L -v- M (Matrimonial) [2017] JRC 062A (18 April 2017)

L -v- M (Matrimonial) [2017] JRC 062A (18 April 2017)

The court held that this was a needs-based case and it would be unfair to disregard Property B due to the pre-nuptial agreement, as this would leave the petitioner in real need. The only fair solution was to order the sale of Property B, with the petitioner to receive an advance of £60,000 to secure alternative accommodation, and the net proceeds (after essential works and repayment of the advance) to be divided equally. The pre-nuptial agreement was not determinative given the parties' needs and circumstances.

Citation
[2017] JRC 062A
Parties
Petitioner: L; Respondent: M
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial/ancillary Relief / Final Hearing on Ancillary Relief After Divorce
Outcome
Order for sale of Property B; advance payment to petitioner; equal division of net proceeds after deductions; no maintenance order.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Pre Nuptial Agreements, Needs Based Financial Provision, Sale of Matrimonial Home
Family Law Ancillary Relief Division of Matrimonial Assets Pre Nuptial Agreements Needs Based Financial Provision Sale of Matrimonial Home

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Petitioner

M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial/ancillary Relief / Final Hearing on Ancillary Relief After Divorce

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What weight, if any, should be given to the pre-nuptial agreement?
  2. 2 How should the matrimonial assets, particularly Property B, be divided to meet the parties' needs?
  3. 3 Should Property B be sold or retained for the benefit of the respondent's family?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that this was a needs-based case and it would be unfair to disregard Property B due to the pre-nuptial agreement, as this would leave the petitioner in real need. The only fair solution was to order the sale of Property B, with the petitioner to receive an advance of £60,000 to secure alternative accommodation, and the net proceeds (after essential works and repayment of the advance) to be divided equally. The pre-nuptial agreement was not determinative given the parties' needs and circumstances.

Court Disposition

Order for sale of Property B; advance payment to petitioner; equal division of net proceeds after deductions; no maintenance order.

Orders

  • Property B to be sold after essential works are identified and completed.
  • Petitioner to receive £60,000 advance from respondent to secure alternative accommodation, deductible from her share of proceeds.