Dividing finances on divorce becomes significantly more complex when substantial inherited wealth is involved. This case study highlights how Tees supported a client in safeguarding her £15 million asset base while still achieving a fair outcome.
If you’re concerned about how inheritance is treated in divorce, this example offers valuable insight into how the courts approach matrimonial vs non-matrimonial assets and how the right legal strategy can make all the difference.
Context
Tees were instructed by *Lorraine in connection with her divorce from her wife, *Anita, and the resolution of their matrimonial finances. Lorraine and Anita had a long marriage,, but the vast majority of their assets had been inherited by Lorraine and remained in her sole name. The assets included the family home, further properties, and investments with total assets in the region of £15,000,000. Lorraine had significant health issues which were relevant when resolving the financial needs going forwards.
What happened next
Financial remedy proceedings were instigated due to concerns that Anita would not cooperate voluntarily in the financial disclosure process and in order to set down a court timetable to a conclusion. Lorraine’s position was that the family home and another property held in her name could be considered matrimonial, but that the remaining assets in her sole name were non-matrimonial and that they did not need to be brought into the equation in order to ensure that Anita’s financial needs could be met. Anita’s position was that she had made a contribution towards Lorraine’s assets over the course of the marriage and that all of the assets were therefore matrimonial and should be shared. Lorraine and Anita could not agree a financial settlement between them and the case went to trial. A judge agreed with Lorraine’s position and considered that an equal share of what Lorraine considered to be matrimonial property was sufficient to meet Anita’s financial needs.
Meeting needs without sharing assets
Tees sought to demonstrate that, despite Anita’s argument to the contrary, an equal share of what was considered to be matrimonial property was sufficient in order to provide her with enough capital to meet her needs. She would be able to purchase a property which maintained a similar standard of living to that enjoyed during the marriage and the remaining capital could be invested to provide her with supplemental income to meet her needs after she had returned to full-time employment.
Tees had also made an open offer of settlement on Lorraine’s behalf during the financial proceedings. The judge awarded Anita less than what Lorraine had offered to Anita previously which led the judge to make a costs order against Anita that she should make a contribution towards the costs Lorraine had to incur as a result of Anita not having accepted Lorraine’s offer.
The outcome
Tees helped Lorraine to position her case to give her the best chance of retaining the large majority of her inherited assets as well as to provide her with some cost-protection in circumstances where no agreement could be reached and the court proceedings went to trial.
With Tees’ assistance, Lorraine achieved a clean break from Anita and preserved her inherited wealth.
Why Tees made a difference
Financial remedy cases involving inherited wealth require a careful balance between legal principle and practical outcome. The distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets is often complex, particularly in long marriages where lifestyle and finances have become intertwined. Securing a fair outcome while protecting inherited assets demands a clear strategy, robust evidence, and a strong understanding of how the court assesses needs.
- Tees was able to navigate the complexities of matrimonial vs non-matrimonial assets with clarity and precision
- Anchor Lorraine’s case in the origin of the wealth as inherited, reinforcing why it should remain excluded from sharing
- Demonstrate that Anita’s financial needs could be fully met without recourse to the wider inherited asset base
- Present a clear, needs-based argument to the court, focusing on fairness rather than equal division of all assets
- Deploy a well-timed and realistic settlement offer, strengthening Lorraine’s position on costs
- Manage contested proceedings effectively while keeping the case focused on legal principles rather than emotional arguments
This combination of strategic legal expertise and careful case management enabled Lorraine to retain the majority of her inherited wealth while achieving a fair and final resolution.
Giving you the full picture
If you are going through a divorce and want to protect inherited wealth or high-value assets, early specialist advice can make a significant difference to the outcome. Our experienced family law team can guide you through the process, help you understand your position, and build a strategy tailored to your circumstances. Contact Tees today to arrange a confidential discussion and find out how we can support you.
*Names have been changed to protect the privacy of those involved.
