Sharing principle
18.Almost the entirety of the wealth available to the parties originates from gifts and inheritances on H’s side during the marriage and/or was owned by H before the marriage:i)‘X’ Street was bought by H in 1999 with monies gifted to him by his father. It was subsequently transferred from H’s sole name into the parties’ joint names pursuant to the Pre-Marital Agreement. ii)The B properties came to H as a result of inheritances and family transfers in his favour between 1987 and 2011. iii)The Z town flat was bought by H in 1992, long before the marriage.iv)H received an inheritance of CHF 500,000 in 2009 which was used to renovate his property in Y town, and his father subsidised the purchase in the sum of about CHF 1m.v)The bulk of the liquid investments (and I do not consider I need to be absolutely precise) were gifted to H by his father and grandfather.19.The sharp delineation between marital and non-marital assets at the time of gift or inheritance has blurred over time as a result of (i) the length of the marriage, and (ii) the fact that the funds have been used to fund the family’s needs and lifestyle, and (iii) the use of some of the properties as matrimonial homes. Since both parties approach this case principally by reference to needs, I do not therefore need to embark on an attempt to delineate between marital and non-marital property. However, the general background of non-marital wealth sourced on H’s side is separately relevant in two ways:i)First, it informs, or may inform, the circumstances surrounding the Pre-Marital and Post-Martial Agreements; andii)Second, it is, or may be, relevant to an assessment of W’s needs.The Issues20.The main issues before me are:i)The circumstances surrounding the Pre-Marital Agreement, and whether any weight should be attached to it.ii)The circumstances surrounding the unsigned Post-Marital Agreement, and whether any weight should be attached to it.iii)Whether H can anticipate a resumption of the inter vivos gifts previously received from his father.iv)Whether prospective inheritance from H’s father is a relevant factor.v)W’s needs.
- MR JUSTICE PEEL
- £2,230,000 mortgage liability
- Computation
- £117,036
- Sharing principle
- The Law
- Charman v Charman
- White v White
- Miller; McFarlane
- [2020]
- [2017] 2
- [2011] 2 FLR 980
- [2018] 1
- Charman (supra)
- Miller/McFarlane
- BD v FD [2017] 1 FLR 1420.
- [2017]
- The Law: Pre-Marital and Post-Marital Agreements
- Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
- The Law: inter vivos subvention
- M v M [2020] EWFC 41
- [1995] 2 FLR 668
- [2014] EWHC 502
- [2017] EWCA Civ 1545
- [2005] EWHC 2860
- Alireza v Radwan [2018] 1 FLR 1333
- The Pre-Marital Agreement
- undue
- undue
- BN v MA [2014] EWHC 2450
- Inter vivos subventions by H’s father
- Alireza
- fact
- timing
- The parties’ proposals
- Needs and outcome
- £4m.
- £3,319,000
- £7,319,000
- £7.45m
- Conclusion
- Costs
