When The Court Is Justified In Making An Unequal Division Of Marital Assets ? Cu

Posted by Richard Payne on April 7th, 2016

Divorce is one of the most painful experiences couples can experience. It is not just mentally traumatising, but affects couples financially too. When marriages breakdown, couples may agree not to live together, but the hardest part is when they have to take tough decisions regarding their marital property. According to CurryPopeck Solicitors, marital property is the property acquired after the marriage, the things couples worked hard to acquire. Before a divorce is granted, the marital assets should be divided in a way that is satisfactory to both parties. While the court will look at dividing the property and assets in a fair and equitable manner between the divorcing couples, there are cases when the division of assets is unequal and if there is a good reason behind that then the decision cannot be changed at any cost, as happened in this case.

A husband lost his appeal against unequal divorce settlement, which gave his wife a greater share of the marital assets. After 15 years’ of marriage, the couple decided to divorce due to the problems caused by the husband’s addictive behaviour. After separation, the wife remained in their London flat, while the husband moved to a rented flat in Monte Carlo.

Their matrimonial assets included their London property, three French properties, the husband’s shares in several business ventures, and a few financial investments in the wife’s name.

The court found that it was not reasonable to expect the wife to work, and that the husband was able to manage his investments, even though he was unlikely to return to employment until he overcame his addictive behaviour.

The judge also found out that the husband had a considerable amount of wealth at the time of their marriage and that both had made equal contributions to the family’s welfare. Taking all the factors into account, the judge concluded that it was necessary to provide for the wife’s needs, hence the case was appropriate for unequal division of property.

Thus, the wife was given 54.5% of the marital assets and 45.5% was given to the husband, which was achieved by the wife retaining the London property, dividing the proceeds of sale of the French properties and each retaining the investments in their name. The court’s decision reflected that the husband’s addictive behaviour had led to the reckless depletion of family money and distress to the wife. So, the unequal division of property was justified in this case. According to Curry Popeck, if either husband or wife is involved in bad behaviour, like cruelty, drug abuse and physical abuse etc. the court favours the aggrieved party in property division.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. It said the unequal division of property was justified purely on the basis of the different needs of the husband and the wife. The court took into account that the marriage had left the wife with no earning capacity, but the husband remained a shrewd and knowledgeable businessman.

When a court determines that one spouse would be at a significant economic advantage post-divorce, there has to be a good reason behind that, as happened in the case discussed above.

If you have any questions regarding the issues raised in the article, contact Curry Popeck Solicitors at- http://www.currypopeck.com/

Like it? Share it!


Richard Payne

About the Author

Richard Payne
Joined: January 13th, 2016
Articles Posted: 13

More by this author