non matrimonial assets Archives - James Thornton Family Law

12 June 2025

When Borrowing Blurs the Lines: Can a Mortgage Make a Gifted Property Matrimonial?

In C v C [2025] EWFC 152 (B), Recorder Christopher Stirling tackled a complex and increasingly common issue in modern financial remedy proceedings: what happens when a party borrows against non-matrimonial property for matrimonial purposes? Does that make the borrowing—and perhaps the asset itself—matrimonial?

The facts involved a London husband (H) who inherited a property, 27 R Avenue, from his mother. The property was clearly non-matrimonial, being a pre-marital gift. However, H raised a significant mortgage against it during the marriage, using the funds to support the family. He then argued the mortgage itself should be considered a matrimonial liability, separate from the property it was secured against.

The Core Issue: Can You “Matrimonialise” a Mortgage?

The husband’s logic was superficially compelling: the loan was used to support the family, so it should count as a joint debt. But the judge wasn’t persuaded. Stirling rejected the idea of severing the debt from its security, noting that treating the mortgage as matrimonial while leaving the asset non-matrimonial would be “wholly artificial.”

Instead, he adopted a more integrated approach: the mortgage reduces the value of the non-matrimonial asset, and therefore doesn’t create a separate matrimonial liability. Nor does the use of borrowed money, even for family purposes, override the fundamentally non-matrimonial nature of the asset itself.

Why This Matters

This decision is important because it helps clarify the often-murky area of borrowing against non-matrimonial assets. We frequently see parties leveraging inherited or pre-acquired property to raise funds—sometimes to support the household, sometimes to pay legal fees, or other costs. It is tempting to argue that the act of borrowing “transforms” part of the asset into something matrimonial.

But C v C is clear: you can't isolate a debt from its security just because the money was used for the family. This ties in with recent guidance in WX v HX and ND v GD, which emphasise that the application of income or value from non-matrimonial property doesn’t automatically convert the underlying capital into a matrimonial asset.

The Subtler Argument: Unmatched Contributions

That said, the judge did recognise that using non-matrimonial assets (or loans secured against them) can be relevant in the overall discretionary exercise. Such use may be seen as an unmatched contribution—a factor which might justify a departure from equality in the division of matrimonial assets. But in this case, W had also made substantial unmatched contributions, including from her inherited wealth.

The result? The borrowing and counter-contributions effectively cancelled each other out.

Key Points for Practitioners

Don’t assume that using non-matrimonial property for family needs “converts” it into matrimonial property. It doesn’t—unless there’s mingling, use as a family home, or other transformative steps.
Be cautious about arguing that borrowing creates a standalone matrimonial debt. Courts are unlikely to separate a secured liability from the asset it’s secured against.
The discretionary power of the court remains broad. Even if an asset stays non-matrimonial, its use may be relevant in adjusting the division of matrimonial property.
Focus on overall fairness, not just legal categorisation. The court will always look at the totality of contributions and resources in arriving at its decision.

Final Thought

C v C offers timely clarity on an issue that arises in many divorce cases—particularly where family wealth and inherited assets are in play. It reminds us that even where the parties dance around the legal labels of “matrimonial” and “non-matrimonial,” the court’s focus remains firmly on fairness, nuance, and context.

Published by James Thornton in Uncategorised

Tags: matrimonialisation, matrimonialise, non matrimonial assets

23 May 2025

Unequal but Fair: When the Breadwinner Pays the Price in Divorce

In GR v AR [2025] EWFC 143 (B), His Honour Judge Edward Hess handed down a comprehensive judgment that serves as a reminder: the sharing principle may start at 50:50, but it doesn’t always end there—especially when one spouse brought significantly more wealth to the marriage.

This case is a textbook example of non-matrimonial property, the nuance of contributions, and the real-world difficulty of assigning mathematical fairness in long marriages where wealth is complex and pre-acquired.

Case Summary

Marriage length: Just over 9 years (including long cohabitation).
Parties: A high-earning wife with substantial pre-marital wealth, and a husband who stepped away from work to focus on parenting after a successful business career.
Total asset base: Over £41 million, largely held by the wife (£36m).
Outcome: Husband awarded a lump sum of £11 million, or 39% of the total liquid assets.

Key Issues and Judicial Reasoning

Matrimonial vs Non-Matrimonial Property

The core of the dispute was how much of the wife’s wealth should be shared. She had accumulated significant wealth before marriage, mostly via shares in a major investment company. The judge rejected strict mathematical models offered by each side and instead followed Hart v Hart [2017] and Miller/McFarlane [2006], applying a broad evaluative approach. Ultimately, approximately two-thirds of her Swiss bank holdings and investments were deemed matrimonial acquest.

The Family Home Counts—Even in Sole Names

The wife bought the home in her sole name, but Judge Hess followed well-established principles (Miller, Standish v Standish [2024]) that the family home—even if pre-owned—generally counts as matrimonial property. The husband was awarded 50% of the equity, adding over £1 million to his award.

The "Sharp" Argument Rejected

The wife’s legal team leaned on Sharp v Sharp [2017] to argue that their separate finances during the marriage (splitting bills down the middle, etc.) should reduce any claim by the husband. But the judge declined to apply Sharp-style logic to a long marriage with a child, instead preferring the broader fairness lens of XW v XH [2020].

Add-Backs and Alleged Spending

The husband sought “add-backs” for post-separation spending, including a watch and a gift from the wife to her mother. The court declined, emphasising that these were not so exceptional as to warrant financial penalty, and mirrored the husband’s own discretionary spending.

Career Choices and Earning Capacity

The husband had declined work offers post-separation, citing a desire to focus on co-parenting. The wife suspected strategic unemployment. The court struck a balanced tone, noting his continued high earning capacity—but not penalising him for past choices. This aligns with the non-discriminatory approach of White v White [2000].

Practical Points for Practitioners

Tracing the marital element in complex investments requires realism: Judges are increasingly wary of "spreadsheet wars" that mask rather than reveal fairness.
Family homes remain special—even if owned in one name.
Pre-marital wealth still matters, but courts don’t always leave it untouched if it’s been mixed, grown, or relied on.
Keeping finances separate during marriage doesn't always carry the weight separating parties hope for—context is king.
Reasonable needs are not the only measure in HNW cases; sharing and fairness remain central.

Conclusion

GR v AR is a reminder that even in cases involving immense wealth, the court still wrestles with human judgment, not just arithmetic. The wife, whose fortune dwarfed the husband’s, retained the lion’s share—but not all of it. A clean break was achieved with a substantial lump sum that reflected the marriage's shared economic life, without punishing pre-marital success.

The result? Not 50/50, but fair—and that, ultimately, is the goal.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, gr v ar 2025, non matrimonial assets, standish v standish

24 January 2025

Valuing Love: Lessons from AF v GF [2024] on Non-Matrimonial Assets and Pensions

The case of AF v GF [2024] EWHC 3478 (Fam) offers family law practitioners a masterclass in tackling complex financial remedy disputes involving high-value business assets, pensions, and the nuanced distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. Beyond the substantial legal fees and extensive litigation, this case highlights key principles and practical tips for practitioners navigating similar scenarios.

The Story Behind the Numbers

This case concerned a long marriage between AF (the wife) and GF (the husband), marked by significant financial complexities. At the heart of the dispute were:

The valuation and classification of GF's business interests in the investment management sector.
Arguments over the extent to which non-matrimonial assets had been "matrimonialised" through the wife’s involvement in growing the business.
The drastic decline in asset values during the litigation, leading to competing expert valuations.

The total asset pool, initially estimated at £10–13 million, was later revised to a mere £2.779 million, a drop that complicated the fairness assessment.

Key Issues and Legal Principles

Matrimonial vs. Non-Matrimonial Assets
The court grappled with whether GF's pre-marital business interests (founded in 2007) had been transformed into matrimonial property through AF’s contributions as Managing Director.
- The court relied on Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, which emphasised that matrimonialisation should be applied narrowly and fairness should guide whether non-marital assets are brought into the sharing principle.
- The judgment reinforced that not all contributions transform non-marital property into matrimonial property; the distinction depends on usage, mixing, and intent.
Fragility of Business Valuations
The collapse in the value of GF’s business interests highlighted the volatility of private company valuations. Echoing Versteegh v Versteegh [2018], the judgment noted that such valuations are inherently fragile due to market conditions, lack of liquidity, and reliance on hypothetical projections.
Addbacks and Conduct
Both parties sought to add back amounts they alleged the other had wasted.
- The court declined to add back GF’s substantial loss from the purchase of a yacht, as it was deemed a business decision rather than wanton dissipation.
- Similarly, AF’s maintenance expenditure was not penalised despite GF’s claims of unnecessary spending.

Practical Tips for Practitioners

Be Proactive About Valuations
- Always scrutinise business valuations early in the proceedings and ensure clients understand their inherent volatility.
- Encourage clients to provide clear and complete financial disclosure to minimise disputes.
Understand the Limits of Matrimonialisation
- Advise clients that contributions to a business may not necessarily convert non-marital assets into marital property.
- Where clients seek to argue matrimonialisation, gather evidence showing active involvement and the integration of assets into the marital framework.
Manage Client Expectations
- Cases involving non-marital assets often lead to unpredictable outcomes. Set realistic expectations early, especially when valuations fluctuate.
- Highlight the cost-benefit analysis of litigation; in this case, legal fees of £1.6 million significantly eroded the available asset pool.
Addbacks Require High Thresholds
- Emphasise that claims for addbacks (or reattributions) require proof of wanton dissipation of assets. Frivolous spending or unwise investments typically do not meet this standard.
Clean Breaks vs. Wells Orders
- This case underscores the practical challenges of devising clean break settlements where assets include volatile business interests. Wells orders, which defer payments until realisations occur, may provide a pragmatic alternative.

Reflections: Navigating the Storm

AF v GF serves as a cautionary tale about the emotional and financial toll of protracted litigation. For practitioners, the key takeaways are the importance of robust evidence, early resolution efforts, and managing the inherent unpredictability of asset valuations.

Ultimately, this case reaffirms the court’s commitment to fairness, even in the most complex financial landscapes. It also highlights that when love turns to litigation, the best outcomes often stem from thorough preparation and a pragmatic approach.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: business, business assets, case law, matrimonialisation, non matrimonial assets, standish, versteegh, wells

23 October 2024

Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567: Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Assets in Financial Remedy Cases

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567 provides pivotal guidance on how matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets are treated in divorce proceedings. While the case involved substantial wealth, the principles established in this ruling apply to financial remedy cases of all sizes, particularly in terms of how non-matrimonial property is considered, when it becomes matrimonialised, and how the needs of the parties influence the outcome.

Background of the Case

In Standish v Standish, the couple had amassed significant wealth during their marriage, including £80 million transferred into the wife's name in 2017 as part of a tax planning exercise. The key legal issue was whether this transfer of assets, originating from the husband’s pre-marital wealth, constituted matrimonial property subject to division under the sharing principle or whether it remained non-matrimonial.

The wife contended that the couple’s lifestyle and the use of the wealth during their marriage had matrimonialised the assets. The husband argued that his pre-marital assets should remain separate, despite the transfer to the wife’s name for tax planning purposes.

Key Legal Issues in the Case

Matrimonialisation of Non-Matrimonial Property: The key focus was whether the husband’s pre-marital assets had become matrimonial through the couple’s use and treatment of them during the marriage. The court reviewed the extent to which assets that were non-matrimonial at the outset could, through actions during the marriage, become subject to the sharing principle. Moylan LJ reiterated that the concept of matrimonialisation must be applied "narrowly."
The Sharing Principle: The wife argued that the sharing principle should apply to the 2017 transfer of assets because it was made in the context of their marriage. However, the court held that merely transferring assets to the wife’s name did not change their underlying non-matrimonial nature. The court emphasised that legal title is not determinative; the source of the wealth remains the critical factor in deciding whether an asset is subject to division.
Impact on Division of Wealth: The court ultimately found that 75% of the couple’s wealth remained non-matrimonial, meaning the wife would receive a significantly reduced share from her initial £45 million award, reduced to £25 million. This decision reflects the court’s approach that even if non-matrimonial assets are used during the marriage, they are not automatically subject to equal division unless fairness demands it.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Narrow Application of Matrimonialisation: The court made clear that matrimonialisation should be confined to specific circumstances. Only when non-matrimonial assets have been "mixed" with matrimonial property or used in a way that demonstrates an intention to treat them as shared marital assets, can they become subject to the sharing principle. This approach ensures that pre-marital assets are protected unless they are extensively integrated into the marital pot.
Source Over Title: Moylan LJ emphasised that the source of wealth, rather than who holds the legal title, is critical in determining whether assets are matrimonial or non-matrimonial. This has a significant impact on how pre-marital assets are treated, particularly in cases where one party contributes significantly more financially to the marriage than the other.
Fairness Over Equality: The court reiterated that fairness is the paramount consideration, and this does not always equate to equal division. Even where assets have become matrimonial, the court may still adjust the division based on the source of the wealth and the contributions of each party.
Needs-Based Approach in Lower-Value Cases: Although Standish involved significant wealth, the principles established in the case apply equally to "small money" cases. In cases where the matrimonial assets are insufficient to meet the needs of both parties, the court may include non-matrimonial property in the division to ensure that housing and income needs are met. This reinforces the court’s flexibility in ensuring fairness, even if it means using non-matrimonial assets to satisfy needs.

Implications for Family Law Practitioners

Matrimonialisation in Practice: Practitioners must carefully assess the extent to which non-matrimonial assets have been integrated into the marriage. This case provides valuable guidance on how to argue for or against matrimonialisation based on the treatment of assets during the marriage. Lawyers must advise clients on the risks of transferring or mixing non-matrimonial assets, especially in the context of tax planning or other financial arrangements.
Needs in "Small Money" Cases: For lower-value cases, the Standish ruling has important implications. In cases where the total assets are modest, practitioners should expect that non-matrimonial property may be considered to meet housing and income needs, even if fairness does not demand an equal division. The focus will be on ensuring that both parties can maintain a reasonable standard of living post-divorce.
Early Advice on Pre-Marital Wealth: Clients with significant pre-marital assets should be advised early on about the potential matrimonialisation of those assets, particularly if they are used jointly during the marriage. Clear legal advice on keeping non-matrimonial property separate and how to manage assets through prenuptial agreements or other means is crucial.

Conclusion

Standish v Standish reaffirms the importance of distinguishing between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property in financial remedy cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision provides clarity on the narrow circumstances in which non-matrimonial property may be subject to division and underscores the court’s commitment to fairness rather than automatic equality. For family law practitioners, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of careful financial planning and transparent legal strategies, whether in high-net-worth or "small money" cases.

This ruling is likely to shape financial remedy proceedings for years to come, particularly in cases involving significant pre-marital wealth. By reinforcing the importance of the source of wealth and limiting the circumstances under which matrimonialisation applies, the court has provided a clear framework for both protecting pre-marital assets and ensuring fairness in the division of wealth.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, contributions, matrimonialisation, needs, non matrimonial assets

When Borrowing Blurs the Lines: Can a Mortgage Make a Gifted Property Matrimonial?

Unequal but Fair: When the Breadwinner Pays the Price in Divorce

Valuing Love: Lessons from AF v GF [2024] on Non-Matrimonial Assets and Pensions

Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567: Matrimonial and Non-Matrimonial Assets in Financial Remedy Cases

Get in touch for your free consultation

Where innovation meets excellence

Information

York Office