Friday, October 14, 2011

S v AG: Dealing with a lottery prize on divorce

Lottery prizes have been much in the news this week, and today the High Court got in on the act, in the case S v AG (Financial Remedy: Lottery Prize) [2011] EWHC 2637 (Fam).

The Facts: H and W are both Colombian, but moved to this country in about 1991. They were married in 1984, and there are two children, both now grown up. In December 1999 W and her friend MEM entered into a written syndicate agreement for the National Lottery Big Draw 2000, and their ticket won £1 million. A cheque for that amount was issued to MEM and on 10 January 2000 £500,000 was paid into an account in the name of W.

In May 2000 W purchased the former matrimonial home in her sole name for £275,000. On 1 January 2004 H was removed from the property by the police in the context of an episode of serious domestic violence. The parties have not lived together since. On 20 October 2005 H registered a Notice of Matrimonial Home Rights against the property.

In August 2006 H issued divorce proceedings here and W countered this by issuing divorce proceedings in Colombia. The marriage was then dissolved by the Columbian court.

On 9 April 2010 H applied under s12 and 13 MFPA 1984 for leave to apply for financial relief following an overseas divorce. Leave was granted in June 2010.

Held: Mr Justice Mostyn rejected two contentions by W, namely that she and H had been de facto separated, albeit under the same roof, since 1996, and that W had not, in fact, won £500,000 on the lottery, as her participation was just a charade sought by MEM.

He then considered the present financial circumstances of the parties, and concluded (at paragraph 35) that H had a need for a lump sum of £82,000 for pension provision.

With regard to the sharing principle, he held (at paragraph 36) that the initial receipt of the lottery prize was non-matrimonial property, but that when W purchased the matrimonial home she converted that part of her non-matrimonial assets into matrimonial property. He did not consider that H was entitled to half of the matrimonial property, or anything like it (paragraph 37), but judged that a sharing of 15% - 20% would be fair, which would give H £72,000 - £96,000. Applying both the sharing and needs principles he concluded that a lump sum award of £85,000 was the right result.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.