High Court allows buyout option with discount but mandates equal 50% division if sale occurs.

APPROVED

REDACTED

AN ARD-CHÚIRT

THE HIGH COURT

FAMILY LAW

[2026] IEHC 119

Record No: 2024 67 CAF

IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE) ACT 1996

BETWEEN/

NM

APPLICANT

AND

CB

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley delivered on the 19th day of February 2026

INTRODUCTION

1. NM and CB (“the parties”) were married on 20th August 1982 for approximately 42 years up until their divorce by order of the Circuit Court (Her Honour Judge Jennifer O’Brien) on 9th October 2024.

2. The application before me was conducted on the basis that the Circuit Court order made on 9th October 2024 pursuant to Article 41.3.2 of the Constitution, and having regard to s. 5 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, as amended (“the 1996 Act”), granted a decree of divorce, which was not contested. I address this matter later in the judgment in relation to the order which I propose to make.

3. The parties, therefore, focused on that part of the order of the Circuit Court delivered on 9th October 2024 which concerned ancillary orders made pursuant to ss. 14 and 15 of the 1996 Act which inter alia directed the sale of the property and from the gross proceeds of the sale, that the mortgage, Local Property Tax and costs of the sale were to be discharged first, and thereafter, the net proceeds of sale were to be divided 50% to NM and 50% to CB with their respective solicitors having joint carriage of the sale with primary carriage to CB’s solicitor.

THE ISSUE

4. Accordingly, the issue in these proceedings comes down to a dispute about the disposal of the former family home (“the property”), located at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX.

5. The position of each of the parties can be simply put.

6. NM requests that the Circuit Court Order be affirmed and that the property be sold and thereafter the proceeds of the sale be divided between NM and CB on a 50%:50% basis, net of the various costs and other matters being discharged.

7. CB asks that I make an order providing that she is allowed to pay the sum of €250,000 for NM’s share of the family home, which she will then own outright and she will be responsible for the remainder of the mortgage repayments (which she currently pays). It is submitted on her behalf that I should also factor in an opportunity cost of €30,000 which is approximately half of a lump sum pension payout in the region of €61,000 which NM received in or around March 2025. CB has not received anything from either the lump sum payment or the monthly pension payments.

BACKGROUND

8. NM is 67 and CB is 64 years of age.

9. As just mentioned, up until the formalisation of their divorce by order of the Circuit Court dated 9th October 2024, NM and CB had been married for approximately 42 years. Prior to their divorce, they were separated for approximately 13 years, first for 5 consecutive years from 2007 to 2012 and then from 2018 to their divorce in early October 2024.

10. They have three children. Their three daughters are not dependent on either of the parties and are aged approximately 40, 35 and 26 respectively. Two of the daughters and the partner of the daughter who is aged 35 currently reside with CB in the property.

11. Difficulties arose between the parties early in their marriage which primarily stemmed from NM’s problems with alcohol and the negative consequences of same.

12. In summary, he was barred from the family home in 2007, was invited back by CB in 2012 when he was in ill-health and had undergone surgery, barred again in 2018, and has lived away from the family home since that time. He is a member of AA and states that he has lived an alcohol-free life for the past 16 years.

13. In relation to their first house which they bought in 1981, the year before they were married in 1982, CB and NM contributed to the mortgage repayments together until in around 1987-1988 when their first daughter was born. As CB worked in First National Building Society, they had obtained a facility where the entire of CB’s salary contributed to the monthly mortgage repayments and NM’s wages contributed to the shortfall.

14. In 1992, NM and CB purchased the property the subject of these proceedings. When he was residing in the property, NM paid the monthly mortgage repayments. This came from his employment for a number of companies, including (in no chronological order) Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Intel and Bank of America (formerly Merrill Lynch). He also contributed to the household bills and the children attending private schools.

15. NM lived away from 2007 to 2012 and from 2018 to present. During these periods he paid rent for separate private accommodation and also lived rent free with friends. He made no contribution to the mortgage repayments for the property, or maintenance, between 2007 to 2012 or after 2018. NM states that during his periods of absence from the house he bought some electrical goods and would make a contribution of between €3,000-€4,000 at Christmas time.

THE PROPERTY

16. The subject property is a large detached four-bedroom house, located at XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX, opposite a large communal green close to the entrance of the development. It is an unregistered property with the Registry of Deeds.

17. It was bought by the parties in or around 1992 for approximately £63,000. The parties used £10,000IR from the sale of their previous property for use as a deposit and secured a mortgage in the sum of £53,000IR from Ulster Bank. In or around 2000, the parties increased the mortgage by approximately €200,000.

18. In or around June 2014, NM received an inheritance of €210,000. As part of a renegotiation with the lender (Ulster Bank), in the context of repossession proceedings in or around 2016, and of the approximate sum of €158,000 then due and owing on the mortgage, an arrangement was negotiated with the lender, whereby €70,000 of NM’s inheritance was paid towards the mortgage by way of a lump sum payment, together with a new (interest free) repayment schedule of approximately €400 (now €325.60) per month, with substantial interest repayments (in the amount of approximately €76,000) written off. The current mortgage on the property is approximately €12,000 (CB’s Affidavit of Means stated it was approximately €13,582.68). The mortgage was taken over by Pepper Finance and will be fully redeemed in 2028. CB pays the mortgage.

19. There are also local property tax arrears of in or around €7,000 (CB’s Affidavit of Means stated it was approximately €8,372.51).

20. There is disagreement between the parties in relation to the current valuation of the property.

21. NM received an updated DNG valuation on 18th November 2025 which values the property at €800,000. CB has a valuation from ReMax which puts the valuation of the property at €650,000. Aside from these reports, neither party adduced evidence on behalf of any auctioneer.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

22. In this case, the parties are divorced.

23. In exercising my jurisdiction under s. 15(1)(a) of the 1996 Act, s. 15(2) provides that I shall have regard to the welfare of the spouses and any dependent member of the family and, in particular, take into consideration (a) that, where a decree of divorce is granted and it is not possible for the spouses concerned to reside together and (b) that proper and secure accommodation should, where practicable, be provided for a spouse who is wholly or mainly dependent on the other spouse and for any dependent member of the family.

24. Section 20(1) of the 1996 Act provides inter alia that in deciding whether to make an order under inter alia s. 15(1)(a) and in determining the provisions of such an order, I shall ensure that such provision as I consider proper, having regard to the circumstances, exists or will be made for the spouses and any dependent member of the family concerned.

25. Section 20(2) of the 1996 Act provides that without prejudice to the generality of s. 20(1), in deciding whether to make, for example, an order under s. 15(1)(a) and in determining the provisions of such an order, I shall, in particular, have regard to the following matters:

(a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the spouses concerned has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future,

(b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each of the spouses has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future (whether in the case of the remarriage or registration in a civil partnership of the spouse or otherwise),

(c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family concerned before the proceedings were instituted or before the spouses commenced to live apart from one another, as the case may be;

(d) the age of each of the spouses, the duration of their marriage and the length of time during which the spouses lived with one another,

(e) any physical or mental disability of either of the spouses,

(f) the contributions which each of the spouses has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution made by each of them to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other spouse and any contribution made by either of them by looking after the home or caring for the family,

(g) the effect on the earning capacity of each of the spouses of the marital responsibilities assumed by each during the period when they lived with one another and, in particular, the degree to which the future earning capacity of a spouse is impaired by reason of that spouse having relinquished or foregone the opportunity of remunerative activity in order to look after the home or care for the family,

(h) any income or benefits to which either of the spouses is entitled by or under statute,

(i) the conduct of each of the spouses, if that conduct is such that in the opinion of the court it would in all the circumstances of the case be unjust to disregard it,

(j) the accommodation needs of either of the spouses,

(k) the value to each of the spouses of any benefit (for example, a benefit under a pension scheme) which by reason of the decree of divorce concerned, that spouse will forfeit the opportunity or possibility of acquiring,

(l) the rights of any person other than the spouses but including a person to whom either spouse is remarried.

26. To recap, NM is 67 and CB is 64 years of age. Prior to their divorce in October 2024, they were separated for approximately 13 years, first for 5 consecutive years from 2007 to 2012 and then from 2018 to their divorce in early October 2024.

NM

27. When he initially left in 2018, NM stayed temporarily with friends. He now lives in an apartment above a shop in what is described as extremely basic accommodation, paying rent.

28. During the year, from time to time, he stays (rent free) in friends’ accommodation in Spain (when they are not there). In recent years, this could be for a prolonged period twice a year. As part of this arrangement, he does not cook in the apartment but eats out. He says after his operation, approximately four years ago, he recuperated in friends’ accommodation in Spain after approximately an initial 10-week recovery in a Dublin hospital and after having later paid rent to stay in a JSM Apartments in Benalmadena, Spain.

29. NM has a 60% disability from a work-related back injury. He suffers from chronic pancreatitis and COPD. More recently, he had his oesophagus surgically removed.

30. NM no longer works and is in receipt of disability allowance and sickness benefit. He receives €165 disability allowance and €313 sickness benefit, per week. He receives a private pension of €193.70 per month, having received lump sum payments in the amounts of €28,221 and €32.920.87, totalling approximately €61,000 (and being taxed approximately €22,000) from a private pension. One of the arguments made by CB is that she should have received half of the lump sum pension payment of at least €30,000 and she receives nothing from his monthly private pension.

31. There was some uncertainty in relation NM’s Affidavit of Means dated 24th August 2025 and his account of monies being paid from an account he opened in March 2025 for the receipt of his pension lump sum payment of €28,321 and €32,920.87, from his employment with Intel, which totalled €61,242.39 (including Dirt 0.26).

32. In relation to his Affidavit of Means, NM stated that he thought the figure of €200 for Christmas and birthdays was a typographical error and should be €20 rather than €200 and he stated that the car insurance went from €500 per year to €900 (whereas the scheduled figure was €60 per week).

33. Also, when asked, in cross-examination, by reference to his account which was set up in March 2025 for receipt of his lump sum pension payment of €61,242.39 (on 21st March 2025), NM was unable to explain A/C Transfers to four different numbered accounts in the amounts of €488.40 on 18th June 2025, €2,000 on 15th July 2025, €8,000 on 28th July 2025 and €5,000 on 29th July which were different transactions to the withdrawal of five cash payments of €5,000 and one for €3,000 for the purchase of a car, in relation to which he submitted a receipt for €33,000.00.

34. In or around 2014, NM received approximately €210,000 (€195,328.80 plus €15,610.91) inheritance from the estate of his mother. As stated, he made a lump sum payment to the Bank of approximately €70,000 as part of a rearrangement of the mortgage repayments.

35. On both occasions when NM left the family, in 2007 and then in 2018, he did so on foot of court orders (barring orders) and made no payments towards the mortgage during this period.

36. From his Affidavit of Means, and subject to some of those matters which are uncertain, NM states that he has an approximate income of €647.50 weekly and approximate outgoings of approximately €1083.03 per week.

Payments made by NM to the household

37. On or about 2014, NM paid for a new driveway, windows, cleared credit card bills that were in CB’s name, and a holiday in Florida, as follows: €9,400 (holiday in Florida) €7,300 (windows at the property), €5,703.50 (driveway at the property).

38. NM paid sums of €1,000, €3,000, €1,400, €5,000, €4,500, €3,800, €2,000, €1,850, €1,600 and €4,903.50 into the Air Brushing credit card account held by CB in the Bank of Ireland. These monies were used for everyday living expenses, including hair dressing, food, groceries, electricity, etc. The total of these payments came to €51,464. NM’s evidence is that as this account was being used up by CB, he switched the payments to a second account in Bank of Ireland which he controlled.

39. As referred to, NM paid a lump sum payment of €70,000 towards the mortgage as part of a renegotiated restructuring. The Statement of Account dated 2nd June 2017 confirms a withdrawal of €70,003.50 on 23rd May 2017.

40. NM gave €5,000 to each of their children (though one of those payments may have been in the region of €3,600 for a violin) which came to an approximate total of €15,000.

41. When he was back in the family home, during 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, NM contributed approximately €310 per week (from his disablement pension and sickness benefit) towards the household bills including the mortgage repayments, which came to a total figure of approximately €64,408.

42. The total sums contributed by NM (including the approximate sum of €70,000) towards the mortgage is approximately €200,944.

CB

43. When the parties first married, CB worked in a bank and later set up her own beauty care product and events business (airbrushing business) in or around 2000, which was a successful business which she closed in or around 2006/2007.

44. CB has also worked as an actress, including in television advertisements and sold knitwear. On various occasions, CB has let out her rooms in her house to students.

45. Since in or around 2007, CB has always been on some form of social welfare assistance or back to education allowance. She is presently in education, where she is studying Law and Criminology in Maynooth and, at the time of the hearing she stated that had been interviewed for a job as a clerical officer in An Garda Síochána which would allow her to continue and study part-time. She estimated the starting salary for that post as a clerical officer was in or around €27,000 pa.

46. In her Affidavit of Means sworn on 12th September 2025, CB confirms that she is in receipt of Back to Education/Jobseekers Allowance of €244 per week, which allows her to continue with part-time education. CB confirmed that she has no pension and will be entitled in due course to a State pension. Her weekly outgoings are approximately €241 (from which figure the mortgage is approximately €91.25 per week).

47. At the present time, CB solely discharges the mortgage and continues to reside in the family home with two of her adult daughters (aged 35 and 26) and the elder daughter’s partner. The other household bills (for example, home heating oil, the TV licence, house insurance, Phone Watch, etc.) are shared between the four persons residing in the property on an ad hoc basis.

48. I do not agree with the suggestion put by counsel for NM that CB’s account of her arrangement of asking her daughter’s partner to put €340, which she withdraws from her Bank of Ireland, into her Revolut account to pay the mortgage, is in any way unusual or not credible.

49. CB currently resides and seeks to remain in the property and wishes to buy out NM’s equity in the property. She estimates that she could pay NM approximately €250,000 for his share in the property and that this sum could be put together over a period of 6 months. This estimated figure is comprised of a Credit Union Loan of €200,000, a contribution of €50,000 from a total of €80,000 which she anticipates that she will receive from her late mother’s will. CB also asks that the opportunity cost of €30,000 which would have been half of NM’s pension sum of approximately €61,000, which she did not receive, be factored in, giving a total of €280,000.

CONCLUSION

50. As I indicated at the beginning of this judgment, the application before me was conducted on the basis that the Circuit Court order made on 9th October 2024 pursuant to Article 41.3.2 of the Constitution, and having regard to s. 5 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, as amended (“the 1996 Act”), granted a decree of divorce, which was not contested.

51. Lest there be any doubt or uncertainty about the terms of CB’s Notice of Appeal in this case, having heard the sworn evidence of NM and CB, and having regard to the pleadings, documentation and the respective submissions of counsel, I am satisfied that the provisions of s. 5(1) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, as amended, have been complied with, namely (A) At the date of the institution of the proceedings herein the Spouses have lived separate and apart from one another for at least two years during the previous three years, (B) There is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses and, (C) Such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists for the spouses of the marriage including the ancillary Orders now to be made and accordingly, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on Article 41.3.2 of the Constitution, I grant a Decree of Divorce in respect of the marriage contracted between the parties herein on 30th August 1982 at the XXXXXX Church XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

52. Having regard to the matters prescribed by s. 20 of the 1996 Act, which I have set out in this judgment, and in carrying out a balancing exercise, I conclude as follows.

53. In terms of their respective standard of living, each of the parties live an inexpensive ordinary lifestyle with their daily needs met in the main by State payments, and in the case of NM he also in receipt of what is now a relatively small monthly private pension after having received a lump sum payment of approximately €61,000.

54. While CB’s prospects are arguably better than NM and she has benefited by her return to education, this is tempered by the fact that she is 64 years of age. Two of her daughters reside with her, in addition to one of her daughter’s partners, in the property.

55. NM, through illness and age (he is now 67 years of age), has poor employment prospects and his accommodation situation is more precarious and uncertain.

56. CB has carried out the role as a homemaker and carer for their three (now adult) children over the lifetime of their marriage of 42 years and has proven both successful and resourceful in taking on employment and other income earning opportunities. She has had to meet the challenges which she and their family endured arising from NM’s illness and difficulties with alcohol which also resulted in his prolonged absences from the family home during which time no payments were made to the monthly mortgage by NM.

57. For NM’s part, whilst he was not able to explain in evidence four payments transferred to accounts in June and July 2025 amounting to over €15,000, NM has made relatively large financial contributions to the paying down of the mortgage and to the contribution of daily expenses particularly in the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and in the early years of their marriage from the purchase of the subject property in 1992 to 2007 and from 2012 to 2018, which amounts are referred in this judgment.

58. In all the circumstances, I consider that CB should be given a reasonable opportunity to buy out NM’s share in the family home at a value as close as possible to the estimated market value, to reflect the financial contribution made by NM over the years, but also subject to a discount of €50,000 having regard to the matters referred to above and, if failing to do so, the default position should be that the property is put up for sale, and if agreement for sale is reached, the property is sold and the proceeds be divided evenly between NM and CB, after the costs and other expenses involved with the sale are deducted.

59. Therefore, having regard to the valuations which were placed before me, I shall assume a notional value of €800,000 for the property. I propose to deduct the sum of €50,000 from this assigned value which leaves an assumed valuation of €750,000. I consider NM and CB have an equal equity in the property having regard to the ‘section 20’ factors outlined above which would place a value on their respective share of the property at €375,000 each.

60. I shall, therefore, allow CB a period of 12 months from the date of the perfection of this order to purchase NM’s share in the property at the price of €375,000.

61. In the event that CB fails to purchase NM’s share of the property within the terms and period referred to, I direct that the property be put up for sale, whether by way of public auction or private treaty, through the offices of CB’s nominated estate agent, and in the event of a sale being realised, from the gross proceeds of the sale, that the mortgage, Local Property Tax and costs of the sale are to be discharged first, and thereafter the net proceeds of the sale are to be divided 50% to NM and 50% to CB with their respective solicitors having joint carriage of the sale with primary carriage to CB’s solicitor.

62. Whilst the ending of the relationship of the parties was brought about by NM’s illness and relationship with alcohol and the many consequential difficulties which arise, this is not a ‘gross and obvious’ misconduct case. Further, it is not a case where I deem it appropriate to make a safety order in favour of CB. Rather, this is a case where I have sought to balance each of the parties’ different contributions in a manner which is sought to be fair and proportionate having regard to the factors set out in s. 20 of the 1996 Act in the disposal of their property.

63. I shall discuss with the parties the precise terms of the above proposed order and any other consequential or ancillary matters which arise, including the question of costs, if any.

64. I shall put the matter in for mention on Thursday 26th February at 10:30am.

CONLETH BRADLEY

19th February 2026