News

Polly Atkins examines whether a former spouse can be required to pay rent pending the sale of the family home in STEP Journal+

  • April 26, 2021
  • By Polly Atkins, Associate

This article was originally published in STEP Journal Plus, April 2021, and can be accessed here

Can a former spouse be required to pay rent pending the sale of the family home?

Many divorcing couples decide (or are ordered by the court) to sell their former family home and divide the proceeds between them, enabling each to purchase a new home with their share. However, interim arrangements pending sale are often overlooked, which can cause problems if the home takes longer than expected to sell. This was the situation in Derhalli v Derhalli [2021] EWCA Civ 112, where the Court of Appeal was required to give judgment on this issue. It was, as Lady Justice King put it, a “somewhat sorry cautionary tale”.

Mr and Mrs Derhalli married in 1989. In 2004 they purchased a London property as their family home, though it was registered in the husband’s sole name. They lived there until the breakdown of the marriage in 2014, when the husband moved out. Following highly acrimonious financial negotiations, the parties agreed a settlement in June 2016 and it was enshrined in a court order shortly thereafter.  In line with the agreement, the property was placed on the market in June 2016; the sale proceeds were to be divided between them. The order also provided for the wife to pay the outgoings on the property and cancel the Notice of Home Rights she had entered at the Land Registry, and required the husband to give 24 hours’ notice if he wished to attend the property.

The home was marketed for offers in excess of £7million, with both parties expecting a quick sale. However, given the impact of the Brexit referendum on the high-end property market, the property did not sell until March 2019. During this period the husband became increasingly frustrated; although the wife was paying the outgoings on the property, he was being kept out of his capital interest whilst the wife continued to benefit from it.

In March 2017 the husband served notice on the wife to either vacate the property within four weeks or pay weekly rent of £5,000; he then issued County Court possession proceedings and sought damages for trespass in the sum of £600,000. He argued that, following the making of Decree Absolute, the wife was simply a licensee who had no right to occupy the property without his continuing agreement. Initially the County Court accepted the husband’s position, but the wife successfully appealed. Applying general principles of construction of contracts, the judge held that it was clear from the order that the parties had anticipated that the wife would occupy the property until it was sold on the basis that she would pay the outgoings on the property but not rent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s appeal.  The judges agreed that the “reasonable reader” with “all the background knowledge which was available to the parties” would conclude that the parties’ intention was that the wife was entitled to stay in the property until it was sold, without having to pay the husband rent. The Court made clear that they were simply interpreting the agreement reached, and not setting out the arrangements that should apply in other cases.

The case emphasises the importance of talking a client through the various scenarios that might arise following a proposed agreement, and ensuring that these are properly provided for in a carefully drafted order. Had the parties’ advisors put their minds to the question of what should happen if the property took a long time to sell, they might have agreed (and drafted into the Order) that whilst the wife would be responsible solely for the outgoings for the first six months, thereafter and until sale she would pay the husband some level of rent – perhaps to be deducted from her share of the sale proceeds.

In this instance, the original oversight was compounded by the husband’s attempts to seek redress through possession proceedings, involving the parties in significant additional litigation with the attendant costs. Lady Justice King (an experienced family law judge) made clear that disputes on the interpretation of financial remedy orders made on divorce should be brought before the Family Court rather than the County Court, describing the husband’s application to the latter as “inappropriate”.

It may be that the impact of Covid-19 on today’s property market results in similar challenges arising. In any event, clients must be alerted to the risk of potentially difficult and expensive disputes if proper thought is not given to the appropriate interim arrangements pending sale.

Related News

Feb 14, 2024
Henry Hood and Anna Roiser examine the new transparency pilot in the family court
Feb 09, 2024
Henry Hood and Anna Roiser discuss the transparency reporting pilot for financial remedy proceedings in eprivateclient
Feb 08, 2024
Olivia Piercy and Henry Hood explore the intersection between LSPOs and economic abuse in Financial Remedies Journal
Feb 08, 2024
Olivia Piercy and Anita Mehta consider abuse in divorce settlements in Today’s Family Lawyer
Jan 31, 2024
Richard Kershaw comments on the Supreme Court judgment in Potanina v Potanin
Jan 16, 2024
Henry Hood recognised in eprivateclient’s ’50 Most Influential’ 2024
Dec 19, 2023
Hunters’ Family team celebrates pro-bono successes and expands commitment
Dec 01, 2023
Hunters shortlisted at the British Family Law Awards 2024
Nov 24, 2023
Can you use the same solicitor for a divorce in England?
Oct 27, 2023
Olivia Piercy calls to review the law on ‘conduct’ in financial remedy cases in the Financial Remedies Journal

               

© Hunters Law LLP 2024 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

>