The “matrimonial home” is given special treatment in the Family Law Act and that special treatment can involve huge unfairness to one of the parties to a marriage following marriage breakdown. One way in which this unfairness can arise involves a provision in the Family Law Act (paragraph 4(1)(b)) which defines “net family property” –a fundamental legal concept which is used to equalize property upon the breakdown of a marriage.
When equalizing property accumulated by the parties during the marriage, the parties are each allowed to deduct from the value of their property at date of separation the value of the property which each of them brought into the marriage. However, (and this is where the unfairness comes in) a party is not allowed to deduct the value of the “matrimonial home” if a party owned it at the time of the marriage.
The easiest way to illustrate this issue is by a series of examples.
Example Number 1
Harold has $400,000.00 in cash when he gets married. Wendy has $0.00 at the date of marriage. The parties are married for 10 years and then separate. At the end of the marriage Harold has a net worth of $1,100,000.00 and Wendy has a net worth of $600,000.00. In this case Harold would be entitled to deduct the $400,000.00 he had at the date of marriage. That would reduce his net family property to $700,000.00. Harold would then pay Wendy ($700,000.00 – $600,000.00 = $100,000.00 / 2 = $50,000.00. Harold would then have ($1,100,000.00 – $50,000.00 =) $1,050,000.00 and Wendy would have ($600,000.00 + $50,000.00 =) $650,000.00. In other words, Harold would end the marriage with $400,000.00 more than Wendy and Harold and Wendy would both have shared equally in the wealth accumulated during the marriage. The parties would be in exactly the same relative property position property at the end of the marriage as when they started the marriage (i.e. Harold would have $400,000.00 more than Wendy). That is considered fair by most people.
Example Number 2
Now consider the same facts as in Example number 1, except, the day before getting married Harold purchased 123 Elm Street so that the happy couple would have a nice home to which to return after their honeymoon. The parties live in the home for 10 years and Harold still owns the same home at the date of separation. In this case Harold is not entitled to deduct the value of the home from his Net Family Property. The math in this example would be as follows:
Harold $1,100,000.00 – $0.00 = $1,100,000.00
Wendy $600,000.00 – $0.00 = $ 600,000.00
Harold pays Wendy ($1,100,000.00 – $600,000.00 =)
$500,000.00 / 2 = $250,000.00
Wendy and Harold both end up with $850,000.00.
In example number 2 Harold lost half of the $400,000.00 which he brought into the marriage because he purchased a home prior to the wedding day and owned that home at the date of separation. Had Harold waited until after the wedding to purchase the home and brought cash into the marriage he would have been entitled to keep all of the $400,000.00 following marriage breakdown. Most people consider this result to be unfair.
As couples marry later in life or marry for a second time it is increasingly likely that one party to the marriage will bring a home into the marriage in which the parties will reside until the breakdown of the marriage. The treatment of the matrimonial home on separation has many traps for the unwary. More to follow.