Assumption: "It's reasonable for a percentage of the sale proceeds of the family home to be ring-fenced for the children as part of the settlement."
1 min readThis content reflects observational insights and lived community experiences. It does not constitute legal advice — always consult a qualified professional for your specific circumstances.
What People Expect
This can feel like a fair, child-focused gesture, especially where a resistant party frames it as protecting the children's future rather than reducing the other party's settlement.
Court Reality
The home's purpose in a needs case is to house the parties and children now, not to function as an inheritance vehicle. Courts tend to see proposals that carve off equity for children, rather than for the resident parent's rehousing need, as confusing an asset with a home, and are unlikely to endorse terms that reduce the resident parent's housing fund on that basis.
Download the card and post it on Facebook, LinkedIn, or wherever you're active. Every share helps another litigant find this before their hearing.
The Gap?
"It's reasonable for a percentage of the sale proceeds of the family home to be ring-fenced for the children as part of the settlement."
Court Reality
The home's purpose in a needs case is to house the parties and children now, not to function as an inheritance vehicle.
Seen a gap between what you thought and the reality? Share yours.
familycourtbridge.org
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you make sense of this in the context of your own case.
Find your supportCookie Consent
We use essential cookies only, such as remembering this choice and keeping you signed in if you create an account. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.