A woman in her 80s may be able to keep her family home following court orders concerning the sale of the house and four rental properties jointly held by herself and her ex-husband.
They also jointly hold companies and about €1.6 million-worth of other assets in bank accounts and investments.
The three-judge Court of Appeal found the High Court had jurisdiction to make orders in June and July 2025 for the sale of the family home and other properties, but the failure to impose a stay was “a real injustice”.
The matter came before the High Court 42 times after a February 2023 settlement of divorce proceedings initiated by the man, including 24 times concerning his application for sale of the properties, Judge Mary Faherty noted.
It was “difficult to disagree” with the High Court that “every effort” was made by the woman to delay the court finalising matters in circumstances where her husband is “elderly and infirm”.
While dismissing the woman’s appeal over the sale orders, Faherty applied a three-month stay to allow the woman to complete assets reconciliation and other exercises provided for in the 2023 settlement.
Once that is done, Faherty envisaged the woman “will be accommodated” in her desire to retain the family home, subject to whatever was necessary to ensure the man’s half-interest in that is protected.
The parties have adult children, and accumulated substantial personal and corporate assets during their 40-year marriage.
Under the divorce settlement, each was entitled to a 50 per cent interest in the family home, in four other properties, in a number of companies, in all bank accounts, shares and investments jointly or solely held by them, and in specified antique furniture, paintings and ornaments.
[ Seventy Travellers’ caravans must be removed from the Curragh, court orders Opens in new window ]
Three of their adult children were represented in negotiations leading to the settlement, two siding with their father and one with their mother.
The man moved to re-enter the divorce proceedings on the basis that deadlines of six to eight weeks had passed without engagement by the woman regarding her obligations under the settlement.
He applied for the sale of the property assets, with proceeds to be divided between them, arguing that would help reduce conflict and assist in resolving difficulties about ascertaining the value of company assets and reconciling those.
The woman “vehemently objected” to the sale, one of the reasons being that she wanted to keep her home of more than 40 years, and alleged unnecessary exposure to capital gains tax. She said the corporate assets were more valuable and she needed more time to get a full picture of them.
When making the property sale orders in June and July 2025, the High Court said both parties were “not entirely blameless” over delays.
Apart from the issue of a stay, the High Court had not erred in making the sale orders, Faherty held. It had properly taken account of matters, including the woman’s non-engagement with her obligations under the settlement.
[ Occupiers of former Liberties pub remain in situ despite order to leave, court hears Opens in new window ]
However, as regards the family home, there was “no proper rationale” for not imposing a stay on its sale to allow the woman an opportunity to complete the assets reconciliation exercises.
An order for sale with a stay for a defined period would have been a “proportionate response”, particularly given the woman’s concession in June 2005 that the investment properties could be sold. There being no apparent dispute, the 50:50 assets division could still be achieved even if she retained the family home.
Because €1.6 million in funds was available to the parties in bank accounts and investments, there was “no merit” in the man’s argument the family home had to be sold to put the parties in funds for their litigation, she said.
The High Court also failed to give sufficient weight to the woman’s claims about how the parties’ corporate assets were being dealt with by the man post-divorce, including one of their children being put in charge of a company to her detriment. There was some merit in those claims, the judge said.
The man’s accountants should give requested information to the woman’s accountants to help advance the reconciliation process, Faherty said.
Read the full article at The Irish Times →
Ireland