The High Court granted a decree of divorce and ordered the sale of the former family home for no less than €1.3 million, while setting out how the proceeds and maintenance were to be handled.
In a judgment delivered on 22 April 2016, Mr Justice Henry Abbott said the spouses had lived apart for the required period, there was no reasonable prospect of reconciliation, and proper provision could be made for them and their dependent children. The divorce followed a 2006 judicial separation and settlement. Five children were born to the couple, and the judgment described them as more or less dependent and in full-time education.
The 2006 settlement provided for the home to be sold, with €300,000 paid to the husband’s brother, identified in the judgment as U.D., and the remaining proceeds divided 66.66% to the applicant wife and 33.33% to the respondent husband. Attempts to sell the property had failed as its proposed price was reduced during the property downturn.
The wife argued that paying the full €300,000 from a much lower sale price would leave inadequate funds to rehouse her and the children. The court rejected her submission that U.D.’s payment should be reduced proportionately. It held that the amount had been fixed by an earlier court order and could not be reduced in the divorce proceedings. The court also concluded that the sale had to proceed, and that it could not make an order affecting U.D.’s rights.
The court considered whether the children’s views had to be heard on the sale. It said no such issue arose because the sale obligation in favour of U.D. was certain. The judgment added that where a proposed sale would require children to move away from their established social, emotional or educational setting, parental-responsibility issues may arise. Here, the parties agreed that replacement accommodation would be in the same locality.
The orders provide for maintenance of €300 per child from March 2018 and a stay on accumulated maintenance arrears until further order. After sale costs and the €300,000 payment to U.D., the net balance is to be split 66.66% to the applicant and 33.33% to the respondent. If the sale closes by 1 December 2016, the applicant is to receive an additional €75,000, deducted equally from the respondent’s share.
The applicant may use funds under her control, including accumulated children’s allowances, towards buying alternative accommodation and meeting the temporary maintenance shortfall. The parties may return to court for further orders, including one addressing tax efficiency. The court did not order the sale of the parties’ foreign properties.