Raynor and Raynor [2022] SC (Bda) 40 Div
About Nicole Cavanagh
Nicole is a Senior Associate in the firm’s Matrimonial and Family Department. Having two decades of family law experience, Nicole is an expert in helping clients resolve their issues in the least stressful and most cost effective way possible.
Nicole Cavanagh’s full profile on mjm.bm.
A judgment was handed down in the above case on 7th June 2022. The Wife’s application for ancillary relief had been heard over two days in the Supreme Court by the Registrar some three months earlier.
The parties married in 1997 and divorce proceedings had been issued by the Wife in February 2021. Decree Absolute had been pronounced shortly after the Wife’s application for Ancillary Relief in May 2021. Thus the marriage had lasted for 24 years, and there was who was child over the age of 18 at the time of the proceedings.
The application to resolve financial issues appears to have been brought due to the Husband’s attitude towards the proceedings and his complacency in relation to the requirements to engage in financial disclosure.
Not all cases go to court, and in fact, the majority settle through other means. However, there are circumstances in which a party is uncooperative and a conclusion cannot be reached without the courts direction: This appears to be one of those cases. It was found that the Husband had not fully disclosed his financial position to the Court, had been secretive in relation to his business dealings throughout the marriage and upon giving evidence, had been less than forthcoming with the requests for information. He also disputed virtually all of the Wife’s evidence before the Court and provided little when asked to clarify his financial position.
One of the main features of the case was the treatment of the former matrimonial home (FMH), in which the parties lived together prior to going their separate ways. The FMH had been purchased by the couple from the Wife’s mother in 2006. The Wife put forward that the FMH was transferred to the parties at a 50% discount, which reflected her eventual inheritance. The Husband denied that inheritance was ever mentioned, but did accept that the Wife’s mother had stated the Wife must retain the property in the event of anything happening to the marriage, which we take to mean divorce.
It should be noted that the Husband also had the benefit of inherited property in the form of a remainder interest in real property and a taxi (with permit), following the death of his father in 2020. However, part of the property in question had been rented out for decades with the Husband receiving the monthly rental sums, since the age of 18.
Upon application of the various case law on the subject of division of assets, the Registrar referred to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, along with the leading UK case law of White v White [2001] AC 596 and Miller v Miller, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 3 All ER 1. The Registrar then went on to determine the extent of matrimonial property and non-matrimonial property within the marriage.
Matrimonial property is generally defined as that which is accrued throughout the marriage by the efforts of one or both parties, whereas non-matrimonial property is pre-owned by one party, a gift or inheritance.
Whilst reaching the conclusion that the FMH was matrimonial property, the Registrar made an order transferring the FMH into the sole name of the Wife, who also kept her pension and her vehicle. The assets retained by her amounted to $1,183,269, based on the valuations accepted by the Court.
The Husband retained his inherited property, which was deemed non-matrimonial in nature, but it was stated that in the interests of fairness, his non-marital assets were available for distribution between the parties. The Husband had used his rental income from the property to contribute towards the family’s cost of living for many years. He also retained two boats bringing his total assets to $876,310, along with his “undisclosed assets”, the total amount of which is anyone’s guess.
The Registrar noted the Husband’s lack of participation in the proceedings and the fact that he had failed to comply with the orders made by the Court. A costs order was made in the Wife’s favour meaning that the Husband had to pay the Wife’s lawyer’s fees for the application because of his conduct.
To read the judgment in full click here.