The secret garden, the floristry masterpiece, the sparkling ring and the fairytale proposal. Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement sparked joy among fans, as well as speculation on social media and in the press. But why has this event caused such a flurry of interest among family law professionals?

There are several key elements of the upcoming Swift-Kelce marriage that have raised questions amongst legal onlookers.

The sheer volume of wealth and assets owned by Swift is reportedly 20 times that of her new fiancé, despite his own significant net worth. In 2024, Swift reached billionaire status, the first woman to achieve this milestone through music alone. In the event the couple divorce, it will not only be the heartbreak of millions around the world on the line, but potentially her portfolio.

Pre-marital assets have recently come into the limelight in the case of Standish v Standish. To what extent an asset can be ‘matrimonialised’ has been given some clarity by the Supreme Court. However, this does not necessarily guarantee the safety of pre-marital assets or those held in one party’s sole name.

From the perspective of our jurisdiction, the important assets in the Swift-Kelce marriage are cash business, property and cash.

Business assets on divorce

Taylor Swift’s business is based on her music catalogue, and her ownership of her own production company. It is likely she will retain the entire asset in her sole name.

However, business assets can be contentious issues in divorce, particularly around valuation. In England and Wales, the valuation of business will need to be conducted professionally, and clients advised by experts throughout the process. Valuations will likely need to include future earnings as well as the company’s current value, particularly if the business is a central source of income for one or both parties. Future earnings can often be quite contentious and careful consideration will need to be given especially in regards to any Wells Sharing Agreement.

Contention can arise in instances where both parties have an interest in the business, or if there is a dispute over the valuation. It is vital clients do not misrepresent the value of a company in the process of financial disclosure. Courts will not look kindly on misleading behaviour and costs orders may well be enforced.

Property in divorce

The property portfolio of Swift and Kelce amounts to 11 houses across the United States. The majority of these are owned by Swift herself.

As family lawyers will know, property division in England and Wales depends on whether it is matrimonial or non-matrimonial. Where a property has been used as a family home, it is likely that it will be considered as an asset for division in divorce, regardless of whether it has been owned in sole or joint names.

Wealth in divorce

Of course, disposable finances will also need to be considered. Swift and Kelce have ongoing successful careers which will likely continue to bring significant income to both for many years.

In some divorces, future earnings may come into play when looking at the financial security of each party going forward. However, in ultra and high-net-worth divorces, prospective income is unlikely to feature as each party will have their needs sufficiently met from their sole and matrimonial assets.

Prenuptial agreements

Speculation has naturally turned to a prenuptial agreement. Protecting individual wealth and planning for the future will be of huge importance to both parties and their individual lawyers will recommend a watertight prenup.

For clients in England and Wales, prenups are continuing their popularity trajectory. My colleagues and I see more and more prenup enquiries each year, and advising clients across a broad wealth spectrum is common. It is essential, however, for clients to seek financial advice alongside their legal representation, particularly where there are complex assets.

It is also important to be realistic about the role of the nuptial agreement. Where is it unfair to either party, or there is evidence of undue pressure, the agreement will not be upheld. In this jurisdiction, there is no such thing as an ‘ironclad’ prenup, but they are certainly gaining more standing. Nevertheless, caution is the watchword of the day, and family lawyers will need to be conscious of the influence of celebrity prenups on clients.

Anu Kurl is a Partner at Stowe Family Law