Please note that this News item is not maintained, and reflects the law as at the date of publication or update.
It may be obvious, although often forgotten, that getting married or entering into a civil partnership is more than just a public expression of love. Whilst many have civil ceremonies these days, the traditional wedding vows from a church service, and in particular “to have and to hold…in sickness and in health…”, are worth having in mind.
A recent divorce case concerned a couple who had been married for 10 years and who had two children. During the course of the relationship, tragically, the husband had an accident at home and was rendered a tetraplegic. An insurance policy paid out, which enabled the parties to buy their home, which required adaption to meet the husband’s needs (funded through other sources).
When the couple parted company, the children remained living with the wife. The court had to decide what to do about the family home. This was a case which involved very limited resources. The court concluded that neither would have any real increase in their income for the foreseeable future, and neither could obtain a mortgage until their debts were paid. Furthermore, they could only pay their debts from the proceeds of sale of the family home. Having done so, neither of them would have sufficient left to buy another property. There just was not enough money to go round.
The Matrimonial Causes Act indicates, inter alia, that the Court must “…have regard to all circumstances of the case, first consideration being given to the welfare while a minor of any child of the family who has not attained the age of 18”. This might lead you to think that the house would have to be preserved for the benefit of the children, and that the husband would need to rehouse. However, in this case the Court concluded that the husband’s disability was so significant that the need for him to be in a home where his needs could adequately be met was the primary need, and that he would have to retain use of the family home to the exclusion of the wife and the children. This meant that the wife and children would have to move to rented accommodation. The wife’s interest in the property was to be more than 50% (the Court actually set it at 75% of its value) but she would not receive that benefit until the husband no longer needed the family home, whether because of his death or because he needed institutional care on a permanent basis.
No one can know what life will throw at us, but it is worth remembering that entering into a marriage is more than just words, it is a serious commitment that each is making to the other, and the vicissitudes of life may have a dramatic impact on how financial issues are resolved in the event of divorce.
For more information on finances on divorce click here.
