The High Court varied parts of a Circuit Court divorce order, setting a detailed access schedule for two children and changing how money from the sale of the former family home was to be handled.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin gave judgment on 29 July 2010 on the husband’s appeal against ancillary orders made on 4 December 2009. The appeal concerned access and property adjustment. The High Court left the divorce decree itself undisturbed in the account given in the judgment.
The parents had joint custody, with the children’s primary residence with their mother. The High Court directed access on the first and third weekends of each month, with timing linked to the father’s work schedule and arrangements confirmed by text. It also set access during mid-term, Christmas, Easter and summer holidays, provided for nightly phone or Skype contact, and addressed travel and the children’s passports. The judgment said future applications were to be made to the Circuit Court.
The property dispute concerned the former family home in County D. A 2007 Circuit appeal order had directed a €500,000 payment to the wife, subject to a pro-rata reduction if the home sold for less than €525,000. The house eventually sold for €355,000 in January 2010, after the High Court had approved a conditional contract for that price on 15 January. The judgment recounted the husband’s position that the wife’s repeated applications delayed the sale, and found that her conduct contributed to the shortfall. The wife had argued that the property was being sold at an undervalue; the court noted that no higher bidder had been produced.
Applying the earlier order, the judge calculated a €170,000 reduction, leaving €330,000 due. With €250,000 already paid, the remaining balance was €80,000. The husband had offered a further €100,000. The court directed him to pay those sums within three months, with the new payments to go into the Circuit Court. It also said he could apply to have €150,000 of the €155,000 already transferred to the wife paid into court to prevent further reduction of the funds. The money could be sought from the Circuit Court for purchasing a suitable home, and for no other purpose.
The judgment contains an internal timing inconsistency: it says the additional sums are to be paid into court within “three months/weeks”. It also refers to the applicant paying maintenance previously ordered, without setting out a new maintenance determination in the appeal.