A separated farmer, whose farm was valued at some €1.1 million four years ago, must pay his estranged wife €1,600 spousal maintenance a month, to be reduced when she becomes entitled to pension payments, the Court of Appeal has directed.
A High Court order for €800 spousal monthly maintenance for four years only was “so deficient” in amount and duration as to be incapable of constituting proper provision for the wife in respect of period maintenance into the future, resulting in an unfair outcome for her on the facts of this case, Ms Justice Máire Whelan held.
The man must also pay the wife’s private health insurance payments, she directed.
The wife, a mother of three, who was married to the man for more than 20 years, had appealed aspects of High Court orders made by Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds in 2017 in judicial separation proceedings.
At the conclusion of the three judge COA’s judgment on Tuesday allowing the appeal, Ms Justice Whelan noted, while the High Court clearly found the wife was entitled to a lump sum of €120,000, her legal costs are some €75,000 and the lump sum has been spent.
These proceedings might “more prudently” have been instigated in the Circuit Court, the judge remarked. She proposed the man pay a €10,000 contribution towards the woman’s legal costs of her appeal. If he disagrees, his lawyers have two weeks to seek an alternative costs order.
Four-year limit
The appeal concerned the amount and duration of the €800 monthly spousal maintenance and a four-year limit on the man paying the woman’s private health insurance payments.
There was no appeal over other High Court orders requiring him to pay a €120,000 lump sum payment for the wife’s sole benefit; €1,200 monthly maintenance for the children until their dependency ceased, which it has; their educational costs, including third level costs and their private health insurance; and to transfer his entire €55,000 pensions to her.
Aged in their mid fifties and from farming backgrounds, the man and woman married some 20 years ago. Their three children, now young adults, one with special needs, were “dependent” in 2017 within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1995.
The farm and farmlands, with an agreed valuation of some €1.1m in 2017, are held mortgage free in the man’s sole name. The farm was transferred to him by his father, he works it full time, with €100,000 gross income potential, and said he intended to maintain it for the children and to provide for the future.
The woman completed her Leaving Cert and was employed prior to her marriage. During the marriage, she did farm work as well as being a full-time homemaker and sporadic paid work.
The couple separated in 2014 and the wife and children remained in the family home for a time with the husband living nearby. She secured a safety order in March 2015 which expired two years later.
Lump sum
In May 2015, he gave her a €200,000 lump sum, obtained via loans from his family, to buy a new home where she and the children now live. It is held in her sole name and mortgage free.
In opposing her appeal, he argued his wife had obtained a very significant share of the available capital and had been provided with €224,000 in capital payments
In the COA judgment, Ms Justice Whelan found the High Court erred in adopting the husband’s analysis that the High Court orders constituted provision for the wife in excess of 30 per cent of the net assets available and was a “fair and equitable” distribution of the assets.
The High Court also erred in “significantly overestimating” the future likelihood of the wife, given her age, employment history and lack of qualifications, earning an income and being self-employed and self-sufficient within four years.
The trial judge further erred in giving insufficient weight to the significant contribution of the “hardworking and industrious” wife, who could milk 100 cows on her own, to the success of the farm during the marriage, she held.
Earning capacity
Insufficient weight was given to the fact the wife’s “negligible” earning capacity was a direct result of the marriage and of the parties joint decision she should devote her life to being primarily a wife and mother and actively assisting in the family farm operation which continued to be held in her husband’s sole name, she added.
The fact the husband owes €130,000 to his father arising from the €200,000 payment for the wife’s house was not a factor to justify setting the spousal maintenance at €800 monthly, she further held.
The High Court also erred in considering possible additional social welfare benefits for the youngest child in the future as any such payment was that child’s and could not be treated as the wife’s income for maintenance purposes, she added.
