Jenna Lucas, instructed by Eleanor Wood and Jim Richards of Lawrence Stephens Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the husband in this financial remedies case concerning the provenance of assets and the approach when pre-marital assets had been used as a matrimonial home.
During the course of the marriage, the parties lived consecutively in three homes owned by the husband. In the judgment, HHJ Hess noted that a 50% share of all three properties would produce a lump sum of more than he had assessed as being the wife’s needs.
It was argued on behalf of the wife that she should receive an equal share of all four properties owned by the husband, or alternatively at least the three properties which she averred had been ‘matrimonialised’ by the parties having lived in them.
The court adopted the approach advanced on behalf of the husband that the wife’s award should be limited to meeting her needs, less than 50% of the equity in the three properties which the parties have occupied during the marriage. It was noted that “the court.. should not disregard the unmatched contributions of one party and also the length of the occupation of a particular property as a family home”; and concluded that “there is justification here for departing in the husband’s direction from an equal division of the net equity in the three homes which have been family homes. My view is that the fair answer here is for the wife to be awarded the amount that meets her needs.”
The judgment is here.