The recently reported case of A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B) considered how the court can balance the needs of the spouses and a third party who has a beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home, when that third party opposes an order for sale, pursuant to 24A(6) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
In this case, the third-party interest was the wife’s elderly mother who had come to live with her adult daughter and son-in-law, having made a significant financial contribution to the family home.
Where it is becoming more commonplace for parents to make contributions towards, or even reside in, their child’s matrimonial home, the judgement delivered in A v N is an important reminder of the different interests at play.
Overview of the Case
The parties (H and W) had been married 29 years. They purchased the former matrimonial home (FMH) in joint names in February 2012. With an agreed value of £1.3million, the FMH was the central asset in the case.
W’s elderly mother (R), gave the parties £130,000 to help them with purchasing the property. It was accepted that H and W would not have been able to purchase the FMH without the financial assistance from R, and that it was intended, at the time of purchase, that R would live in the FMH with the parties – the property was chosen so that a semi-separate annex could be built in which R would reside.
The initial financial assistance of £130,000 from R was held to be an outright gift, and therefore did not in itself create a beneficial interest for R. The evidence considered by the Judge included, but not limited to, the completion statement for the purchase which described the £130,000 as ‘mother gifted deposit’.
Subsequent funds were then advanced by R which funded the construction of the annexe which the Judge held to infer a common intention that R would acquire some interest in the wider FMH with a detrimental reliance on R’s part that she had made a significant financial contribution to the construction. This gave rise to R having a beneficial interest in the FMH, which the Judge quantified as 12% of the net proceeds of sale, providing her with a right to occupy the FMH.
Having established R’s interest at 12%, having taken a holistic view of her contributions, 88% of the remaining net proceeds of sale were then to form part of the matrimonial claim between H and W.
However, W and R sought to remain living in the FMH and to delay a sale, whereas H sought an immediate order for sale.
Judgment
The judgment sets out the factors the court will take into account when considering an order for sale, when faced with an objection to the sale by a third party. Those factors, albeit a non-exhaustive list, are as follows:-
- The extent of the third party’s interest in any property in comparison to the spouses.
- Whether the property is the spouses’ home.
- Whether the property is the third party’s home.
- Whether the property has been modified or adapted for the benefit of the third party.
- Whether the sale would be onerous upon the third party, due to their age or medical condition.
- Where the property is the third party’s home, whether they could be adequately rehoused with one of the other parties.
Ultimately, the Judge decided in this case that it would be wholly impractical for W to retain the FMH, as H would be left without liquid capital to re-house. The Judge held that an order for sale would cause no undue disadvantage to R who would re-house with W. Whilst the annex was adapted for R’s needs, the Judge found that the adaptions were of a standard nature and could be re-produced in another property. The Judge acknowledged the strain of such a move for R but did not find her personal circumstances to be of such an exceptional nature that they should prevent or postpone a sale.
The proceeds were divided 12% to R (as determined at the outset), 56% to W and 32% to H in order to meet the parties housing needs.
It is important to emphasise that the above factors are a non-exhaustive list and “some special factor in the personal circumstances of the third party” may alter the court’s decision. The Judge also commented that “in another case, where other capital resources existed, R’s circumstances might tip the balance against a sale but here there is simply no other option”.
Conclusion
Whilst this article has focused primarily on the competing interests of the spouses and the third party when it comes to an order for sale, this case raises many legal issues surrounding intervenors in financial remedy proceedings generally. It is always important to obtain independent legal advice when these issues arise, and certainly at any early stage. Please do contact our Family Law team who will be happy to assist.
This article was co-written by Shavaun Womersley, solicitor and Anna Minton, paralegal in our Family Law team.