Ignoring the implementing of a final financial order can have serious consequences

Family Solicitor, Amy Yates, considers this case as a warning to those who wilfully ignore financial remedy final orders.

The Case of Hersman (Husband) v De Verchere (Wife) involved two substantial properties, a chalet and a villa in France. The villa was held in joint names and the chalet in the name of the Wife. A final financial remedy order was made on the 12th June 2019 and directed that the Husband was to be the sole beneficial owner of both properties and he was to discharge the mortgages on the basis that he would be receiving rental income from both properties. He was then to pay the Wife £709,707 by 1st December 2019 unless he could not secure the Wife’s release from the mortgages by then, in which case the properties were to be sold.

The chalet was contracted as a rental by Oyster Properties. The Wife had undertaken within the financial remedy proceedings to transfer her shares in that company to the Husband. The Wife did this in July 2019; however, she then cancelled the contact with Oyster Properties so that the rentals would be conducted with her directly. In December 2022, the Husband applied for enforcement and an account of all rental monies received by the wife since 2019. He said that because she had taken all the rental money, he could not afford the mortgage, and he sought vacant possession of the chalet. In January 2023, the Wife made a cross application for enforcement of the unpaid lump sum.

A Hearing took place in February 2023 and transfer of the properties was ordered upon the Wife being released from the mortgages. The Wife was to give vacant possession on 7th March 2023. The Wife did not comply and applied to the Court of appeal; however this was refused. In September 2023, the Husband filed a statement confirming that the Wife had still not given up possession, continued to let the property, keep the rent and not pay the mortgage. He confirmed that mortgage arrears were 2,502,334 euros. The Husband applied to the Court to commit the Wife to prison for breach of the order. A Hearing was listed, and the Wife sent a statement on the morning of the Hearing stating that she could not attend due to her limited English. It had been made clear to her that she could have free representation and a free interpreter. She was sentenced to three months in prison and directed to pay the Husband’s costs. She has not come to this country since and so has not served the prison sentence or paid the costs.

‍