Family, Divorce and Finances
In the case of Yates v Yates , The Court of Appeal ruled that a wife was not entitled to a sum representing mortgage repayments.
In ancillary relief hearings a consent order was agreed which would dispose of all the financial claims by the wife against the husband (except for continuing periodical payments) for a period of three years. The wife had also been awarded a lump sum payment which was intended for her to pay off the mortgage on the former matrimonial home.
The wife instead remortgaged the house and used the advance to purchase a non income producing bond. She then sought to extend the three year term and a recalculation of the capitalisation. The wife succeeded in arguing that as the mortgage had been discharged she would have fewer finances available to invest for future income.
The husband’s appeal was allowed. The lump sum the wife had received had been significantly more than the value of the mortgage. She could therefore not look to her ex-husband to help meet the continuing mortgage payments.