BLB Solicitors
BLB Solicitors
  • Home
  • COVID-19 Hub
  • Services for You
    • Residential Property
    • Leasehold Property Rights
    • Property Dispute Resolution
    • Divorce and Family Law
    • Lifetime Planning and Wills
    • Probate and Estate Administration
    • Personal Injury Compensation
    • Medical Negligence
  • Services for Business
    • Commercial Property
    • Commercial Property Disputes
    • Company & Commercial
    • Estate Management
  • Locations
    • Almondsbury
    • Bath
    • Bristol
    • Bradford on Avon
    • Swindon
    • Trowbridge
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Working for BLB
    • How we work
    • Making Payments
    • Instructing BLB
    • Terms of Business
    • Complaints Policy
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Divorce and Family Law Dec 16th, 2011

Financial remedies in modest asset divorce cases

Most of the Family Law cases that are reported by the press concern matrimonial finances which are at a level which far eclipses the average family’s resources. Whilst these cases contain important and interesting principles they rarely mirror the usual type of case crossing a Solicitor’s desk. The case of A v L is an example of a High Court case where the family assets were relatively modest and the decision was a difficult one for the judge to make. As is often the case, here there simply weren’t enough assets to go round.

The total assets were £213,515, after deduction of the husband’s debts, comprising of the equity in the family home, some property in the husband’s name in Egypt, and some very modest savings. The husband also had a higher income than the wife, around £23,000 net, although the true extent of his income was open to dispute. The wife was reliant on state benefits.

There was insufficient capital in the house to rehouse both parties. The children were both adults, although the youngest aged 18 still lived at home and the eldest aged 21 returned home in University holidays. The Court had an obligation to reach a fair judgment, and if there is to be a departure from equality this has to be justified. The Court concluded that justice could only be done if the house was sold. An order was made awarding 70% of the capital to the wife and 30% to the husband. The income differential between the parties justified a departure from equality, and the husband received the benefit of a clean break and would not have to make ongoing payments to the wife.

The outcome in this case left both parties in a position where they would only be able to afford to buy a very modest property in the South East, where they lived, if they chose to reinvest their capital this way. For the husband, this would involve taking on a large mortgage at the age of 57 with relatively ill health. This is a clear example of the outcome not being very satisfactory to either party, even where it is objectively fair, and of the difficulties of dividing up limited funds.

Annette Taylor
Make an Enquiry

Recent Stories

  • What is the 7 year rule in Inheritance Tax?
  • Can a right of way be removed?
  • Charitable gifts and Inheritance Tax
  • Access to a neighbour’s property for maintenance: what are my rights?
  • Warehouse lease: negotiating heads of terms

Newsletter Sign-up

* indicates required

Share this article

You may also like...

  • Nov 25th, 2011
    High Court upholds Pre-Nuptial Agreement against wishes of wife
    Read Article
  • Aug 20th, 2012
    Separation and Divorce – What are my options?
    Read Article
View All Related Articles

Get in-touch today

Contact Form

Left Column

Right Column

Centre

 
Sending
  • Bristol

    0117 905 5308
  • Bath

    01225 462871
  • Bradford on Avon

    01225 866541
  • Swindon

    01793 615011
  • Trowbridge

    01225 755656
  • Almondsbury

    0117 905 5308
Authorised & Regulated by Solicitors Regulation Authority (No. 636644)
©2021 BLB Solicitors | Terms | Privacy | Legal