A recent High Court family law case, JKM and LM [2026] IEHC 72, sets out clear principles on the division of assets. The Court found that assets derived from outside the marriage, such as inheritances, gifts, assets acquired before the marriage, or assets acquired after separation, have a somewhat different character.
Background
The parties married in 2006 and separated in 2023. Both were in their 50’s and had three teenage children. After the children were born, the wife stopped working and became a full-time mother and homemaker. Neither party’s conduct formed part of the dispute.
Their combined assets were estimated at between € 6 million and €7 million, including a family home valued at about €1.5 million.
Proper provision
When a marriage breaks down, the courts aim to make what they consider “proper provision” for the parties involved. The overarching aim is fairness and justice.
To reach this outcome, the Court considers several statutory factors, including income, standard of living, age, length of the marriage, and contributions, both financial and otherwise, made during the marriage.
Equal division is not appropriate
In her decision, Judge Jackson concluded that equal division of assets was not appropriate and rejected the wife’s arguments that the assets should be divided on a 50/50 basis.
The Judge focused on the fact that the main asset was a successful business from which the family derived most of its income, which was in the man’s family before the marriage. It was a specialist farming business, valued at over €2.5 million, and operated out of lands valued at in or about €2.5 million. The Wife held a 15% shareholding, and the Husband owned the remaining 85%.
The Judge emphasised that Courts determine reliefs not by asset division percentages but by what constitutes proper provision.
The Judge commented, “assets derived from outside the marriage (inheritance, gift, pre-marriage, post-separation assets) are considered to be of a somewhat different character. It is not that they cannot be availed of to make proper provision, if required, but a more calibrated approach is needed. Can proper provision be made without them or with limited intrusion upon them? The consequence of this is that in many (if not most cases, some, possibly substantial, regard for them will be needed to achieve proper provision. The extent of such is likely to be less in cases of ample resources and especially so where such resources are accumulated during the marriage.
Lifestyle financed by asset disposal
Over the years, the parties funded their high standard of living and lifestyle largely through a variety of lump-sum payments from asset disposals.
Judge Jackson found that the couple could not sustain this lifestyle once the Court divided the assets as part of this judicial separation.
The Court therefore ordered the sale of the family home and lands, valued at €1.359 million, with the proceeds to be paid to the wife at the end of the current school year.
The wife may retain or sell her 15% shareholding in the agri-business company at her discretion.
Both parties owned a house acquired before the marriage, and the Court allowed each to retain their own property.
The Court found that proper provision would be achieved by the above orders together with a €100,000 lump sum payable by the husband to the wife and one of his pensions.
The Court made no spousal maintenance order, finding that the Wife had the capacity to generate income.
The value of the orders in favour of the Wife fell well short of the 50% share she sought, but the Court found that the orders achieved proper provision.
Relevance to Family Farm
Judge Jackson’s decision will be highly relevant to family law disputes involving a family farm. A family farm is a complex asset and can pose difficulties for the Court in making proper provision for both parties in a divorce.
Although tax reliefs and incentives encourage the early transfer of the farm to younger farmers – such as stamp duty relief for young trained farmers – many farming families delay those transfers because of the fear of a marital breakup.
This decision confirms that inherited assets need not be considered assets of the marriage.
It is important, however, to keep in mind that the outcome of family law proceedings depends on the particular circumstances of each case.
For further advice or if you wish to discuss any other legal area, please contact reception@lynchsolicitors.ie or telephone 052-6124344. The material contained in this blog is provided for general information purposes only and does not amount to legal or other professional advice. While every care has been taken in the preparation of the information, we advise you to seek specific advice from us about any legal decision or course of action.