Successful outcome for our Client in the Family Court

What happens when financial positions reverse during a marriage?

We are delighted to report that Bradley Haynes Law successfully represented an applicant husband in a recent final hearing before the Family Court.

The case presented us with interesting facts and shows us how the court will deal with the division of marital assets after a lengthy marriage.

Our team was led by Veronica Beard.  If Veronica can help you with any family related issues, please contact her on 01905 900 919 or email veronica@bradleyhayneslaw.co.uk.

Background

Our client and his wife had been married for many years.

Our client had worked full time during the majority of the marriage earning double that of the wife and meeting all outgoings at various points of the marriage. However, some time prior to the breakdown of the marriage, our client was made redundant and had not been able to replace those earnings.

Not too long after the husband’s redundancy, the wife secured a well-paid position which attracted a large pension into which she contributed from her earnings. By the time the case came to final hearing, the wife had earnings of almost double that of our client.

The marital property had been significantly extended with inheritance received by the wife during the marriage.

The parties separated and the wife secured her new job and divorce proceedings were issued by the husband.

Post separation, our client lived in rented accommodation which he initially shared with a friend. He struggled to live month to month, he went into debt and was forced to take an early draw-down on his own pension to sustain his income and to pay off his debts.

The parties had children who lived predominantly with the wife, but one of whom indicated a desire to live with our client.

Arguments

The wife had a large pension which she was reluctant  to share and she further refused to sell the marital home.  Our client therefore sought redress from the court.

Our client’s position was that the property should be sold and the proceeds split equally given:

• he had lived hand to mouth and by the time the case came to final hearing some 5 years post separation
• that one of his children wished to live with him.
• that the wife’s pension had accumulated significantly and her mortgage raising capacity was more than double that of the husband.
• that he had been forced to draw-down his own pension funds in order to live.

The wife’s position was that:

• she had made more contribution to the value of the property than had the husband, given the inheritance from her family and further that she had been paying the mortgage and outgoings since the husband’s redundancy.
• she was not able to raise sufficient monies to purchase the husband’s share of the marital home on a 50/50 basis but similarly she was not willing to sell the property.
• the children were used to the standard of living which the marital property provided which, she stated would not be easily replaced on her budget should she have to sell.
• our client’s pension draw down was not sensible and his debt should not be paid from the sale proceeds.

Decision of the Court

The court noted that the financial positions of the parties had reversed during the marriage.

The Judge considered that if the court was assessing the wife’s claim rather than the husband’s and it was she who was in rented accommodation, it is clear it must be held that the refusal to sell the marital property was unfair and unrealistic.

The wife’s criticism of the husband’s draw-down on his pension and accumulation of debt was not accepted by the Judge who found that the husband had no other option other than to have taken that course of action in order to live. The Judge considered that our client’s debts were marital and should be cleared from the liquid assets.

The wife’s request for the court not to include the entirety of her pension  was accepted , however  an order was made giving the husband a good percentage of the wife’s pension which had accrued during the marriage up to the date of separation.

The Judge ordered an immediate sale of the property on the basis of a 50% split of the resulting equity should be paid to our client.

Our team was led by Veronica Beard. If Veronica can help you with any family related issues, please contact her on 01905 900 919 or email veronica@bradleyhayneslaw.co.uk.