Anna Roiser, Associate at Hunters Solicitors, incorporating May,May and Merrimans
When the family court has to decide the appropriate division
of assets on divorce, the first step is to work out what the parties' assets
are. In many cases this is straightforward, but in other cases complexities
arise, such as where one party claims that they are holding a particular asset for
the benefit of a friend or family member, and so they personally do not own it.
If the family court accepts that that is the case, then the court will neither
share that asset with the other spouse, nor consider it is as a resource of the
party whose name it is in.
When such arguments are made, it can be difficult for the
court to assess the true picture. Family arrangements are often informal, and
sometimes little thought has actually been given to the technical legal
position. For example, if a person has used funds from their parents to
purchase a property, the provision of funds could have been a gift to one or
both of the spouses. Alternatively it may have been a loan, with the specific amount
provided being repayable at some stage, either with or without interest. A
third alternative is that the property is actually held for the benefit of the
parents, meaning that the full value of the property purchased would be
returned to the parents at some stage. If a divorce comes along many years
later, it may be that recollections as to what was intended have been coloured
by the subsequent anxiety to keep the asset out of the matrimonial pot available for
Such an anxiety was expressed by the Court of Protection in
the recent case of Re ARL  EWCOP 55
, in somewhat different circumstances.
Amongst other things, the Court of Protection exists to guard the financial
well-being of vulnerable people, including, for example, those with dementia.
The case concerned the finances of an 86-year-old woman, referred to in the
judgement as ARL, who had lost mental capacity, and whose finances were being
managed by her son under a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). Whilst the LPA had
jointly appointed the son and ARL's daughter as her attorneys, in practice the
son had managed ARL's finances to the exclusion of his sister.
Concerns were subsequently raised about the son's management
of his mother's finances. Despite there being ample funds, £39,000 was outstanding
in fees for ARL's care home, meaning there was a risk she would be evicted from
the home, where she was settled. The son did not often visit ARL, nor did he
provide her with a sufficient personal allowance. Of particular relevance here,
he had sold ARL's house and used two-thirds of the proceeds to purchase a
property in his own name, which he rented out and kept the income. The balance
from the sale had been paid into his own account, and spent on his own needs,
including defending a drink driving charge, paying his own son's university,
living and car insurance costs, some work to his family home, and his family's
costs of living.
In the Court of Protection Senior Judge Lush considered the
full history and chain of events, and clearly formed a negative view of the
son's character and behaviour, in particular suggesting that the son had instructed
several different firms of solicitors as 'a smokescreen to ensure that no
one firm or company is fully aware of the extent of his ineptitude and
deceit' and describing his conduct as 'appalling'. Noting that
the son was now going through 'an acrimonious divorce', Senior Judge Lush
went on to say 'One of my particular concerns is that….there is a possibility
ARL's funds could somehow, inadvertently, become part of the settlement in the
matrimonial proceedings'. As a result of the judge's findings, the LPA was
revoked and the son was ordered to personally meet his costs of the litigation,
rather than the costs being met by ARL's estate (as would normally be the
Whilst the specific facts of this case are, hopefully,
unusual, it serves to emphasise the risk of family assets getting caught up in
divorce proceedings. This will, unlike in this case, usually be following an intentional
payment by a family member, and anyone considering providing financial
assistance to family members should at least take the following steps:
- Take legal advice, often including tax planning advice,
on what is proposed.
- Make sure that there is a clear understanding, recorded
in writing, about the terms on which the funds are being provided. This will usually
cover things like interest payments, and the date when repayment is expected
(if it is not a gift).
- If the funds are being invested in property, then it
would be wise to have a charge or declaration of trust drawn up reflecting the agreed
- Consider suggesting that the recipient enter
into a pre- or post-nuptial agreement, which can be an effective way of
protecting family assets which have been or are being gifted to the next generation,
but the wealth-creating family wants to protect their gift in the long term.