P v P (Inheritance at the end of a long marriage)

I suggest it is English law of financial remedy on divorce that marital acquired assets are shared, often although not always equally, but needs can and often do trump either or both of this sharing and sometimes non sharing of non marital assets. This broad statement, incidentally adopted by the UK government on 5 June 2026 in its reform proposals, has to apply in very many different situations. How then does that broad statement stand up, be applied? How do parties settle their case without a final hearing and high costs if there is not awareness of what will then be the outcome especially at the extremities of this broad statement of law?

The issue in this case can be very simply stated. When nonmarital assets, specifically inherited assets, come into existence right at the end of a very long relationship, how much should they be invaded to provide for the other spouse for their needs for a higher standard than would have occurred on divorce based on only the marital assets available during the marriage? Is that invasion fair especially when the recipient spouse might reasonably expect to receive their own inheritances soon or over the coming years? When it is a lottery of life which parents die first and whose inheritances are potentially included in the divorce resources and which are not (because they have not yet died), how much if at all should a court have regard to this accident of timing? In any event, where needs provision of capital is a one-off event, how much weight should the court give to needs for children in their late teens when the parties themselves have many decades of life expectancy of capital needs?

Having said that the issue can be simply stated, the pertinent facts can be equally simply stated. A long relationship, cohabitation from September 1997, then married and then separation June 2023 ie about 25 years. Both 52. Modest incomes. The husband has serious health issues but still working 5 days a week. The only nonpension marital asset is the former matrimonial home with an equity of about £330,000. Both may have approximately equal housing needs. On divorce the £330,000 would be stretched and strained to provide for their respective housing needs taking account of any mortgage earning capacity. But 6 months before the date of separation the husband’s father died and post separation he received approximately £310,000. Apart from pension assets which have some complications and may or may not be appropriate to be dealt separately, that’s it.

If the husband’s father had died a month after the start of the relationship, the inheritance would quite probably have become matrimonial, changed the standard of the marriage and very probably been shared. If he had died suddenly a month after the divorce settlement, the husband would have taken the whole inheritance on top of what would otherwise have been the one-off capital divorce settlement. But this accident of timing has meant the entire inheritance is a s25.2 MCA resource which the court has a duty under statute law to take into account even if acknowledged as entirely nonmarital. And therefore vulnerable for needs-based claims by the other spouse as here.

Of course each starts with an equal sharing entitlement of about £165,000 i.e one half of £330,000. If this was all, it would be a struggle to provide accommodation for each and undoubtedly they would both be in modest accommodation. But suddenly there is another £310,000 available.

As evidence of how these cases start and continue badly, the open position of the wife from May 2025 (Form A was July 2025) until February 2026 was that she should have the entire marital non-pension asset, with the husband having only his inheritances. After a long marriage and apart from pensions, he would walk away from the marriage with nothing of non-pension marital assets. It’s barely believable to me that somebody, especially with good legal advisers, could think it would be ever fair and appropriate to put forward that sort of position. It had zero prospect of any success in my opinion. I don’t know what happened at the private FDR. But soon after her open position was and still is that she should have £250,000 (a reduction of her claim of £80,000). In other words she has her entitled half share of £165,000 and of the inheritance of £310,000, arriving right at the end of a long relationship, she should have £85,000 namely about 27%, more than a quarter. Only because of the mere fortune of timing of the death of the husband’s father at the end of the relationship but before the divorce and the mere fortune of timing that it was the husband’s father who died rather than one of her parents who remain alive and by all accounts have a good level of private wealth. This was the problem which had haunted the case, had almost certainly meant it had not settled and which required a final judgment which this is. But as I say, these are straightforward pertinent facts and English family justice should be delivering outcomes which don’t require a one-day final contested hearing.

How much should entirely nonmarital assets arising after the end of the marriage be given to the other spouse and what sort of level of needs does she have to show to make that claim given the provenance and complete lack of any marital use or sharing? If England is to have a non-default marital regime, parties are entitled to know from case law or any reformed statute law what will be the sort of outcome.

This reserved judgment case is a year after the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Standish 2025 UKSC 26. Although the factual matrix was outside the ken of most ordinary people, with a husband giving tens of millions to the wife to look after for tax reasons, the subject matter was fundamental to a huge number of cases namely the circumstances in which a nonmarital asset has become marital and therefore subject to the sharing principle. Matrimonialisation, clause 51 onwards of the judgment. The Supreme Court looked at intention and expectation and particularly treatment, clause 54. I have looked consequently again at this case but there can be no marital treatment of a nonmarital asset when it wasn’t received until after the separation as here. I have looked also at the helpful remarks of Mostyn J in S v AG 2011 EWHC 2637 where the lottery winnings were very late in the marriage but again nothing in the case law persuades me that it applies to make the inheritance here within the sharing concept. Case law makes clear in my opinion that it is about when needs should invade non-marital assets. This is a discretionary exercise although I happen to think some general guidance may be helpful if, as I surmise, due to the demographics of our society there may be more of these factual instances arising in the family court.

Sadly, the total costs of the parties in the financial remedy proceedings are just a little short of £100,000; £55,910 of the wife and £41,280 of the husband. This is tragic and dreadful. When the only nonpension marital asset is about £330,000, to spend one third of that on litigation is appalling. In reality the case was about the pursuit not of a share of the marital assets but of the late arriving nonmarital assets which only makes this even sadder. As is clear from the eventual outcome, it’s doubtful that pursuit was, net of the cost, worthwhile. But it is both parties and the children who will pay the cost

The parties married on 27 October 2010 having cohabited from September 1997 and separated on 1 June 2023. This is a long marriage. They are both 52. In 1997 they would have been early to mid 20s. Apart from the inheritances of the husband, all assets are marital. The primary asset is the former matrimonial home, a Victorian terrace house near the centre of Exeter with possibly 4 bedrooms but in reality 3, worth perhaps £340,000 with an equity of about £330,000. There are modest bank accounts, cars and liabilities but none of these are a feature for the settlement on the basis that each will keep their own. I deal with pension separately as they have good levels of pensions

They have 2 children. It’s the wife’s case that their housing needs are of magnetic importance. Her position statement refers continually to the need to provide accommodation for the children. It was repeated in closing submissions on her behalf. I was told this should drive my needs-based assessment. I disagree strongly. She has grossly overstated her case. A is 20. An adult. He went to a university in London and apparently didn’t settle and has come home and is living in the family home with the wife. I don’t know if he’s working. He’s giving some financial support to her household. The wife says she will have to look after him and provide accommodation for him and he’s quite likely to be living with her for another 10 years. He might. This may well be part of a cultural change in England, where children leave home much later. The wife may feel she has a moral duty to look after their son. But that is not the position in law nor should it be. He has had the opportunity of university education and might yet go back. But he is independent, and cannot be in law a basis of needs. Apparently he doesn’t see his father overnight, only seeing his father from time to time. That’s his choice as an adult. The husband is willing to say the wife has need for three-bedroom accommodation. I thought that was a substantial and gracious concession. It wouldn’t have been possible without his inheritance. So I proceed on the basis of three-bedroom need for each. But it does not mean I regard an obligation to depart from equality sharing to provide for accommodation for this child.

The other child is B. She is 17. The husband is still paying child support to the wife for her. But this child has not been to school since the end of 2024, 18 months ago. She didn’t take her GCSEs in summer 2025, perhaps apart from one. There was no suggestion that she will be going to school in the near future. She apparently suffers from anxiety although there was no medical report shown to me. Apparently she just stays in her room, where one must worry that the anxiety only therefore increases and perpetuates itself. Apparently she doesn’t find it comfortable going on public transport which puts a burden on the parents, particularly presently the mother. She visits the father but doesn’t feel comfortable staying overnight away from her bedroom including at what she has known as her paternal grandparents house, being where the husband is now temporarily living. Again I was told her needs are of magnetic importance driving the outcome of this case. I don’t agree. Everyone will be concerned for this child. But equally she is almost an adult. There is no expectation or plan in place for her to have education at home. There was no suggestion of home tutoring. There is no immediate expectation of taking future exams. Of course everyone involved with the family hopes that a time will come when she can leave her bedroom and make her way in the world. But absent special needs or particular medical circumstances, and none were presented here, I can’t make an order which is significantly skewing the long-term financial distribution, as would otherwise be fair.

An order made in a divorce where the parties are in their early 50s with a life expectancy perhaps of 40 years cannot be so directed to the benefit of one party because of accommodation needs of children for what might be at most a couple of years. One spouse cannot or should not sit for most of those remaining 40 years life expectancy on a far better divorce outcome only because of children needs in a few of those years. But again I was being asked to make a significant inroad into a nonmarital asset for needs for accommodation for this child. I felt it was entirely unwarranted. It is quite possible this child, almost an adult, may decide that she’s had enough of education, go out and get a job and hopefully leave the anxiety protection of her bedroom, and make her way in the world. We hope so. She may spend more time living with one parent for the first few years and that is understandable but not a factor in law. To expect a significant shift for provision from nonmarital assets in these circumstances was not fair in law in my assessment

As I say, the husband had conceded that each should have three-bedroom accommodation. He knew as a consequence there would be an invasion of the nonmarital assets. He also anticipated that both children would hopefully live with him from time to time in coming years as adults

The agreed structure is that the husband will raise whatever is the lump sum, almost certainly by selling two or maybe all 3 of his inherited properties when he can do so and then move into the family home with the wife using the lump sum to purchase her own accommodation. Both open positions therefore anticipated a lump sum in what might be 12 months time, but flexibility for earlier or later as needed. I said a lump sum payable in a year was fraught with problems in a falling property market and may work to the advantage or disadvantage of either. Therefore although I am looking at the appropriate lump sum on today’s figures, it must be expressed as a percentage of the value of the family home at the date it is paid.

The wife works 22.5 hours, 3 days, with the NHS. Since September last year she has been seeking opportunity to work another day and says she is waiting to hear. I believe her. In fairness to her she has used that extra day to work as a zero hours contract cleaner. She seeks time available for the younger child. She earns about £17,113 per annum from the NHS, about £3700 per annum from the cleaning job and, at present, has about £3000 per annum child maintenance which will only continue until the younger child is 18 and a small amount from the elder child for housekeeping. The husband says she can work longer hours and better pay. She wants to work longer hours and will when she can. I can’t see why she can’t work 5 days a week. Whether the work is available in the NHS is another matter. She said she is on the highest band for her qualification.

She said she was looking to train as a counsellor which training had started preseparation. She said she was coming to the end of one period of training but it would be a year or 2, perhaps more, before she was able to put the proverbial brass plaque outside her office and be open to business. I quizzed her about distinctive areas of specialisation into which she may be wanting to move and where she expected her market. I do not doubt her commitment to counselling but her replies were not impressive. From what I heard, she will not earn more than equivalent time spent in the NHS. It’s a matter for her what she chooses to do in work over the next 15 years. My role is to look at what is available

On her present working she has a mortgage capacity of £47,800. It was acknowledged at court that could be increased with regular longer hours for the NHS when available. The husband says that would mean a capacity of about £118,000. I think that’s optimistic; as to being payable, as to term and as to availability income for her. But certainly she has a good mortgage capacity at present and hopefully more in the future.

She sets out her income needs and that of the children. But this is a clean break case and I’m satisfied income needs reasonably can be met by each

The income of the husband and his mortgage earning capacity is strongly tied up with his health

The husband has severe kidney problems and I was presented with very helpful medical evidence in the bundle. He had his first kidney transplant at 9 years of age in 1982. This failed in 2011 and between then and 2017 he required haemodialysis 3 times a week. It was a difficult period for him and consequently for the family. He recognised the support of the wife to him and which I record. He had a 2^nd transplant in 2017 but remains on antirejection drugs with increased risk of infection and cancer. The kidney has a 40% function. Lifespan of the new kidney is 10-15 years and so we are approaching the earlier end of that scale. If or when it were to fail, he would go back on dialysis. The chance of a third transplant was slim.

He said that the week before the hearing he had been back to his hospital for a regular checkup, as he does every 3-4 months, and the results had literally just come through. He wanted me to see them. The wife objected as very late last-minute evidence. I thought there was good reason given that it was a checkup last week! But she strongly objected and I compromised that he would tell me in the witness box and he did. He says the result is low, falling white blood count which could be one of several causes, perhaps a virus but perhaps evidence of the kidney failure. It wasn’t known. We hoped the former. I cannot ignore the latter. The wife said that it had happened earlier in relation to his health

He has a reduced life expectancy

He has been advised, very strongly, he should be easing back work wise to perhaps 3 days a week, possibly two. He has already given up in 2013 his high-powered job in finance and is working with a local company, on site, 5 days a week. Certainly he is paid correspondingly and he is coping but he acknowledged medical advice is that he shouldn’t be doing this and he doesn’t know how much longer he will or can. He is on a 16 hour contract per week and knows that he needs to return to that sort of hours as soon as he can: he said that his present hours and stress of work was not sustainable with his health. He acknowledged that since 2017 his kidney function had been okay and he had been able to lead a relatively normal life although tired quickly. He is only able to work these hours whilst the transplant works. If he cannot work, because the transplant has failed, he would be reliant on pension income and capital. He thinks he has between 1-6 years of this present transplant. On an average, that puts him at 55.5 years of age. He would have another 11 years before state retirement. He knows that he will not be working to likely state retirement age, 67 as is. He says that he may well have to cease work well before then for medical reasons, including if the present transplant fails and he doesn’t have another successfully. Whilst there may be some non-means tested benefits for people in his position, he will otherwise be dependent upon private pension and his capital which someone in his position without health concerns would not otherwise be.

We explored what would then happen. He anticipates relying on his inheritance. That is what his father would have expected and wanted. From the wife I heard a detailed explanation of the various welfare benefits that he would be able to claim, some being means based and so dependent upon his capital and some being available irrespective of means. It was even put to him in the witness box that he could obtain grants from charities to help him. Judicial policy over the decades in respect of access to welfare benefits have changed in some ways but there is overall a hope and intention that a party postdivorce would not be required to take welfare benefits if it’s appropriate and possible to provide for them themselves or from a divorce settlement. This can only go so far and only in some cases and it is a policy that is not strongly fixed. But I would suggest it’s a general preference coming through many cases over the decades in the family courts in a divorce settlement of not thereafter being dependent upon welfare benefits unless really necessary. I suggest it’s general expectation of the public as well. It was the assertion of the wife which went again to the distribution of capital. The inheritance of the husband from his father should be distributed, she said, in a particular fashion on divorce which would or might then leave him seeking welfare benefits to support himself whereas otherwise he would expect to use his inheritance. If I had been in any doubt about matters previously for outcome, this unattractive argument consolidated my thinking.

He has a potential mortgage earning capacity of perhaps £83,000 on income but as the mortgage earning capacity report highlights, this takes no account of health but his inability to obtain life cover, critical illness or income protection on any policy might and he certainly won’t obtain this sort of mortgage at least at usual prices. In reality, the prospect of his obtaining a mortgage, at least a reasonably priced mortgage, was limited. This is another feature I must take into account

There was a substantial report along with an updating report and a good amount of the hearing was spent considering this. In general terms, the husband has £232,336 with Barclays in a defined benefit scheme with the pension being in payment because of the distinctive reason of his health with the lump sum already taken. He has a Standard Life pension of £7492 with a defined contribution scheme. He has a small Canada Life in payment. The wife has £117,881 in the 1995 NHS pension scheme and £21,220 in the NHS 2015 pension scheme and £14,679 in another defined benefit scheme.

The position of the wife was simple, clear and understandable, based on the report and for an equalisation by income. For equality at age 67, it would require a pension sharing order of 19.77%. This would provide the husband with £15,514 and with her of £14,960 plus a lump sum of £7531. I have little doubt that if there were no health issues, this would quickly have been agreed and would be the conventional outcome

The husband argued against this outcome.

In summary, he says with his reduced life expectancy he needs the pension money now crucially including income before state retirement pension kicks in, not in a couple of decades which may not be his lifetime. The conventional approach in a pension calculation was not appropriate here, he asserted. Expecting him to have needs for normal life expectancy for a man of his age is contrary to the medical evidence and I accepted that. Specifically he needed to have the income now from the pension which he was already drawing from Barclays and for that he was willing to make an offset of capital. This is where and why we had had the argument in court, above, about his sources of income over the next 15 years until state retirement. This is where the wife had said he should look to welfare benefits. He said he wanted to look to his pension but was willing to forego capital as a consequence as part of the fairness exercise.

Offsetting is certainly not an unusual exercise in matters of pensions. Of course there cannot be a straight offset between the value in a pension fund and straight cash. For this reason for a number of years informal tables were available but now publicly we have the benefit of the Galbraith tables and we are very grateful to Mr Galbraith for his hard work. This concept was a significant part of the claim of the husband including in his open position. I therefore unpack it further

The pensions expert had been asked to advise on offsetting because the husband, in fairness to him, had adopted a position on this over many months. The figure given the age of 67 was £36,746.

I believe unnecessary confusion was caused at the hearing by reference to a so-called notional pre-equalisation income referred to in the expert report. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion this was a paper figure and not distinctively crucial for the outcome.

But what was clear to me after extensive review at trial of the experts report during the hearing and subsequently in the preparation of this judgment were the following. First, a conventional division of pensions on an equality of needs basis doesn’t necessarily apply in distinctive circumstances where one party will almost certainly not have the usual life expectancy because of their lifetime health difficulties. Secondly, although the courts may sometimes have given inadequate weight to the differential, postdivorce and until retirement, of the parties’ respective ability to build up a pension, invariably in circumstances where the more financially vulnerable spouse has a lesser earning work and lesser pension earning potential arising from the working arrangements within the marriage, in this case there is little doubt that if the wife continues working in the NHS she has a far greater pension acquiring capacity than does the husband and this is relevant. Thirdly, he does need his income now with capital to fall back on in years to come. He gave evidence and I was convinced that for him it is the income now which will be the crucial need over these next decade or so. We looked at the figures during evidence and again carefully in closing submissions and I have done so again. A pension share will have a disproportionately adverse and harmful consequence on his need for that income over the coming years, including between now and state retirement even though not a feature for most people on divorce.

For these and other reasons, he urged me to do an offset alternatively not to follow the line of the conventional equality of income in pension division for normal life expectancy. I found the factor of his health to be the magnetic need in the case. I found it highly likely that his father either when writing his will or on his dying days would have reasonably expected the inheritance to help his son in his distinctive lifelong health needs. This is not binding or determinative on me but certainly relevant as a circumstance of the case. Where the application by the wife was for a share of the nonmarital assets acquired at the very end of this long relationship, I was satisfied that I should take these sorts of matters into account, s25.1 MCA, in deciding how the nonmarital should be divided even if this included a consideration of offsetting invading those nonmarital assets.

For the record and before coming to this decision, I have reflected on the helpful remarks made by the wife through her counsel in the position statement. I am familiar with the offsetting comments made in both PAG reports eg para 7.7 of the PAG report and I’ve already indicated that offsetting is only sometimes used outside the cases where a pension sharing order is not cost-effective. PAG says a discrete solution, separating pension and nonpension assets is not always possible or desirable on the facts of a case to avoid an offsetting solution. I’m also aware of the judgments by His Honour Judge Hess in this regard especially eg W v H 2020 EWFC B10. I agree entirely that wherever possible nonpension assets and pension assets should be treated separately (Thorpe LJ in Martin – Dye 2006 2 FLR 901 and PAG report page 35), and in most cases this is what happens. But there are distinctive cases where it is neither possible nor desirable to avoid offsetting and I have come to the conclusion this is one.

He offered £235,000 and no pension share of the NHS pension. He offered half of his standard life and I deal separately. In contrast as above, the wife sought £250,000 plus 19.77% of the Barclays pension. In circumstances where that offset of the Barclays pension was assessed at about £36,750, it will be seen they were apart by just under £52,000. Of the capital sought by the wife, £165,000 was the share in the marital home and the remaining £85,000 was part of the inherited assets of £310,000, most approximately 27.5%. Of the capital proposed by the husband of £235,000, £36,750 was a marital offset of the pension share entitlement. So he was offering out of the nonmarital assets the sum of £235,000 less £165,000 less £36,750 namely £33,250 being about 11% of the nonmarital assets.

In coming to my conclusion I had to weigh up several features and this is the judicial role at a final hearing of a financial remedies claim.

What weight to give to the housing needs of the children? In the case of the elder, none. Sorry if this is hard on him but in the present scheme where a three-bedroom house is accepted for both parties, he doesn’t feature beyond this need. In the case of the younger, some little weight but insufficient to shift the similar needs for housing of both parties now and for their life expectancy of however many decades in either case. Certainly she needs a good size bedroom but nothing in the particulars indicated this was not possible. I don’t accept that it has to be in some of the more valued locations in Exeter chosen by the wife, or at least that it should inform an outcome which will last for decades. Where a child is almost at the end of their dependency in law, as is this younger child, I consider the law should at most give only a slight touch on the tiller of the direction of travel to a fair outcome in contrast to the steer of the one-off element of a capital settlement and needs of the parties themselves over the remainder of the life expectancy which, other than the health of the husband, might be 40 years here.

Of course I am conscious of s25.1 MCA and first consideration to be given to the welfare of a child whilst a minor. I’m satisfied that I have done so here and that there is housing available for the minority of the child or as a dependent in law. In this instance, the child is 17 and may already have left full-time education or may leave soon. In most situations facing the courts, a child may be much younger with a longer period of need for accommodation yet with only modest available resources. How might the balance occur in that sort of situation? I remember starting my training contract in the mid-70s and working in family law in the late 70s onwards. Although Mesher is reported as a 1980 case, 1980 1 AER 126, it actually derived from a decision of 12 February 1973. I remember very many cases were then resolved on this basis. But by the middle 80s, we were discovering the problem with these solutions. It was a time when many women were either not in the workplace or certainly not earning much especially if coming back from childcare responsibilities and they couldn’t purchase accommodation from their share thereby causing hardship. Other solutions were found such as Martin orders which were highly gender discriminatory and part of the criticism from the Supreme Court in White. After that reset decision, Meshers made a comeback and are still a vital means to resolve financial remedy cases when there are dependent children. It seems to me they are a real balance between s25.1 first consideration to the welfare of a child and s25.2.2 the needs of the parties to the marriage. One spouse temporarily gives up their interest for the benefit of the children during their minority, then receiving their interest when the children no longer need the accommodation. That is proper weight given to the respective interests of children and parents, but only as long as the minority, the need in law, of the children. Thereafter, the parents needs prevail naturally.

What weight do I give to the housing needs of the husband? As it happens, he invites me to treat as fairly similar for both parties and I’ve indicated that I thought this was a fair approach. He certainly says he needs to be close to the hospital and I acknowledge this as well as noting these properties have a price more than in outer suburbs and surrounding villages. But he also acknowledges fairly that over most of the years he won’t be needing extra bedrooms to accommodate full-time children, but neither will the wife. She is able whether in NHS or any counselling she adopts to travel easily and, in Exeter if there is any comparison to London, moderately quickly to place of employment.

For these reasons, I believe the claim by the wife for such a large share of the overall resources, marital and nonmarital, is simply unfair, cannot be justified, is thoroughly disproportionate on long-term needs and fails. In as far as it may have driven her claim, and clearly did drive her claim for very many months to have all of the nonpension marital assets, I worry it has driven this litigation

In contrast, what weight do I give to the needs healthwise of the husband? Considerable. It has an impact on his earning potential and mortgage capacity. Short and medium term, it may have an impact on the need for either another transplant if that is possible and will work alternatively significant impact on his life and earning if he requires regular dialysis. His health has been an ever present feature throughout the marriage. For me, especially with the children now of their age, it is a determinative feature for the outcome in the context of his acknowledgement of equal housing needs of the parties

Into this discretionary equation I must put the very late arrival, in a relationship from September 1997 until separation in June 2023, of the inherited asset. It did not inform their standard of living because it was not received during the marital cohabitation. Although under no circumstances am I taking account of any other resources available to the wife in the future, it cannot be disregarded that her inheritances, if any and this couple of words are crucial, are yet to be received. She may or may not have any. No one knows the future. But the possibility of having them is there. It is not there in the instance of the husband. And whereas this will not inform the sharing element of marital claims, when it is the invasion of the nonmarital, I regard it as a minor feature for consideration. Only minor. But it would be wrong to ignore referring to it here. (For the avoidance of doubt, there was no suggestion her possible inheritance would be a forced heirship so we are not within the territory of WC v HC 2022 EWFC 22 at para 24 and instead remarks at para 49 are pertinent.)

So the claim for £250,000 by the wife as capital does not succeed. It isn’t needed on my analysis of the housing requirements, mortgage earning capacity and needs for the future.

What of the proposal of the husband? Let me deal briefly here with the proposal by him for the wife to have half of the standard life pension of £7492. With the costs of pension sharing and similar, it’s really not cost-effective to share such a small pension. Without any benefit of an offsetting figure, I imagine it may be about £3000. I’m going to give the benefit of the needs claim to the wife to say he should pay her £5000 in lieu of that pension.

But otherwise I’m satisfied he has made a fair offer. An open offer, based on an expert pension sharing report along with an updating report. An open offer which carefully considers when an offsetting might be suitable in circumstances where less frequently it is in cases of decent level of pensions. An open offer justifiable in law on the reported decisions and well argued on the figures. An open offer which acknowledges some invasion of the late arriving nonmarital asset but only to a limited extent. An open offer which recognises the remaining 15 years likely working life of the applicant coupled with ability to build up a pension during that period. An open offer which has graciously acknowledged equal housing needs even though that pitches above what would have been likely for a division of the marital assets alone.

So I direct a payment of £240,000 and no pension share.

This will be raised by him whether by selling properties in the inheritance or otherwise. He acknowledges this might be 6 months but could be as much as 12 months which incidentally also allows more time for the younger child to be at home and deal with her anxiety. He pitches this as a lump sum but there must be judicial recognition that we are in a falling property market or at least a fairly stagnant one. To have a lump sum in a situation where it is based on the value of a property which may change over the coming months, as the family Court sees in other cases, is unfair on one party or the other or maybe both. I leave it to the lawyers to agree but I think it comes in at around 72.8%.

If an extent of formality is needed, he should give 4 months written notice of when he reasonably anticipates being able to make the payment so that the wife can then make arrangements to purchase herself. This will need flexibility and goodwill between them given that he will be dependent upon getting one or more of the inherited properties sold and she will need time to purchase. The wife asked for 12 months minimum. I don’t want to be that rigid. I think it’s a matter of the husband now reviewing the likely timetable for raising the funds, now the amount is known, and then communicating with the wife. It may be a few months earlier as long as she has good time, and reasonable notice, to purchase herself. There must be liberty to apply provision

All other assets remain where they are with no pension shares. The husband will continue to pay child maintenance in accordance with the government arrangements. The wife will retain sole responsibility for the H loan. If there are any personal possessions of the family home of the husband still there, they should be collected ASAP. The contents to be divided by agreement between the parties recognising they will need sufficient each for accommodation for the future. Clean break.

The wife wanted to pursue a costs claim. She made application. She pointedly said that it was only costs for the recent months because of the alleged failure to negotiate by the husband. I thought this was telling given that the wife had made such an unsustainable open offer over very many months. She pointed to his failure after the FDR to make an offer even though she had significantly changed her own position. He said he was then waiting for the updating pension report. She said he was able to negotiate an FDR without it. True. But what one may be willing to negotiate in the safety and comfort of an FDR knowing ultimately one is not bound is a different matter to making open offers afterwards. I find he was completely reasonable in saying that he needed the pension sharing update report before making his offer and cannot be criticised for failing then to negotiate. The fact that report came moderately late leading to a late flurry of offers et cetera is not the fault of either party specifically. I cannot see the basis of a costs order in favour of the wife and it is refused

Instead I am specifically asked to consider the position of the wife in initially refusing an updated report and then refusing to pay a share of the cost. This updated pension sharing report was crucial to any analysis at a final hearing of a fair and just outcome. She said in evidence that she thought it was an unnecessary expense. I disagree entirely. There should have been no refusal. Secondly, each should have paid one half as is conventional and reasonable. She refused. He paid the whole amount. I’m told it was about £1000. I require the wife to pay £500 to the husband in 14 days

The husband did not pursue a costs claim against the wife. In my opinion she should regard this as a significant matter of grace by him. I have little doubt that the unreasonable offer put forward openly by her from the beginning of the case until after the FDR was a significant driver of the distrust and litigation between them. It’s difficult to regard it as a serious attempt to negotiate. As it happens, no costs order was sought but I am in no doubt where the difficulties have arisen creating this litigation.

These parties and their children now have a life ahead of them, each with their own turmoils, anxieties and stresses and strains. This has been a very difficult couple of years for everyone. It won’t be easy over these next couple of years in working out these arrangements as to who is living where and inter family relationships and similar. My hope is that this finality may bring some help for everyone in this difficult transition.

I so order

NB Since delivery of this judgement and before its reporting, I had an FDR about 2 weeks later with very similar facts, without the health issue, with almost identical value of the family home albeit the inheritance was only £140,000 rather than £310,000 as here. But otherwise very similar. And again I was presented with the applicant at FDR proposing that she should have all of the marital assets leaving the respondent with the nonmarital assets. I have no idea if this is coincidence or whether this is a more recurring type of situation. But for parties approaching the divorce court in their late 40s and 50s and early 60s, with their parents in the older generation including the early segment of so-called baby boomers anecdotally being sometimes capital rich and statistically dying when their children are in their late 40s and 50s and early 60s, the question on divorce financial settlement of inheritances arriving late in a marriage will increasingly occur.