In the recent case of WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B), the Family Court dealt with a complex and prolonged financial dispute between a divorced couple, WZ (the wife) and HZ (the husband).
Background
WZ and HZ were married for thirteen years and separated in 2018. They have one child together, Child A, who is over 16 years old and attends school in a different city. The wife also has another child, Child B, who now lives independently. The couple’s financial disputes have been ongoing since their separation, with a final order initially made in February 2021.
Key Issues
- Sale of the Family Home: The main issue was the sale of the former matrimonial home (FMH), which was valued at approximately £982,000 in 2021. The wife was supposed to receive the net proceeds from the sale to meet her housing needs, but the sale had been delayed due to various disputes and non-compliance with court orders.
- Spousal Maintenance: The husband was ordered to pay spousal maintenance to the wife, which was supposed to be adjusted after the sale of the FMH. However, the wife had been receiving higher maintenance payments for a longer period due to the delayed sale.
- Litigation Conduct: The court had to consider the wife’s conduct during the litigation, which included numerous emails, non-compliance with court orders, and obstructive behaviour that delayed the sale of the FMH.
- Pension Sharing Order: The wife was entitled to a 25% share of the husband’s pension, but she had not taken the necessary steps to implement this order.
Court’s Decisions
- Possession of the FMH: The court ordered the wife to vacate the FMH within 14 days to allow the husband to sell the property. The court found that the wife had deliberately obstructed the sale and that her continued occupation would likely prevent a sale.
- Removal of Home Rights Notice: The court executed the removal of the wife’s Home Rights Notice, which had been preventing the sale of the FMH.
- Spousal Maintenance: The court varied the spousal maintenance order, reducing the term and amount of payments. The new order required the husband to pay £1,500 per month until November 2024 and £1,000 per month until September 2026, after which maintenance would terminate.
- Thwaite Application: The court adjusted the financial order to reflect the increased value of the FMH. The wife’s housing fund was crystallized at £675,000, and any surplus from the sale above this amount would be paid to the husband to cover legal costs and other obligations.
- Pension Sharing Order: The court gave the wife 28 days to implement the pension sharing order. If she failed to do so, the husband would be allowed to draw down on his pension, preserving 25% for the wife.
- Costs: The court found that the wife’s litigation conduct was unreasonable and ordered her to contribute £130,000 towards the husband’s legal costs. This amount would be deducted from her housing fund.
Conclusion
This case highlights the complexities and challenges of financial disputes in divorce proceedings. The court had to balance the needs and conduct of both parties while ensuring a fair and just outcome. The decisions made aimed to resolve the ongoing disputes and provide a clear path forward for both WZ and HZ. You can also see from this case that the court will only give so much leeway and will intervene if one party is behaving badly, even after an order is made. A costly lesson for the wife.