After the festive season, many of us take this as an opportunity to reflect on our romantic relationships, often prompted by the emotional highs (and lows) that accompany the Christmas and New Year holiday period.
These family gatherings and social events may have led to both joyful moments and significant stressors, hence as January unfolds, it's common for individuals to reassess their relationship options, and consider whether these still align with their personal expectations and desires.
This period of introspection leads to a significant increase in enquiries to our Family Law Team, with many people seeking to understand their options.
To what extent can property become ‘matrimonialised’? | Case RM v WP [2024]
As solicitors, we always seek a fair and equitable division of matrimonial property on separation. This is often a contentious issue, however, a landmark judgment handed down in a case last year has given us additional issues to consider.
The case, RM v WP [2024] EWFC 191 (B), means that we now have to consider the extent to which property has become ‘matrimonialised’.
Matrimonial vs non-matrimonial Property
‘Matrimonial assets’ are assets such as finances and property accrued jointly during the marriage [or civil partnership] by the spouses. These could be the family home, holiday home, buy to let properties, investments, bonds, jewellery, pensions or money in their bank accounts. The term ‘non-matrimonial assets’ means asset/s brought into the marriage or sometimes can be applied to assets gained outside of the marriage, or after separation.
The case of RM v WP examined what it means to become ‘matrimonialised’ and reiterated the point that the court can depart from an equal division of matrimonial property, even the family home, where it considers that fairness requires it.
In this case, H (Husband) was 75 and W (Wife) was 52. They cohabited from May 2005 and married in May 2007. They had two children, one sadly died at the age of 8 and the surviving child was 16 at the time of the proceedings.
H had four properties in his sole name, all purchased prior to the marriage. They remained in his sole name for the duration of the marriage. W argued that the properties had been ‘matrimonialised’ as during the marriage, they had lived in all four properties as the family home at different times, and therefore the sharing principle should apply.
It was found that they lived in one Property for 6 years, another for 8 years and 2 years. One apartment was never the family home, though W resided there on and off after the separation. The W’s needs were decided to be £680,000. But an equal share of the three properties would amount to a lump sum of £730,844, which was in excess of W’s needs.
The Judgement
The judge, His Honour Judge Edward Hess, noted that the court should reflect on all the section 25 MCA 1973 factors, and in circumstances such as this, not disregard unmatched contributions, as well as the length of the occupation as a family home. If the result of treating the properties as matrimonial is unfair, then the court should steer away from it and not be bound by the sharing principle. Importantly the Judge also made the distinction that this is not about assets becoming ‘unmatrimonialised’, but how matrimonial assets may be split to get a fair outcome.
HHJ Hess did not dispute that the property had become ‘matrimonialised’ during the marriage, but instead considered the concept of fairness under the sharing principle. The judge concluded that there was justification for departing from an equal division of the net equity of the three homes, and it was instead fair to award W only the amount required to meet her needs.
This instance is an interesting reminder that in cases where one party’s needs can be met, the court could consider fairness rather than using the formulaic approach of the sharing principle.
This further highlights the discretionary nature of the family courts and may result in more parties arguing this point, where several properties have been used as matrimonial homes.
In the end, the court will first ensure that the needs of both parties are met, after which there appears to be more discretion in relation to remaining assets, even if they are deemed ‘matrimonial’, to ensure that ‘fairness’ is achieved.
Vijaya Sumputh, Sarah Canfield, and Zen Thompson are qualified professionals and together they have over 55 years of experience. Our Family Law Team can provide you with expert legal advice and representation on a wide range of family law matters. They are very familiar with the local court system and will provide you with the best possible legal advice and representation in addition to advising you on the best course of action to take in your circumstances.
Please contact our Family Law Team or call us on 020 8363 4444 to discuss whether we can help you.
