RM v WP
[2024] EWFC 191 (B)
VT v LT
18 December 2023
[2023] EWFC 256 (B)
Family Court
A couple divorced after 18 years. They couldn't agree on splitting their assets, mainly the house. The judge decided the husband could keep the house, but had to pay the wife a large amount of money. If he didn't, the house would be sold and the money split. The judge also shared the husband’s pension with the wife to make it fair.
Key Facts
- •18-year marriage ending in March 2020
- •Three children, two teenage boys requiring their own space
- •Husband remained in former matrimonial home (worth £245,000, equity of ~£118,000), wife in rented accommodation (£825/month)
- •Husband's IT business operates from the home, impacted by Covid, with fluctuating income and HMRC debt (£50,646)
- •Wife employed at McDonald's with additional income from Universal Credit
- •Agreed matrimonial debt: £33,777 (husband), £3922 (wife)
- •Disagreement on financial settlement: Wife seeks £80,000, husband proposes £45,000
Legal Principles
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Fair distribution of assets considering all circumstances of the case.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Outcomes
Husband to keep the former matrimonial home, but pay the wife £20,000 immediately and a further £35,000 within 24 months. Failure to do so results in the property being sold with £55,000 to the wife and the balance to the husband.
Balances the need for fairness in the distribution of assets, considering the husband's higher earning capacity and mortgage capacity, while recognizing the wife's need for secure housing and the length of the marriage. Departure from equal division considered fair due to Section 25 factors.
50% of the CET value of the husband's pension to be transferred to the wife.
Aims to achieve some equality of income on retirement.
Clean break order.
To finalize the financial arrangements between the parties.