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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.