Dividing assets after a long marriage can be particularly complex where farming businesses and inherited land are involved. In this case, Tees acted for *Ava in financial remedy proceedings following the breakdown of a nearly 40-year marriage tied to a substantial arable farming estate. With significant inherited assets, competing valuations and contested financial positions, the case required a strategic approach to secure a fair settlement and protect Ava’s long-term financial security.
For context
Tees were instructed by a wife (Ava) in financial remedy proceedings with her husband (Jack). Jack and Ava had been married for nearly 40 years, during which time they had lived on and been involved in the running of an arable farm of 500 acres.
>During the course of their marriage, Jack had inherited the farming land from his father and grandfather, as well as the family home, all of which were held in his sole name. The only asset which was in joint names was a small parcel of land, with a modest value of £20,000.
>Throughout the marriage, Jack worked on the farm and Ava helped keep the books for the farming partnership, whilst supporting the family. They had two children, both now adults, but one of which lived and worked on the farm.
What happened next?
On instruction by Ava, Tees recognised that cases involving farming assets are often considered differently to others.
Early settlement efforts and escalation to court proceedings
Tees also understood that Ava’s priority was reaching a financial settlement without the time and cost involved with lengthy negotiations and proceedings. With that in mind, Tees made an early and open offer in an attempt to try and reach a fair settlement, notwithstanding the limited financial information available.
Unfortunately, it soon became apparent that Jack wasn’t going to negotiate reasonably. Despite Ava’s preference to reach an agreement, she was (understandably) unwilling to do so if it meant significant and unreasonable compromise. Tees quickly recognised the need for judicial input and made an application for a financial remedy order.
With Jack unwilling to negotiate, Ava needed a clear understanding of the value of the land and any tax implications. Experts were instructed in both capacities, with the land being valued at £5,335,000 and tax liabilities on disposal giving it a net value of c£4,600,000.
Armed with the appropriate asset values, Ava tried yet again to negotiate with Jack, but his position was that she should receive just 10% (or thereabouts) of the net assets. Unfortunately, this meant Ava was forced to go to trial to ensure a fair outcome.
Trial outcome: assessing “matrimonial” vs “non-matrimonial” assets
At trial, the main question for the judge was whether the assets in Jack’s name were “matrimonial” and should therefore be addressed via the sharing principle or whether they were “non matrimonial”, in which case Ava should only receive what she “needed” to pay be left debt free, with a place to live and capitalised maintenance.
Tees advised Ava that it would be difficult to succeed with sharing, but Jack’s offer was so untenable that it was worth the cost of going to trial to achieve a better outcome.
The judge determined that the land was “non matrimonial”, but interpreted Ava’s “needs” claim generously, providing her with around 23% of the net assets – a far cry from the offer Jack had put forward.
Why Tees made a difference
- Strategic early assessment of a complex farming case, recognising from the outset how inherited agricultural assets are treated differently in financial remedy proceedings
- Proactive settlement approach, making an early open offer to try to secure a fair resolution and avoid unnecessary litigation
- Strong case management when negotiations failed, quickly advising on and issuing court proceedings to protect Ava’s position
- Use of expert evidence, ensuring accurate valuation of the farming business and clarity on tax liabilities to inform realistic settlement discussions
- Robust negotiation strategy, challenging an unrealistic settlement position and maintaining pressure to achieve a fair outcome
- Clear litigation advice, helping Ava understand the risks and merits of proceeding to trial versus accepting an inadequate offer
- Focus on achieving proportionality and fairness, ultimately securing a significantly improved outcome compared to the husband’s initial proposal
Giving you the full picture
Financial remedy cases involving farms, family businesses, or inherite of these cases and can guide you through negotiation, valuation issues, and court proceedings,perienced family law team understands the complexities involved in these cases and can guide you through negotiation, valuation issues, and court proceedings where necessary.
Whether you are seeking to resolve matters amicably or need robust representation in contested proceedings, we provide clear, practical advice focused on protecting your financial future.
If you are facing divorce or financial proceedings involving complex assets, contact Tees today to speak to one of our specialist family lawyers.
*Names have been changed to protect the privacy of those involved.
