One of the most common questions I am asked by clients is:

"My spouse has inherited money. Does that mean I'm entitled to half?"

Or, from the other perspective:

"I've just inherited from my parents. Surely that's mine?"

A recent decision in P v P (Inheritance at the End of a Long Marriage) [2026] EWFC 209 (B) demonstrates why the answer is rarely black and white.

The case is particularly interesting because the inheritance arrived right at the end of a long marriage, creating a difficult balancing exercise between protecting inherited wealth and meeting the financial needs of both spouses.

The Facts

The parties had been together for over 25 years.

Towards the end of the marriage, the husband inherited property worth approximately £310,000. It was accepted that this inheritance had not contributed to the family's standard of living because it had been received only after the parties had effectively separated.

Ordinarily, that would point strongly towards the inheritance being treated as non-matrimonial property.

But that was not the end of the story.

Inheritance Is Not Automatically Ringfenced

Many people assume inherited assets are always protected on divorce.

They are not.

The family courts distinguish between sharing and needs.

Where an inheritance has remained separate from the marriage, the court may decide it should not be shared equally. However, if the other spouse's reasonable housing or income needs cannot otherwise be met, the court can still make use of inherited assets.

That is exactly what happened here.

Although the inheritance retained its non-matrimonial character, the husband's inherited wealth was nevertheless partly "invaded" to meet the wife's housing needs. The wife was awarded £240,000, while the husband retained the balance of his inherited assets.

The case is an excellent reminder that non-matrimonial does not necessarily mean untouchable.

Timing Really Does Matter

One of the most significant features of the judgment is the emphasis placed on when the inheritance was received.

Deputy District Judge David Hodson observed that the inheritance arrived very late in the relationship and had not shaped the family's lifestyle during the marriage. That was an important factor in preserving its non-matrimonial status.

Had the inheritance been received years earlier and used to renovate the family home, support family spending or purchase joint assets, the outcome may have been very different.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Standish v Standish, the courts increasingly focus on how an asset has been treated during the marriage, not simply where it originated.

Needs Still Come First

Although inheritance often dominates media headlines, this case reminds us that needs remain central to financial remedy cases.

The judge carefully assessed the parties' future housing requirements, mortgage capacity and earning potential. The husband's significant health problems also played a major role in the outcome, reducing his future earning capacity and influencing the court's overall exercise of discretion.

In other words, the court was not deciding whether the wife "deserved" part of the inheritance.

It was deciding what level of financial provision was fair in light of both parties' future needs.

A Practical Warning About Settlement Offers

The judgment also contains a valuable lesson about litigation strategy.

The wife pursued an open offer seeking virtually all of the non-pension matrimonial assets for much of the proceedings. The judge concluded that this unrealistic position had been a significant driver of the litigation and ultimately refused her application for costs. Instead, she was ordered to reimburse the husband for half the cost of an updated pension report after refusing to contribute to it.

It is a timely reminder that sensible negotiation is not a sign of weakness. Unrealistic positions can increase costs, prolong disputes and ultimately damage a party's credibility.

A Growing Issue for Modern Families

Perhaps the most thought-provoking part of the judgment appears at the very end.

Judge Hodson observed that he had encountered another remarkably similar case only weeks later (since delivery of his judgement and before its reporting) and suggested that disputes involving late-arriving inheritances are likely to become increasingly common. As people divorce later in life, many will do so just as their parents' estates begin to pass to the next generation.

It is an insightful observation.

With people living longer, marrying later and inheriting later, family courts are likely to see more cases where inherited wealth arrives shortly before—or even during—divorce proceedings.

Final Thoughts

There is no universal rule that inheritances are always protected, nor that they are always shared.

Every case turns on its own facts.

The court will consider when the inheritance was received, whether it became part of the family's shared resources, the length of the marriage and, above all, whether one party's reasonable needs require some use of that inherited wealth.

If you are divorcing and either you or your spouse has received an inheritance, obtaining specialist legal advice at an early stage is essential. As P v P demonstrates, timing, evidence and careful legal analysis can make a substantial difference to the outcome.