Family Court upholds divorcing couple’s pre-nup agreement

A recent family court ruling has upheld a divorcing couple’s pre-nuptial agreement (PNA), which specified that only jointly accrued wealth during the marriage should be considered as matrimonial assets.

Amy Fallows Senior Associate Solicitor & Head of our Family Law team reports on this case that highlights the importance of clear pre-nuptial agreements in divorce proceedings.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation and enforcement of the agreement which they signed before their marriage in June 2010.

Both parties, who were entering their second marriage, agreed in the PNA that they did not wish for a 50:50 division of assets upon divorce. The agreement also stated that both parties entered into the contract voluntarily, without legal advice, and with a full understanding of its implications.

The dispute arose over the classification of certain assets, particularly properties owned by the husband, H.

The wife, W, argued that these properties, acquired during their marriage, should be treated as matrimonial assets and thus subject to equal division.

One of these properties, known as “Granville,” was particularly contentious, as W claimed it served as a second matrimonial home where the family spent weekends and holidays.

H, however, maintained that these properties were purchased using funds traceable to assets he owned before the marriage, which should exclude them from division under the PNA.

H’s assets, including three properties, savings, investments, and pensions, were significantly higher in value than W’s.

W’s primary argument was that she had indirectly contributed to H’s financial situation by allowing him to live rent-free in her property, thereby enabling him to save and invest more. She also contended that her contributions to maintaining and furnishing the disputed properties further supported her claim to a share in them.

However, the court found that the PNA was clear in its intent to protect pre-marital assets from being considered matrimonial property.

The judge ruled that the two contested properties were indeed purchased using funds from H’s pre-existing assets and, therefore, fell under the protection of the PNA.

Consequently, the court held that these properties were not subject to division.

The judgment emphasised that the PNA was a fair agreement, voluntarily entered into by both parties with a clear understanding of its terms.

The court noted that W would still retain significant assets, worth approximately £900,000, and that this was not a case where one party would be left financially destitute.

For more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law please contact Amy on 01228 516666 or click here to send her an email.