Modest Assets Appeal Case: Children’s needs v the needs of a disabled party

Eva Rovnakova, a Trainee Solicitor in our family law department, reports on a recent appeal decision made in the modest assets case of V v V [2024] EWFC 380 (B), in which the court had to balance the needs of the Wife, the primary carer of the children, and the needs of the Husband who suffered from a serious disability.

The parties married in 2014 and had two children, aged 11 and 8. The Husband suffered an accident at home in 2020 which left him tetraplegic. The parties jointly purchased the family home, which required substantial adaptations to meet the Husband’s needs. On the parties' separation, the Wife and the children moved out of the family home to live in rented accommodation and the Husband remained in the family home supported by carers.

At the first instance hearing which took place on 7 February 2024, it was noted that both parties had significant debts, the Wife was receiving Universal Credit and the Husband was reliant on Universal Credit and PIP. Neither party could obtain a mortgage until their debts were paid off. The Judge held that “although in principle there should be an equal division, the husband’s housing needs will require more assets than the wife’s”. A deferred order for sale was made, with the net proceeds of sale divided 55% to the Husband and 45% to the Wife, delaying the sale for 2 years.

The Husband appealed this decision as he wished to remain in the adapted family home, and he was granted permission to appeal. An appeal hearing took place on 19 December 2024. The appeal Judge held that the disability of the Husband was so significant that the need for him to remain in the adapted home where his needs could be adequately met ”is the need that dominates”, despite this property being the only capital asset available to the family. It was held that the adapted family home should be transferred into the Husband’s sole name. The court deferred the sale of the property, with the trigger events being until the Husband no longer required it, such as upon his death or a transition to institutional care. The court also recognized the Wife’s delayed access to equity, awarding her with 75% of the family home’s future proceeds.

In a situation with insufficient assets available to meet both parties’ needs, the court sought to carefully distribute resources, balancing the Husband’s current housing needs with the Wife’s long-term financial security, to achieve fairness over time, rather than immediately. The appeal decision interestingly indicates that where it is not possible to meet the needs of both, a seriously disabled party and the needs of the children and their primary carer, the needs of the seriously disabled party will take precedence.

‍