matrimonialisation Archives - James Thornton Family Law

18 February 2025

Four Houses and a Divorce: The Complexities of Property and Contribution in RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B)

When it comes to dividing assets in a divorce, few things cause as much contention as pre-marital property—especially when there’s more than one house involved. In RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B), the court had to decide whether four properties owned by the husband before the marriage should be shared or whether the wife’s claim should be limited to her financial needs.

The case offers valuable insights into how courts approach long marriages, non-matrimonial assets, and the “matrimonialisation” of property—and serves as a warning that just because a house has been a family home doesn’t necessarily mean it will be shared equally.

The Case: A Marriage and Multiple Homes

RM (the wife) and WP (the husband) had a long marriage, spanning 15 years from 2005 to 2020. At the time of their marriage, the husband already owned four properties, which remained in his sole name:

Two apartments in London
A country cottage
A house in a European country

Over the years, the couple lived in different properties at different times, sometimes together, sometimes separately. When the marriage broke down, the wife argued that since these homes had been used as family residences at different times, they had become matrimonial property, meaning they should be divided equally.

The husband, on the other hand, argued that these properties were his pre-marital assets, had remained in his name throughout, and should not be shared beyond what was necessary to meet the wife’s housing needs.

The Court’s Approach: What Happens When There Are Multiple Homes?

Judge Hess had to decide whether these properties had become matrimonial and, if so, whether they should be divided equally. He outlined key principles:

The Importance of a “Family Home”
- The general rule is that the matrimonial home, even if pre-owned by one party, is usually considered matrimonial property.
- However, when a couple has multiple homes, the situation becomes more complex.
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Family Homes
- The wife argued that all four properties should be treated as matrimonial property because they had been used at different times as the family home.
- The judge rejected this “once a family home, always a family home” argument. Just because a house had been lived in for a period did not automatically make it a matrimonial asset.
The Husband’s Sole Ownership and Lack of “Mixing”
- The properties had always remained in the husband’s name.
- The wife had not contributed financially to the properties.
- Apart from one refurbishment (paid for with the husband’s business funds), there was no evidence of the couple treating the properties as jointly owned.
Needs vs. Sharing Principle
- The wife’s claim was assessed on her needs, not equal sharing.
- The court awarded her £657,000—enough to secure reasonable housing but far less than half of the total property portfolio’s value.

Key Features for Family Lawyers and their Clients

Just Because a House Has Been a Family Home Doesn’t Mean It Will Be Shared

The court is willing to depart from the equal sharing principle where assets clearly originated from one party.
Multiple homes used at different times do not automatically become matrimonial property.

Pre-Marital Assets Can Retain Their Character

If a party keeps an asset solely in their name and does not mix finances, courts are more likely to treat it as non-matrimonial.
This case reinforces Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, which held that even the family home can be unequally divided if there are strong pre-marital claims.

Needs-Based Outcomes Still Prevail in Long Marriages

Even when assets are non-matrimonial, courts will still ensure the financially weaker party can rehouse.
The wife here was awarded enough to buy a £650,000 property, but she did not get a share of all four houses.

If You Want to Protect Pre-Marital Property, Keep It Separate

Had the husband added the wife to the title, allowed her to financially contribute, or mingled finances, he might have lost his claim to keep the properties.
Clients who want to protect pre-marital wealth should consider pre-nuptial agreements or clear financial separation.

Final Thoughts: Four Homes, One Divorce, and a Lesson in Asset Protection

RM v WP highlights that just because multiple houses were lived in at different times, it does not mean they will all be divided equally. Pre-marital assets remain pre-marital unless there is strong evidence of mixing—and the courts will not hesitate to depart from a 50/50 split where fairness demands it.

For practitioners, the case serves as a useful precedent when advising clients who own multiple properties before marriage. For divorcing parties, the lesson is simple: if you want to claim a share of an asset, you need to show you treated it as joint property, not just that you lived in it.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: 4 houses, case law, matrimonialisation, rm v wp 2024, standish

24 January 2025

Valuing Love: Lessons from AF v GF [2024] on Non-Matrimonial Assets and Pensions

The case of AF v GF [2024] EWHC 3478 (Fam) offers family law practitioners a masterclass in tackling complex financial remedy disputes involving high-value business assets, pensions, and the nuanced distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. Beyond the substantial legal fees and extensive litigation, this case highlights key principles and practical tips for practitioners navigating similar scenarios.

The Story Behind the Numbers

This case concerned a long marriage between AF (the wife) and GF (the husband), marked by significant financial complexities. At the heart of the dispute were:

The valuation and classification of GF's business interests in the investment management sector.
Arguments over the extent to which non-matrimonial assets had been "matrimonialised" through the wife’s involvement in growing the business.
The drastic decline in asset values during the litigation, leading to competing expert valuations.

The total asset pool, initially estimated at £10–13 million, was later revised to a mere £2.779 million, a drop that complicated the fairness assessment.

Key Issues and Legal Principles

Matrimonial vs. Non-Matrimonial Assets
The court grappled with whether GF's pre-marital business interests (founded in 2007) had been transformed into matrimonial property through AF’s contributions as Managing Director.
- The court relied on Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, which emphasised that matrimonialisation should be applied narrowly and fairness should guide whether non-marital assets are brought into the sharing principle.
- The judgment reinforced that not all contributions transform non-marital property into matrimonial property; the distinction depends on usage, mixing, and intent.
Fragility of Business Valuations
The collapse in the value of GF’s business interests highlighted the volatility of private company valuations. Echoing Versteegh v Versteegh [2018], the judgment noted that such valuations are inherently fragile due to market conditions, lack of liquidity, and reliance on hypothetical projections.
Addbacks and Conduct
Both parties sought to add back amounts they alleged the other had wasted.
- The court declined to add back GF’s substantial loss from the purchase of a yacht, as it was deemed a business decision rather than wanton dissipation.
- Similarly, AF’s maintenance expenditure was not penalised despite GF’s claims of unnecessary spending.

Practical Tips for Practitioners

Be Proactive About Valuations
- Always scrutinise business valuations early in the proceedings and ensure clients understand their inherent volatility.
- Encourage clients to provide clear and complete financial disclosure to minimise disputes.
Understand the Limits of Matrimonialisation
- Advise clients that contributions to a business may not necessarily convert non-marital assets into marital property.
- Where clients seek to argue matrimonialisation, gather evidence showing active involvement and the integration of assets into the marital framework.
Manage Client Expectations
- Cases involving non-marital assets often lead to unpredictable outcomes. Set realistic expectations early, especially when valuations fluctuate.
- Highlight the cost-benefit analysis of litigation; in this case, legal fees of £1.6 million significantly eroded the available asset pool.
Addbacks Require High Thresholds
- Emphasise that claims for addbacks (or reattributions) require proof of wanton dissipation of assets. Frivolous spending or unwise investments typically do not meet this standard.
Clean Breaks vs. Wells Orders
- This case underscores the practical challenges of devising clean break settlements where assets include volatile business interests. Wells orders, which defer payments until realisations occur, may provide a pragmatic alternative.

Reflections: Navigating the Storm

AF v GF serves as a cautionary tale about the emotional and financial toll of protracted litigation. For practitioners, the key takeaways are the importance of robust evidence, early resolution efforts, and managing the inherent unpredictability of asset valuations.

Ultimately, this case reaffirms the court’s commitment to fairness, even in the most complex financial landscapes. It also highlights that when love turns to litigation, the best outcomes often stem from thorough preparation and a pragmatic approach.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: business, business assets, case law, matrimonialisation, non matrimonial assets, standish, versteegh, wells

23 October 2024

Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567: Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Assets in Financial Remedy Cases

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567 provides pivotal guidance on how matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets are treated in divorce proceedings. While the case involved substantial wealth, the principles established in this ruling apply to financial remedy cases of all sizes, particularly in terms of how non-matrimonial property is considered, when it becomes matrimonialised, and how the needs of the parties influence the outcome.

Background of the Case

In Standish v Standish, the couple had amassed significant wealth during their marriage, including £80 million transferred into the wife's name in 2017 as part of a tax planning exercise. The key legal issue was whether this transfer of assets, originating from the husband’s pre-marital wealth, constituted matrimonial property subject to division under the sharing principle or whether it remained non-matrimonial.

The wife contended that the couple’s lifestyle and the use of the wealth during their marriage had matrimonialised the assets. The husband argued that his pre-marital assets should remain separate, despite the transfer to the wife’s name for tax planning purposes.

Key Legal Issues in the Case

Matrimonialisation of Non-Matrimonial Property: The key focus was whether the husband’s pre-marital assets had become matrimonial through the couple’s use and treatment of them during the marriage. The court reviewed the extent to which assets that were non-matrimonial at the outset could, through actions during the marriage, become subject to the sharing principle. Moylan LJ reiterated that the concept of matrimonialisation must be applied "narrowly."
The Sharing Principle: The wife argued that the sharing principle should apply to the 2017 transfer of assets because it was made in the context of their marriage. However, the court held that merely transferring assets to the wife’s name did not change their underlying non-matrimonial nature. The court emphasised that legal title is not determinative; the source of the wealth remains the critical factor in deciding whether an asset is subject to division.
Impact on Division of Wealth: The court ultimately found that 75% of the couple’s wealth remained non-matrimonial, meaning the wife would receive a significantly reduced share from her initial £45 million award, reduced to £25 million. This decision reflects the court’s approach that even if non-matrimonial assets are used during the marriage, they are not automatically subject to equal division unless fairness demands it.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Narrow Application of Matrimonialisation: The court made clear that matrimonialisation should be confined to specific circumstances. Only when non-matrimonial assets have been "mixed" with matrimonial property or used in a way that demonstrates an intention to treat them as shared marital assets, can they become subject to the sharing principle. This approach ensures that pre-marital assets are protected unless they are extensively integrated into the marital pot.
Source Over Title: Moylan LJ emphasised that the source of wealth, rather than who holds the legal title, is critical in determining whether assets are matrimonial or non-matrimonial. This has a significant impact on how pre-marital assets are treated, particularly in cases where one party contributes significantly more financially to the marriage than the other.
Fairness Over Equality: The court reiterated that fairness is the paramount consideration, and this does not always equate to equal division. Even where assets have become matrimonial, the court may still adjust the division based on the source of the wealth and the contributions of each party.
Needs-Based Approach in Lower-Value Cases: Although Standish involved significant wealth, the principles established in the case apply equally to "small money" cases. In cases where the matrimonial assets are insufficient to meet the needs of both parties, the court may include non-matrimonial property in the division to ensure that housing and income needs are met. This reinforces the court’s flexibility in ensuring fairness, even if it means using non-matrimonial assets to satisfy needs.

Implications for Family Law Practitioners

Matrimonialisation in Practice: Practitioners must carefully assess the extent to which non-matrimonial assets have been integrated into the marriage. This case provides valuable guidance on how to argue for or against matrimonialisation based on the treatment of assets during the marriage. Lawyers must advise clients on the risks of transferring or mixing non-matrimonial assets, especially in the context of tax planning or other financial arrangements.
Needs in "Small Money" Cases: For lower-value cases, the Standish ruling has important implications. In cases where the total assets are modest, practitioners should expect that non-matrimonial property may be considered to meet housing and income needs, even if fairness does not demand an equal division. The focus will be on ensuring that both parties can maintain a reasonable standard of living post-divorce.
Early Advice on Pre-Marital Wealth: Clients with significant pre-marital assets should be advised early on about the potential matrimonialisation of those assets, particularly if they are used jointly during the marriage. Clear legal advice on keeping non-matrimonial property separate and how to manage assets through prenuptial agreements or other means is crucial.

Conclusion

Standish v Standish reaffirms the importance of distinguishing between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property in financial remedy cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision provides clarity on the narrow circumstances in which non-matrimonial property may be subject to division and underscores the court’s commitment to fairness rather than automatic equality. For family law practitioners, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of careful financial planning and transparent legal strategies, whether in high-net-worth or "small money" cases.

This ruling is likely to shape financial remedy proceedings for years to come, particularly in cases involving significant pre-marital wealth. By reinforcing the importance of the source of wealth and limiting the circumstances under which matrimonialisation applies, the court has provided a clear framework for both protecting pre-marital assets and ensuring fairness in the division of wealth.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, contributions, matrimonialisation, needs, non matrimonial assets

23 September 2024

When Does a Property Become Matrimonial? Insights from RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191

In RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191, the court faced a crucial question often raised in divorce proceedings: When does a property, originally owned by one spouse before marriage, become "matrimonial property" subject to division? His Honour Judge Hess tackled this issue in a detailed financial remedy judgment. The case provides key insights into how family courts determine whether a property has been "matrimonialised."

Background of the Case

In this case, the husband (WP) owned several properties before marrying the wife (RM). After their marriage, they lived in some of these properties during different periods of their relationship. The wife argued that these properties should be treated as matrimonial assets and therefore subject to the principle of equal sharing in the divorce settlement. The husband, on the other hand, contended that since he owned the properties before marriage, they should not automatically be divided equally.

The court had to determine whether living in these homes during the marriage made them matrimonial property, or whether they retained their pre-marital, non-matrimonial status.

The Court’s Approach: "Matrimonialisation" of Property

The court first considered the concept of "matrimonialisation"—a term used to describe how pre-marital assets, including property, can become matrimonial property over time. Judge Hess outlined several factors in determining whether properties owned by one spouse prior to marriage should be treated as matrimonial property:

Occupation as the Family Home: If the property was occupied as the family home during the marriage, even if for a short period, it may be considered matrimonial property.
Contributions and Improvements: If both spouses contributed financially or otherwise to the property's improvement during the marriage, this can strengthen the case for the property being matrimonialised.
Duration of Marriage and Occupation: The length of the marriage and the time spent living in the property as a couple plays a significant role. A short-term stay might not result in a property being classified as matrimonial, while long-term occupation increases the likelihood of it being subject to division.

In this case, three properties were under dispute. The family had lived in each of them at various points during the marriage, leading the wife to argue that they had all become matrimonial homes. The court agreed that, given the properties had been family homes for different periods, they should be considered matrimonial property.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

"Family Home" Plays a Central Role: Properties that were once used as the family home, even if briefly, are likely to be considered matrimonial property. The court emphasised that once a home has been "brushed with the character" of being a family home, it is difficult to argue that it should revert to its non-matrimonial status.
Multiple Family Homes Can Be Matrimonialised: This case also confirms that it is possible for multiple homes to be classified as matrimonial property if the family moved between them during the marriage. Sequential family homes, like those in this case, can all become part of the matrimonial pot.
Contribution Doesn’t Always Mean Financial: Even if one spouse does not financially contribute to a property, non-financial contributions such as homemaking and childcare are considered valuable and can lead to a property being treated as matrimonial.
Fairness Over Formula: The court has discretion to depart from equal division in cases where strict equality would not produce a fair outcome. Here, the judge awarded the wife enough to meet her housing needs rather than a full 50% share of the properties, noting that all the properties had been owned by the husband prior to marriage.
Matrimonialisation is Not Automatic: Not all properties owned by one spouse before marriage automatically become matrimonial. The court carefully examines the facts and circumstances of each property to determine its status.

Why This Case Matters

This case provides a clearer understanding of when and how properties become matrimonial, an issue that frequently arises in high net worth divorces. It confirms that courts are willing to treat multiple family homes as matrimonial property, but also reinforces the principle that fairness, rather than strict equality, guides financial remedy decisions. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder for couples to be aware of how shared living arrangements during marriage may affect property ownership in divorce settlements.

For family law practitioners, RM v WP offers valuable guidance on advising clients about property claims in divorce, and how to frame arguments around the use of pre-marital assets during marriage.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, family home, HHJ Hess, matrimonial home, matrimonialisation, matrimonialised, RM v WP