A reminder of the guidance on how to approach a parents beneficial interest in the Former Matrimonial Home

A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B)

The involvement of third parties, often parents or other family members, assisting in the purchase of the former matrimonial home (FMH) is of rising frequency. It is therefore important that practitioners understand the court’s approach to the sale of a domestic property subject to a third-party interest (section 24A, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973)).

In A v N [2025] EWFC 371 (B), Recorder Stirling noted the increasing involvement of family members in the purchase of properties and in particular the FMH. In this case, the Judge gives a helpful reminder of the guidance in this field.

By way of a brief background, this case involved a husband and wife who were married for some 29 years. It was a relationship that included four adult children and one teenager. In 2012, the Wife’s mother contributed £130,000 towards the purchase of the FMH that was held in the husband and wife’s joint names. To give an added layer to this particular case, the wife’s mother moved in with the parties and funded the construction of a separate annexe as her own separate accommodation. This came at a cost to the wife’s mother of a further £75,720 and she sold her home to fund these works.

The wife’s mother was joined to the proceedings as an intervener and stated that she held a beneficial interest in the FMH. Recorder Stirling noted the long established principles from Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53) and concluded that the initial £130,000 was a gift but there was an inferred agreement that the wife’s mother would have a beneficial interest given the fact she funded the construction of the annexe. The wife’s mother had clearly acted to her detriment by selling her home and she believed the annexe was her new home.

The FMH had net equity of £1,332,556 and Recorder Stirling held that the wife’s mother had a 12% share in the net proceeds of sale based on a holistic view of her contributions.

Recorder Stirling highlighted that when considering whether a domestic property subject to a third-party interest should be sold (as per section 24A, MCA 1973), the court must consider the extent of any third-party interest and whether the parties live at the property. Whether the property is the third party’s home and whether they have a right of occupation. Finally, whether the property is modified for the third party’s benefit and whether they will be adequately rehoused.

Given the fact this issue is likely to only continue to become more frequent in financial remedy cases, this case provides a helpful reminder of the guidance and key considerations.

Henry Chambers can take instructions from both solicitor Firms and members of the public. If you would like to discuss how we may be able to assist, please do not hesitate to email us at info@henry-chambers.com