The Court of Appeal has ordered Mr. F. to pay Mrs. F. €10,000 after rejecting his appeal over missed mortgage repayments and delay in selling their family home.
The appeal concerned a High Court order made in January 2020 in family proceedings. That order required an account and inquiry into the effect of Mr. F.’s failure to pay the mortgage, with an adjustment to the division of the sale proceeds. The Court of Appeal replaced that inquiry with a fixed payment, saying this would avoid further proceedings and expense.
A December 2017 High Court order had provided for the home to be sold if Mr. F. did not secure Mrs. F.’s release from the mortgage or keep up the full repayments. The stay on the sale order expired when he missed the September 2018 payment. The Court of Appeal said he then delayed putting the property up for sale until after April 2019. The sale closed in March 2020, leaving a small negative equity, which the parties bore equally.
Mrs. F. had also sought attachment and committal over alleged failures to pay maintenance and comply with the sale order. The High Court found that Mr. F. had breached orders requiring mortgage and maintenance payments. It directed him to pay €2,500 in maintenance arrears, and he agreed to resume monthly maintenance of €475. He did not pursue his appeal against the maintenance order, and the Court of Appeal said he had paid those arrears.
The remaining appeal issue was the treatment of the mortgage payments missed while the sale was delayed. Mr. F. argued that the High Court’s inquiry wrongly varied the 2017 order, that he could not afford the payments and that it was unfair to make him cover the loss. The Court of Appeal noted that he had not applied to vary the order or provided evidence of a change in his finances.
The court calculated that eight missed monthly repayments of €2,862.54 totalled €22,900.32. Had those payments been made, Mrs. F.’s half share of the equity would have increased by €11,450.16. The court allowed time to prepare the property for sale and did not attribute later delays to Mr. F. It ordered the lower sum of €10,000 in place of the accounts inquiry.
The Court of Appeal also rejected Mr. F.’s argument that the enforcement motion should have been brought in the Circuit Court, finding it was properly brought in the High Court, which had made the order. Mrs. F. succeeded on the appeal. The court stated a provisional view that Mr. F. should pay her appeal costs, subject to a possible short hearing if he sought a different order within 14 days.