Kelly Parks

The parties live in a family home valued at £645,000, but due to a lot of debt, there was only £40,000 equity in the property.  The wife was a high earner, earning £150,000 per annum and the husband earned £40,000 per annum.  The largest asset was the wife’s pension pot, valued at £880,242. The husband had a pension provision of £58,532, giving a total pension fund of £938,774.

The wife’s solicitor proposed that only the amount of pension accrued during the marriage should be used in the settlement, however, I was able to assist my client using recent developments in case law regarding pensions.  Recent case law stated that in a needs case, the full value of the pension should be taken into consideration and on this basis, I was able to negotiate a pension sharing order taking into consideration the whole pension pot.   It was agreed that £410,855 would be transferred to the husband who at the same time will retain his pension. This lead to an equalisation of the pension pot and a very satisfied client. 

The wife took on the debt of £600k and remained in the family home. The husband was therefore left debt free, enabling him to obtain a mortgage to by another property.

Given the disparity of income, spousal maintenance was considered for my client, but not pursued on the trade-off that the wife would not pursue child support. A separate contract was drafted in this regard as the court does not have jurisdiction to order that no child maintenance is payable.

This case was completed without a face to face meeting with my client, and is testimony to the convenience and ease of virtual and telephone appointments.

The couple were originally from Derbyshire, had been married for 10 years and had two dependent children.  Due to the husband’s job they owned properties in London and Derbyshire.   London was the main family home, as this is where husband worked and where the children attended school, however, the parties lived together as a family at the Derbyshire property during the COVID-19 lockdown. 

Difficulties arose in the marriage during the COVID-19 lockdown. Husband was extremely busy at work throughout the pandemic; and additional pressures of all being at home together; home schooling the children; and the fact that the cleaner was no longer able to attend the property had created a pressured environment.  The wife decided to end the marriage.

The value of both properties was in the region of £1.365mn, with equity of around £730,000.  The husband paid the mortgage repayments on both because the wife did not work and was financially reliant on her husband.

In terms of other assets, the husband’s pension had an approximate value of £500,000. He also had a  cash ISA in his sole name containing approximately £100,000.  The wife had no pension provision or savings despite having a degree and working in event management previously. 

There is a limited company of which both parties are directors, with one buy to let property worth approximately £100,000 in the portfolio.  The husband unusually wants the parties to remain jointly as directors to receive a small income from the business to be used for school fees and leave as a legacy for their children.

This was an unusual case in that husband required two properties, one in London for work and one in Derbyshire, as the wife planned to relocate back to Derbyshire with the Children. My client’s aim was to retain both of the current properties and buy the wife a mortgage free property.

The wife over time will benefit as she will have more equity in her one property then he will have in the two as he will have to re-mortgage to achieve this.

Following negotiations we finally agreed maintenance at £1200 per month.

Given the nature of my client’s work, the ability to call me early in the morning when his office was quieter, was really important to him and it meant that he could get straight on with his day.