I brought more ££ to the marriage - can I get credit?

This is a common scenario. When a couple first set up home together, or during their lives together, it might well be that one person brings in more money from sources outside of the relationship. This might be because they already own a property or significant other assets from their single days, or it might be that when they come to buy a home, one party's family gifts a lump sum for a deposit. Or it maybe during the relationship, one person receives an inheritance.

This might only become an issue if the relationship breaks down. As a divorce solicitor, I often get asked whether credit might be given to the party who brought in this money - ie. will they receive a greater share of the matrimonial pot, because of their greater "contribution"? The answer, frustratingly, is, it depends.

Each case turns on its own facts, and Judges and Arbitrators are given discretion as to how they interpret the criteria laid out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This legislation gives guidance as to how to determine a fair division of matrimonial assets. One of the criteria is to consider contributions that each party has made, but is important to note that there are other criteria, such as needs, which might weigh more heavily in the balance. There is also a very important case which was decided by the Supreme Court in summer 2025 called "Standish" which looks at how assets from outside of the marriage have been used and whether they have been "matrimonialised".

There is no specific formula. It is not usually a forensic exercise of working out who put in what, giving those contributions back, and dividing the balance. That is not how it works in the matrimonial laws of England & Wales.

A lot of factors will come into focus in looking at whether a person might get credit for something they brought into the marriage by themselves. Factors that can be relevant include length of the marriage, the amount of the contribution and where it came from, what it was used for and whether it was "matrimonialised" (eg. if it was invested in the family home or a joint asset typically it is likely to be shared,), and critically if the contributing party was able to "ring-fence" what they brought in and get the credit they want, would both parties still be able to meet their reasonable needs? It is this latter question that can often be a compelling reason not to give the "contributor" the credit they want. An example might be where the other person would be left unable to meet their basic reasonable needs such as housing, if the other party got the credit they sought. "Needs" will often trump "contributions" but it is not an absolute rule.

Very often in the average case, the relevance of contributions over time will fade. This is especially so where the contribution has been mixed with matrimonial money. A contribution is often just one factor in a division. The greater the contribution, the less it has been "matrimonialised" and the greater the overall wealth excess to reasonable needs, are all factors that can lend themselves to arguments that a person should have credit.

Chances are if you are reading this article, the following information might be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. However, the article would not be complete without briefly addressing what might have been done to protect the contributing party. The following spring to mind:

• If not married, carefully consider property ownership documentation as you can specify non-equal shares of ownership in a declaration of trust;

• if you are getting married, you can consider a pre-nuptial agreement. Whilst not binding by itself, a properly done one can carry significant weight.

• If your family are offering a sizable contribution, they could take advice as to how to protect that if the marriage broke down. For example, they might prefer to word it as a loan, or that they are acquiring an interest in the property.

• If you are already married when you come into money, perhaps an inheritance, potentially consider a post-nuptial arrangement. For example, you might be thinking you'd like to invest your £150,000 in a larger house, but you are only prepared to do so if you were to get credit if the marriage breaks down. Like a pre-nup, this is not binding by itself, but done properly, can have significant weight, and post-nups are gaining in popularity.

The above is not exhaustive, and there is no substitute for seeking advice.

if you would like to discuss any of this, please feel free to get in touch here