W. v W. (Financial Provision: Lump Sum)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1976 |
| Year | 1976 |
| Court | Family Division |
W. v. W. (FINANCIAL PROVISION: LUMP SUM)
Husband and Wife - Financial provision - Lump sum - Deduction - After decree absolute wife living with man in house bought in joint names - Whether wife's interest to be taken into account in claim for lump sum payment for her share in former matrimonial home - Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c. 18), s. 25 (1)
Husband and Wife - Financial provision - Conduct of parties - After decree absolute - Whether subsequent conduct to be taken into account
The parties, who had married in 1964, lived with their two children in a house which was in the husband's name. In 1972, the wife with the two children left the husband and she was granted a decree nisi of divorce on the ground that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the husband had behaved in such a way that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. She was granted custody of the children. In August 1972, the decree was made absolute and, in September, the wife began an association with S. The wife and the two children went to live with S and she bore him a child. The wife changed her name to S and, although she made no financial contribution, S conveyed the house in which they lived into their joint names.
The wife applied for a lump sum payment from the husband and stated that she did not intend to marry S, that she did not consider that she had a half share in the house and that it had been put into joint names so that she could have a roof over her head and, in the event of she and S ceasing to live together, S would not be able to sell it without her agreement.
On the question whether the wife's conduct after the dissolution of the marriage and her interest in the house were relevant matters, under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Held, (1) that conduct by a wife after the grant of a decree absolute was not a matter for consideration by the court under section 25 of the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973 except possibly in a case where the conduct had directly affected the husband's finances (post, pp.
(2) That, even if the wife was not entitled to a half share in the equity of the house she occupied with S, she had the asset of a roof over her head; that, since it was an asset in the form of a licence which could not be revoked without her agreement, it was a continuing asset which could be turned into cash in the foreseeable future and, accordingly, it was a relevant matter to be taken into consideration under section 25 (1) (a) of the Act of 1973 and, in the circumstances, £300 would be set against a lump sum payment representing a one-third value in the equity of the former matrimonial home which had been earned by the wife in bringing up the children and looking after the family (post, p.
Wachtel v. Wachtel [1973] Fam. 72, C.A. applied.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Eves v. Eves [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1338; [1975] 3 All E.R. 768, C.A.
Tanner v. Tanner [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1346; [1975] 3 All E.R. 776, C.A.
Wachtel v. Wachtel [1973] Fam. 72; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 366; [1973] 1 All E.R. 829, C.A.
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Cuzner (formerly Underdown) v. Underdown [1974] 1 W.L.R. 641; [1974] 2 All E.R. 351, C.A.
H. v. H. (Family Provision: Remarriage) [1975] Fam. 9; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 124; [1975] 1 All E.R. 367.
Jones (M. A.) v. Jones (W.) [1976] Fam. 8; [1975] 2 W.L.R. 606; [1975] 2 All E.R. 12, C.A.
Richards v. Dove [1974] 1 All E.R. 888.
SUMMONS
On May 19, 1972, the wife was granted a decree nisi on the ground
1 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s. 25: "(1) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under section 23 (1) (a), (b) or (c) or 24 above in relation to a party to the marriage and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the following matters, that is to say - (a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;... and so to exercise those powers as to place the parties, so far as it is practicable and, having regard to their conduct, just to do so, in the financial position in which they would have been if the marriage had not broken down and each had properly discharged his or her financial obligations and responsibilities towards the other."
that the marriage had irretrievably broken down under section 2 (1) (b)of the Divorce Reform Act 1969 and she was granted custody of the two children of the marriage. The decree was made absolute in August 1972. The wife applied for financial provision for herself by way of a lump sum and for periodical payments for herself and the two children of the marriage. The application was heard in chambers by Sir George Baker P. and the case is reported by permission of Sir George Baker P.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Christopher Hookway for the wife.
M. P. Picard for the husband.
SIR GEORGE BAKER P.I shall call parties "husband" and "wife" for convenience, although there has been a decree absolute. The wife seeks an order for periodical payments for herself and two children, and also a lump sum payment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DP v EP (Conduct; Economic Abuse; Needs)
...are some differences between the parties on computation, most significantly as to the value of a jointly-owned property in Dubai. 3 W v W [1976] Fam 107 4 It is W's case that her sister has repaid these funds in part during the course of these proceedings, and that the sums repaid are curre......
-
S v S (Non-Matrimonial Property: Conduct); S v S (Divorce: Distribution of Assets)
...to any sense of justice for the wife to receive any award at all”. Mr Mostyn QC pointed to the words of Sir George Baker P in W v W [1976] Fam 107 at 110D when he referred to the sort of conduct which would cause the ordinary mortal to throw up his hands and say “ … surely that woman is not......
-
Kyte v Kyte
...and frequently conduct subsequent to the breakdown was taken into account: see Hall v Hall (above); W v W (Financial Provision: Lump Sum) [1976] Fam 107; and Martin v Martin [1976] Fam 167 and 335. As I have indicated earlier in this judgment, I see no restricting words or meaning to be inf......
-
K v K (Financial Provision: Conduct)
...marriage, and frequently conduct subsequent to the breakdown was taken into account: see Hall v. Hall, W. v. W. (Financial Provision) (1976) Fam. 107 and Martin v. Martin (1976) Fam. 167 and 335. As I have indicated earlier in this judgment, I see no restricting words or meaning to be infer......