Money, property, or other assets a person receives from the estate of someone who has died, usually under a will. In divorce, inheritance is treated as a 'non-matrimonial asset' — wealth that came from outside the marriage rather than being built up during it. Following Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the sharing principle (the starting point of equal division) does NOT automatically apply to inherited assets: they're generally kept largely by the party who received them, particularly in shorter marriages. But inheritance isn't ring-fenced completely. Two things can bring it into the pot. First, needs: the court's overriding aim is to meet the housing and income needs of both parties (and any children), and if the only way to meet needs is to draw on inherited wealth, the court can do so — needs overrides the non-matrimonial character of the asset. Second, 'matrimonialisation': if inherited money or property has been mixed into family finances — used to buy or improve the family home, put into a joint account, or used for the family's benefit over time — it can be treated as having become matrimonial, though Standish narrowed this doctrine and put the burden on the party claiming the asset has been matrimonialised. Inheritance received during the marriage must still be disclosed on Form E; it isn't automatically excluded just because it's non-matrimonial. Inheritance expected in the future (not yet received) is generally not treated as a resource, because it's speculative and depends on someone else's death.
In Plain English
Money or property you receive from someone who has died. While usually kept by the person who inherited it, the court can use it to meet family needs if there isn't enough other money available.
This content reflects observational insights and lived community experiences. It does not constitute legal advice — always consult a qualified professional for your specific circumstances.
A "gap" is a common assumption people hold going into family court, set against what the court actually does. The bold line below is the assumption — not a fact. The reality underneath is what the court typically observes.
Gap #31
The assumption
He put inheritance into the house — surely he gets that back first?
The reality
Inheritance or personal funds contributed to a jointly occupied home are often regarded as matrimonial assets. It is commonly observed that the duration of the marriage and how these funds have supported family life can complicate efforts to ring-fence such amounts. Courts may permit some partial adjustments, but full reimbursements are often uncommon.
Gap #82
The assumption
The final divorce order can be granted before finances are resolved — it does not affect my financial claims.
The reality
Getting the final divorce order before sorting finances carries serious risks. Under Section 28(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, remarrying without a financial order in place can bar you from applying for financial provision and property adjustment orders. You may also lose pension death-in-service and survivor benefits, and inheritance claims against the estate can be affected. Most practitioners advise finalising financial arrangements before the final divorce order to safeguard all interests.
Gap #191
The assumption
I have been living with my partner for 15 years, we haven't got any children. Surely under law I am now his common-law wife, which means I will therefore be entitled to the same rights as a married woman?
The reality
There is no such thing as a 'common-law wife' in England and Wales. No matter how long you cohabit, unmarried partners do not acquire the same legal rights as married couples — no automatic claim on each other's property, maintenance, or inheritance. (Family Law Act 1996)
Gap #227
The assumption
Once the clean break order is sealed, it's final — even if I didn't mention everything.
The reality
Full and frank disclosure is the foundation of every financial order. If you know about a substantial impending gift, bonus, inheritance, or asset and stay silent, the court can set aside the entire order. In De La Sala v De La Sala [2026] EWCA Civ 282, the Court of Appeal unravelled a clean break where the husband hid a $14.7M gift. 'Fraud unravels all.'
Navigating court alone?
A McKenzie Friend can help you understand terms like these in the context of your case.
Find your supportWe use essential cookies only to provide you with the best experience on our website. No tracking or analytics cookies are used.