayed. Gone.

This is not a penalty. It is not designed to punish people who move on with their lives. It is a structural feature of English matrimonial law — one that most people simply do not know about until it is too late.

Which Financial Claims Does Remarriage Extinguish?

The trap does not extinguish every type of claim equally. Understanding the distinction is important.

Note: The above represents general legal principles under English and Welsh law as at August 2026. Individual circumstances vary. This platform does not provide legal advice.

The Case That Changed How People Think About This: Wyatt v Vince [2015]

Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 is the most important English case illustrating the permanent, open-ended nature of financial claims after divorce — and it is the mirror image of the Remarriage Trap.

Dale Vince and Kathleen Wyatt divorced in the early 1990s. Neither obtained a Consent Order. Twenty years later, Vince had built a multi-million pound renewable energy business. Wyatt, who had not remarried, brought financial claims against him. The Supreme Court confirmed those claims were legally valid — more than two decades after the divorce.

The case illustrates both sides of the same coin — and explains why obtaining a sealed Consent Order is the only way to achieve permanent, enforceable financial closure after divorce:

• Without a Consent Order, claims remain open indefinitely. Your ex-spouse could bring financial claims against you years — or decades — after divorce if their financial circumstances change (or yours improve dramatically).
• Remarriage closes the door permanently — but only for the person who remarries. In Wyatt v Vince, Wyatt had not remarried. Had she done so without a Consent Order, she would have lost all those claims against Vince — however substantial.

A Worked Example: Sarah and James

Sarah and James divorced in 2021 under the no-fault procedure. Their Final Order was granted in November 2021. They verbally agreed that James would keep the marital home (valued at £380,000) and Sarah would keep her pension. Neither obtained a Consent Order — they were both eager to move on and assumed their verbal agreement was sufficient.

In 2023, Sarah met a new partner. They married in June 2024. In late 2024, Sarah's solicitor advised her that James's property — now worth £440,000 — had increased significantly in value, and that she might have grounds to revisit the financial settlement. When she sought advice on making a claim, she was told the following:

James, by contrast, retained the right to make financial claims against Sarah — because he had not remarried. The asymmetry is stark, and it is entirely a function of who remarried first.

A sealed Consent Order obtained before June 2024 would have protected both parties permanently, for a fraction of the disputed amount.

When Exactly Does the Trap Close?

The trigger point is the date of the new marriage ceremony — not the date you announce an engagement, not the date you move in together, and not the date you change your name. The moment you are legally married to a new partner in England and Wales (or abroad, in a marriage recognised under English law), the trap closes.

Critically, you do not need to wait for your Final Order before acting. The window to protect yourself is:

Acting after the Conditional Order — rather than waiting for the Final Order — gives you the maximum possible window to get documents prepared, submitted, and sealed before any remarriage. The sooner you begin, the more time you have to absorb any court delays.

Does Forming a New Civil Partnership Also Trigger the Trap?

Yes. The same principle applies if you form a new civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 before obtaining a sealed financial order. The trap is triggered by the legal formalisation of a new relationship — whether that takes the form of marriage or civil partnership.

If you are dissolving a civil partnership and subsequently enter into either a new civil partnership or a marriage, the same protection logic applies: obtain a financial order from the family court before doing so.

How to Avoid the Remarriage Trap: A Practical Checklist

Avoiding the Remarriage Trap is straightforward if you act before the wedding. Here is what you need to do:

What If You Have Already Remarried Without a Consent Order?

This is the question that no one wants to ask — but many people need to.

If you have already remarried and never obtained a Consent Order from your first divorce, your position depends on what you are trying to achieve:

• If you want to make claims against your former spouse: Under s.28(3) MCA 1973, your right to apply for property adjustment, lump sum, and periodical payment orders is extinguished. You cannot undo this. You should take specialist legal advice to understand whether any alternative routes exist — they are very limited.
• If you are concerned about claims against you: Your former spouse (if they have not remarried) may still be able to bring financial claims against you. A Consent Order can still be obtained — but it requires your former spouse's cooperation and the consent of both parties. If they are willing, a consent order can still be filed and approved.
• If both of you have remarried: Both parties' rights to make financial provision and property adjustment claims under MCA 1973 are extinguished. However, pension sharing claims (s.24B MCA 1973) may not be affected by remarriage — specialist advice is recommended if pensions remain unresolved. Separately, this is not a substitute for a Consent Order: if property or pensions remain in shared ownership, those practical issues persist and require resolution regardless.

Frequently Asked Questions