{"id":5016,"date":"2018-03-07T09:26:56","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T09:26:56","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-07-16T12:22:52","modified_gmt":"2019-07-16T12:22:52","slug":"financial-matters-during-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php","title":{"rendered":"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Financial Matters During Marriage<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>These Family Law pages were originally prepared by the Law Department at  St. Brendan&#8217;s Sixth Form College.&nbsp; They are no longer being updated and no  responsibility is accepted for them by St. Brendan&#8217;s College or LawTeacher.net<\/em><\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>Before the <b>Married Women&#8217;s Property Act 1882 <\/b>a woman&#8217;s personal property was  transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came  under her husband&#8217;s control but remained hers for inheritance purposes.  According to Blackstone, writing in about 1765, the husband and wife were one  person in law: the legal existence of the woman was suspended and incorporated  into the personality of her husband. A husband could leave property to his wife  in his will (because that would not take effect until after the marriage was  ended by his death), but could not make a legal gift to her and was responsible  for all her debts, whether contracted during the marriage or before.<\/p>\n<p>Such rules have no effect nowadays, and for the past hundred years or so  husband and wife have been treated as two legal persons each with his or her own  property rights. Property owned by either spouse before the marriage remains the  property of that individual (subject to any evidence of a contrary intention),  and even property acquired after marriage (e.g. by earning, purchase, legacy or  other gift) belongs prima facie to the person acquiring it, rather than to both  together. There is no automatic &#8220;community property&#8221; rule in English  law, such as exists in the laws of many American states, though there are  various exceptions discussed below. Before going on, however, two areas of  general law need to be addressed.<\/p>\n<h3>Trusts and beneficial owners<\/h3>\n<p>Trusts have been in existence for more than a thousand years, and even in  pre-Norman times there are recorded instances of the conveyance of land to X to  be held by him for the use of another. The common law disregarded such  instructions and held the land to be the property of X absolutely, but from the  early 15th century equity, acting in personam, began to compel the owners to  carry out the terms of the use. The popularity of the use as a device for tax  avoidance became such that in 1535 Parliament enacted the Statute of Uses,  limiting their scope and requiring legal ownership to be transferred in most  cases to the beneficiary of the use. The practice then grew up of transferring  land to X for the use of Y in trust for Z, and when under the statute the land  passed to Y it was still Z who derived the ultimate benefit.<\/p>\n<p>The beneficial or equitable owner of property, therefore, is not always the  same as the legal owner. If property is held on trust, the legal owner is bound  to deal with it for the benefit of some of other person or persons, possibly  including himself. The commonest illustration of this idea in the field of  family law occurs where the matrimonial home is owned by just one partner on  paper, but where both partners have enforceable rights as to its use and  disposal.<\/p>\n<p>A trust may be created in various ways: express trusts are fairly easy to  recognise, and implied trusts may arise where a person&#8217;s words or deeds show the  necessary intention. Resulting and constructive trusts are more difficult to  grasp, though constructive trusts in particular have come to play quite an  important role in family law, and statutory trusts come into effect in certain  circumstances.<\/p>\n<h3>Co-ownership of land<\/h3>\n<p>The law recognises two forms of co-ownership: the joint tenancy and the tenancy  in common. (In this context, the word &#8220;tenant&#8221; can describe an  owner-occupier as well as a lessee.) Under the Law of Property Act 1925, the  legal estate in land is always held by joint tenants (or a single tenant) on a  statutory trust, but behind this trust there may be either an equitable joint  tenancy or an equitable tenancy in common, according to the circumstances of the  case.<\/p>\n<p>For a tenancy to be recognised as a joint tenancy, the &#8220;four  unities&#8221; must be present. There must be:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>unity of possession, each joint tenant being as much entitled to possession and enjoyment of any part of the land as any other tenant, and none having special rights;<\/li>\n<li>unity of interest, each joint tenant having an interest of the same kind and (if appropriate) of the same duration, and any rents or profits being divided equally between them;<\/li>\n<li>unity of title, each joint tenant having acquired his or her rights by the same conveyance or by simultaneous adverse possession; and<\/li>\n<li>unity of time, each joint tenant having acquired his or her vested interest at the same time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The distinguishing feature of a joint tenancy is the jus accrescendi or right of  survivorship. On the death of a joint tenant, his or her ownership and rights  pass automatically to the surviving joint tenants and cannot be left by will or  intestacy. This continues until there is just one survivor, who becomes the sole  owner.<\/p>\n<p>Under a tenancy in common, on the other hand, the tenants hold in  &#8220;undivided shares&#8221;. Each tenant has a distinct fixed share in the  property, which he can pass on by will or otherwise, as he wishes; these shares  need not be equal in size. There must still be a unity of possession &#8211; each  tenant-in-common has a right to enjoy any part of the property just as if he  were the sole owner &#8211; but the other three unities required for a joint tenancy  need not be present.<\/p>\n<p>A beneficial joint tenancy can be converted to a beneficial tenancy in common  by a process of severance. Such severance occurs automatically if a tenant  acquires a further interest in the property, or sells or mortgages his interest  to another, because the four unities are no longer present; it also takes place  if one joint tenant unlawfully kills another, because he should not be allowed  to benefit (by jus acrescendi) from his own crime. Severance can occur by the  agreement (express or implied) of all the joint tenants, but s.36(2) of the Law  of Property Act 1925 also allows any one joint tenant to give written notice to  his co-tenants of his wish to sever his interest.<\/p>\n<h3><a name=\"personal\"><\/a>Personal property<\/h3>\n<p>So far as personal property (i.e. property other than land and buildings) is  concerned, married couples are in much the same position as any two other people  except when the marriage breaks down. Each of them separately can buy and sell  his or her own property &#8211; one can even sell property to the other &#8211; and there is  no general presumption of joint ownership. Money in a bank account in the name  of one partner is generally presumed to be that partner&#8217;s exclusive property,  and if one partner buys property (including investments such as stocks and  shares), the purchase is presumed (in the absence of other evidence) to belong  to that partner alone.<\/p>\n<p><b><u>Married Women&#8217;s Property Act 1964 s.1<\/u><\/b><\/p>\n<p>If any question arises as to the right of a husband or wife to money derived from any allowance made by the husband for the expenses of the matrimonial home or for similar purposes, or to any property acquired out of such money, the money or property shall, in the absence of any agreement between them to the contrary, be treated as belonging to the husband and wife in equal shares. [This section is very rarely used, and the Law Commission has recommended its repeal.]<\/p>\n<p>Joint bank accounts seem to create particular problems. The money in such an  account is prima facie jointly owned by both partners, and although the courts  today would probably apply this presumption, a number of older cases (not  expressly overruled) suggest it may not take too much to rebut it.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Marshal v Crutwell (1875) LR 20 Eq 328, Jessel MR<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>A man H in poor health converted his bank account to a joint account, giving his wife P power to draw cheques. P did subsequently draw on the account for household expenses, but always at H&#8217;s direction. On H&#8217;s death, P claimed the balance of the account by right of survivorship, but the judge said H had never intended to give P ownership. On the evidence, the joint account was solely for convenience and created no presumption of advancement.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Thompson v Thompson (1970) 114 SJ 455, CA<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>An American H married a Chinese W and set up home in England. H transferred some money from his American resources to a joint account in England; this account was to be used to pay for the house, and would go to W in the event of H&#8217;s death. W subsequently sought a divorce and claimed a half share in the house and the balance of the account under the 1882 Act. Affirming the Registrar&#8217;s dismissal of her claim, Lord Denning MR said that where a joint account was supplied with money from each party so as to be a joint pool it was joint property belonging presumably to the parties in equal shares, as in Jones v Maynard above. But in the instant case the &#8220;joint account&#8221; remained H&#8217;s property: he provided all the money and did not intend W to acquire any proprietory interest until after his death.<\/p>\n<h3><a name=\"matrimonial\"><\/a>THE MATRIMONIAL HOME<\/h3>\n<p>For most couples, their most valuable asset is the matrimonial home, and given  historic rates of inflation this can be a very valuable asset indeed. A house  bought for \u00a33000 in the early 1960s could easily be worth thirty times that  today. The modern trend is for married couples to register the house in their  joint names, but thirty or forty years ago that was less common, and equity may  have to step in to resolve questions of beneficial ownership.<\/p>\n<p>It is not so much in cases of divorce that legal analysis is required: the  courts have extensive discretionary powers to redistribute legal rights and  obligations on divorce: the breakdown of cohabitation causes far more legal  problems. But a spouse who dies after a long and happy marriage, or goes  bankrupt with creditors pressing for payment, or mortgages the family home to  obtain a loan for other purposes, may leave questions of ownership to be  resolved. For example, a spouse who can establish a beneficial interest in the  matrimonial home may be able to resist a claim for possession should the legal  owner default on the mortgage repayments.<\/p>\n<p>The difference between resulting and constructive trusts is not altogether  clear. Some judges and scholars have even denied its existence, but in Drake v  Whipp (page 29 below) the Court of Appeal reaffirmed a distinction. Its  importance probably lies in the fact that under a resulting trust the parties&#8217;  beneficial shares are proportionate to their contributions, while under a  constructive trust the courts have wider discretion. In both cases, however, the  parties&#8217; intention is crucial.<\/p>\n<p>In broad terms, a resulting trust may arise where a person other than the  legal owner contributes to the purchase price. This person might be a spouse or  cohabitant of the legal owner, or it might be some other relative such as a  parent or (in the case of an elderly owner) an adult child. The contribution  might be made at the time of the initial purchase, or (very often nowadays)  might be made by meeting the mortgage repayments as they fell due.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Marsh v Von Sternberg [1986] 1 FLR 526, Bush J<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>A woman D became engaged to P, who moved into D&#8217;s flat. P and D then bought a long lease on the flat (at a discounted price because D was a sitting tenant); D paid the deposit of \u00a35000 and P began to make repayments on the mortgage for the balance. When they split up, P sought a declaration that the flat was owned in equal shares, and D counterclaimed that it was entirely hers. The Registrar awarded P a 4% share, based on his actual repayments of \u00a3500 to date, but Bush J said on appeal that P should have a 25% interest based on the parties&#8217; agreement (on the evidence) to share responsibility for the mortgage.<\/p>\n<p>The courts&#8217; attitude to constructive trusts has changed over the years. During  the 1960s and 1970s Lord Denning MR in the Court of Appeal sought to establish  the &#8220;new model&#8221; constructive trust giving the deserted wife almost  automatically an equitable interest in the matrimonial home, but his attempts  were blocked by the House of Lords. Some changes have since been made by  legislation, but the modern doctrine depends largely on the parties&#8217; supposed  intentions.<\/p>\n<p>Under s.37 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 (see below),  substantial contributions of money or money&#8217;s worth, by either spouse, to the  improvement of property belonging to either or both may entitle that party to  such an equitable interest as the court may think just. This modifies but does  not by any means eliminate the effect of the judgement in Pettitt.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638, CA<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>D bought a house for himself and P, leaving P&#8217;s name off the conveyance ostensibly to avoid any problems during her imminent divorce proceedings. After a fire in the house they shared the insurance money equally, and when they split up P claimed a half-share in the house. Her claim succeeded: the Court of Appeal said P&#8217;s substantial contributions to general household expenses were well in excess of what would have been expected, and allowed D to meet the mortgage repayments; moreover, the sharing of the insurance money showed a common intention that she should have a half share. Whether D ever actually had such an intention is doubtful, but he was estopped by his representations from denying it!<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Drake v Whipp [1996] 1 FLR 826, CA<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>P and D together bought an old barn, intending to convert it into a house for their joint occupation. P paid 40% of the purchase price and D paid 60%, but D subsequently spent a considerable amount on the costs of conversion before the property was finally conveyed to him. When P and D separated, P claimed 40% of the sale value on the basis of a resulting trust, but the trial judge took into account D&#8217;s subsequent contributions and awarded her only 19%. Allowing P&#8217;s appeal in part, the Court of Appeal said she should have a one-third share. Once a common intention to share the property had been established, said Peter Gibson LJ, the resulting trust was displaced by a constructive trust, and the court could exercise its discretion in deciding what share would be fair.<\/p>\n<p>Where the matrimonial home is jointly owned, the situation may arise that the  owners disagree as to what should be done with it: in the event of divorce, for  example, one partner may want to sell the house while the other wants to keep  it. In this case, s.14 of the Trusts of Land Act 1996 (which replaces and  simplifies earlier legislation on this subject) allows either party to apply to  the court, which can make any order it thinks fit. In particular, the court can  declare the nature and extent of any person&#8217;s interest in the property, and can  make orders requiring or prohibiting its sale, overriding a legal owner&#8217;s  refusal to consent, &amp;c.<\/p>\n<p>In making any such order, the court is required by s.15(1) to have regard to  factors including the settlor&#8217;s intention (where the trust was created by a  strict settlement), the purposes for which the property is held, the interests  of any child who occupies or might reasonably be expected to occupy the  property, and the interests of any secured creditors. The Act came into force in  January 1997 and has not yet generated any case-law of its own, but the Law  Commission has expressed the view that many of the decisions based on s.30 of  the Law of Property Act 1925 (which these two sections replace) are still  relevant.<\/p>\n<h3><a name=\"rights\"><\/a>Rights of occupation<\/h3>\n<p>Quite separate from questions of legal or beneficial ownership is the right to  occupy the matrimonial home. Under s.1(1) of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 and  s.30(2) of the Family Law Act 1996 (which consolidated earlier legislation) a  non-owner spouse has a statutory right to occupy the matrimonial home, and  cannot be evicted by the owner unless the court so orders. Under s.2(1) of the  1983 Act or s.31(10) of the 1996 Act, such &#8220;matrimonial home rights&#8221;  can be registered as a charge on the property, and once registered is effective  against any third party who subsequently buys the property.<\/p>\n<p>Under s.1(5) or s.30(3), a non-owning spouse with rights of occupation is  entitled to pay rent, mortgage repayments and similar payments due from the  owner, which must be accepted as if tendered by the owner. For example, a wife  deserted by her husband can continue living in a flat let to the husband, and so  long as she keeps up the payments of rent she has security of tenure under the  Rent Acts and cannot be evicted without a court order.<\/p>\n<p>A spouse with no legal interest in the matrimonial home, or a former spouse,  or even a cohabitant, may apply to the court for an &#8220;occupation order&#8221;  affirming her right to occupy and (if appropriate) excluding the other from all  or part of the premises. This section can therefore be used inter alia in cases  of domestic violence to exclude the violent partner (who may in fact be the  legal owner). This matter is discussed in more detail in another chapter.<\/p>\n<h3>Enforcement procedures<\/h3>\n<p>There are various ways of resolving a dispute between husband and wife as to the  ownership of property. Since most such disputes arise in connection with  divorce, a very common practice nowadays is to rely on the courts&#8217; general power  when granting a divorce to adjust property rights as seems appropriate. Disputes  do arise in other situations, however, as for example when one partner is  declared bankrupt and the creditors seek possession of his assets.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Married Women&#8217;s Property Act 1882 s.17 (as amended)<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>In any question between husband and wife as to the title to or possession of property, either party may apply by summons &#8230; to the High Court or such county court as may be prescribed and the court may, on such application &#8230;, make such order with respect to the property as it thinks fit. [Under s.39 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, such an application may be made up to three years after the marriage has been annulled or ended by divorce, and under s.2(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 a similar application can be made within three years of breaking off an engagement.]<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 s.37<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>It is hereby declared that where a husband or wife contributes in money or money&#8217;s worth to the improvement of real or personal property in which &#8230; either or both of them has &#8230; a beneficial interest, the husband or wife so contributing shall, if the contribution is of a substantial nature and subject to any agreement between them to the contrary &#8230; be treated as having then acquired &#8230; a share or an enlarged share &#8230; in that beneficial interest of such an extent &#8230; as may seem in all the circumstances just to any court before which the question &#8230; arises.<\/p>\n<h3><a name=\"financial\"><\/a>FINANCIAL PROVISION DURING MARRIAGE<\/h3>\n<p>At one time, the common law rule was that a husband had a duty to maintain his  wife, but acquired as his own all her property acquired before the marriage. The  modern rule is that spouses retain their own property as described above, but  have mutual obligations of financial support both during the marriage and  (potentially) after it is ended by divorce. Cohabitants have no such obligations  towards one another, though they do have financial responsibilities towards  their children.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Windeler v Whitehall [1990] 2 FLR 505, Millett J<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>A woman P was the mistress of D; she looked after D&#8217;s house where they lived together, but made no financial contribution and played no part in D&#8217;s successful theatrical agency. When their relationship broke up P moved out and claimed a legal interest in the house and the business. Dismissing her claim, the judge said a husband has a legal obligation to support his wife even if they are living apart, but has no legal obligation to support his mistress even if they are living together.<\/p>\n<p>As one might suppose, these mutual obligations of financial support are normally  performed as a matter of course, without the intervention of the law. In most  families, a working husband or wife contributes to household expenses, and  generally provides a personal allowance for a non-earning partner. But where the  marriage runs into difficulties &#8211; for example, where the parties live apart  without formally divorcing, or where a violent partner is excluded from the  matrimonial home by court order &#8211; it may be necessary for one spouse to assert  legal rights of support against the other.<\/p>\n<p>Under s.2 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates&#8217; Courts Act 1978 the  magistrates can order one spouse to make financial provision for the other. Such  an order may require periodic payments of any appropriate amount, and\/or payment  of a lump sum not over \u00a31000, but the magistrates cannot by order change the  ownership of other property.<\/p>\n<p>Either party can apply for an order for periodic payments and\/or a lump sum,  on the grounds (set out in s.1 of the Act) that the other spouse:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> has failed to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, or<\/li>\n<li> has failed to make a propert contribution towards reasonable maintenance for a  child of the family, or<\/li>\n<li> has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to  live with him\/her, or<\/li>\n<li> has deserted the applicant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In deciding whether to exercise their powers under s.2, the magistrates must  have regard to all the circumstances of the case, first consideration being  given to the welfare of any child under 18. They must also consider the income,  earning capacity, property and other financial resources of each of the parties,  to their respective financial needs and obligations, to their standard of living  before the events giving rise to the application, to their respective ages and  states of health, to the duration of the marriage and the contribution each  partner has made (and is likely to make) to family welfare, and to the conduct  of each party where it would be inequitable to disregard it. An order can be  enforced by attachment of earnings (whether or not the payer has defaulted), or  as a last resort by the issue of a distress warrant or committal to prison for  contempt of court.<\/p>\n<p>The magistrates also have power under s.6 of the Act to make a consent order  for periodic payments and\/or an unlimited lump sum, where the other spouse has  agreed to make such payments and the order would not be contrary to the  interests of justice. At one time there were significant tax advantages in  making payments under such an order rather than voluntarily, but these  advantages have largely vanished and consent orders are consequently now very  rare. Where the parties have been living apart for three months or more by  mutual agreement (i.e. neither has deserted the other), and one has been making  periodic payments to the other during that time, the magistrates have power  under s.7 to order the continuation of those payments. Again there were  originally tax advantages in obtaining such an order, as well as a measure of  security for the recipient, but these orders too are rarely granted nowadays.<\/p>\n<p>Under s.27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 a party to a marriage can apply  to the High Court or to a county court with divorce jurisdiction for an order  for periodic payments and\/or a lump sum for the reasonable maintenance of the  applicant and\/or a child or children of the family, if the respondent has failed  to make provision for such maintenance. The court must consider the same factors  as those set out in s.1 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates&#8217; Courts Act  1978. Such applications are very rare: there were only 71 in 1989, and  subsequent judicial statistics reports do not identify them separately at all.<\/p>\n<p>The parties to a marriage are of course free to make their own agreements  about financial provision, and in the event of separation (short of divorce) may  decide to formalise these agreements in a binding contract. Such a contract may  be oral or written and is subject to the same rules of law (e.g. as to  certainty, consideration, &amp;c) as any other contract, but the courts will be  particularly anxious to ensure there was no duress, misrepresentation or mistake  involved in its making. Under s.34(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 any  term purporting to oust the jurisdiction of the courts (e.g. by preventing one  party from applying for additional or alternative financial provision) is void,  and s.6 of the Child Support Act 1991 requires a parent claiming any welfare  benefit to authorise and assist in proceedings to obtain child support payments  from the absent parent notwithstanding any private agreement between them.<\/p>\n<h3><a name=\"welfare\"><\/a>Welfare benefits<\/h3>\n<p>A number of welfare benefits are available to support a family in financial  need, including the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Income support<\/b>: is available to anyone who is in paid work for less  than 16 hours per week, who is a lone parent, a carer, disabled, or sick and  unable to work, but whose current income is below a predetermined level. A  single person is entitled to \u00a329.60 to \u00a349.15 per week (depending on age), and  a couple to \u00a358.70 to \u00a377.15 (ditto), with additional payments for single  parents, children, and various special circumstances, but the benefit payable is  reduced in line with the family&#8217;s income and savings. Income support is not  available to anyone who works more than 16 hours a week (but see family credit  below), is a full-time student, or has savings over \u00a38000.<\/li>\n<li><b>Family credit<\/b>: is intended to provide extra help for low-earning  families with children. Where one parent (or a single parent) is working for at  least 16 hours a week she can claim \u00a347.65 a week, with an extra \u00a310.55 if the  claimant or her partner is working at least 30 hours a week. Further benefits of  between \u00a312.05 and \u00a324.80 (depending on age) can be claimed for each child. No  family credit is payable if the family has capital over \u00a38000, and deductions  are made if the family&#8217;s net weekly income exceeds \u00a377.15 (though child care  expenses up to \u00a360 a week are deductible) or its capital exceeds \u00a33000.<\/li>\n<li><b>Child benefit<\/b> (no means test) is payable to a person responsible for a  child living with them, or contributing significantly to the child&#8217;s  maintenance. The child must be under 16, or 16-19 but still in full-time  education, and the benefit is currently worth \u00a311.05 per week for the eldest  child (\u00a317.10 where the claimant is a single person) and \u00a39.00 for each  subsequent child.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><a name=\"child\"><\/a>Child support<\/h3>\n<p>Under s.1(1) of the Child Support Act 1991, which came into force in 1993, each  parent of a &#8230; child is responsible for maintaining him. An absent parent (that  is, a parent other than the person with whom the child lives) can discharge this  responsibility by making periodical maintenance payments as determined under the  Act. The day-to-day enforcement of the Act rests with the Child Support Agency,  which has the duty of assessing the appropriate amount of maintenance in any  individual case (using statutory formulae with very little room for the exercise  of disctretion) and, where necessary, enforcing payment.<\/p>\n<p>A caring parent in receipt of income support or family credit (or certain  other benefits) may be required to seek child support through the CSA, and  benefit payments may be reduced for non-compliance unless the CSA believes the  caring parent or the child would be at risk of harm. Other caring parents may  apply if they wish: the existence of a maintenance agreement (no matter in what  terms) does not preclude such an application unless the agreement was made  before the Act came into force. For the purposes of the Act, the usual  common-law presumption that a married woman&#8217;s husband is the father of her child  does not apply: if he denies paternity, it will normally be necessary to prove  it before an order can be made.<\/p>\n<p>In determining the amount payable, the CSA takes into account the cost of  maintaining a child, the income of each parent, and the costs of any other  children either parent may have, and seeks to ensure that the absent parent does  not have to pay more than 30% of his income and is still significantly better  off than he would be on income support. New partners of either parent are not  expected to contribute to the support of children who are not their own. The CSA  has facilities for collecting and passing on payments, and for enforcing payment  in cases where the absent parent is reluctant to comply.<\/p>\n<p>The 1991 Act drastically reduces the role of the courts in child support  matters, limiting them in practice to lump sum and property adjustment orders.  Under s.15 and Sch.1 of the Children Act 1989, which survive the 1991  legislation, the court may make a financial support order against a parent of  any child and may order such a parent to transfer to the child (or to another  person for the child&#8217;s benefit) such property as the court may specify.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>Re J (1992) Times 12\/11\/92, Eastham J<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>Following the breakdown of their relationship, a mother M sought an order under s.15 requiring her cohabitant C to transfer to her his interest in the joint tenancy of their home &#8220;for the benefit of the child&#8221;. The judge said he had no jurisdiction to make such an order except against the child&#8217;s parent: since C was not the child&#8217;s biological father, nor M&#8217;s husband, nor a person with parental responsibility for the child, he could not be regarded as a &#8220;parent&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p><u><b>R v Secretary of State ex p W (1999) Times 19\/5\/99, Johnson J<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n<p>Some time after ending cohabitation with a woman W, a man S sought and was granted (by consent) a parental responsibility order in respect of W&#8217;s two daughters, but subsequently denied paternity when questioned by the Child Support Agency. W then sought judicial review of R&#8217;s decision that he had no power to make a maintenance order without a judicial finding that S was in fact the father. Granting certiorari to quash the decision, the judge said the district judge at the original hearing could not properly have made the parental responsibility order in the circumstances unless he had been satisfied that S was the father, and that was sufficient &#8220;finding&#8221; for the purposes of the Child Support Act.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Financial Matters During Marriage. Before the Married Women&#8217;s Property Act 1882 a woman&#8217;s personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came under her husband&#8217;s control but&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-5016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.6 (Yoast SEO v26.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Financial Matters During Marriage. Before the Married Women&#039;s Property Act 1882 a woman&#039;s personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came under her husband&#039;s control but...\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Financial Matters During Marriage. Before the Married Women&#039;s Property Act 1882 a woman&#039;s personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came under her husband&#039;s control but...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php\"},\"wordCount\":5104,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php\",\"name\":\"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"Financial Matters During Marriage. Before the Married Women's Property Act 1882 a woman's personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came under her husband's control but...\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher | LawTeacher.net","description":"Financial Matters During Marriage. Before the Married Women's Property Act 1882 a woman's personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came under her husband's control but...","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher","og_description":"Financial Matters During Marriage. Before the Married Women's Property Act 1882 a woman's personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came under her husband's control but...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php"},"wordCount":5104,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php","name":"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"Financial Matters During Marriage. Before the Married Women's Property Act 1882 a woman's personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage; her real property came under her husband's control but...","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/cases\/financial-matters-during-marriage.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Financial Matters During Marriage | Family Law Study Area | Law Teacher"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5016","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5016"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5016\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}