When couples divorce, deciding what happens to the family home can be complex - specially when one party needs to stay in the property temporarily. In some cases, the court may issue a Mesher or Martin order, which defers the sale of the property until a specific event occurs.
These orders are designed to balance fairness with practical housing needs, particularly where children or financial limitations are involved.
A Mesher order delays the sale of the family home until a trigger event – typically the youngest child reaching 18 or leaving full-time education, whichever is later. Until then:
Once sold, the parties will receive specified portions of the net proceeds.
Mesher orders are named after the eponymous case Mesher v Mesher [1980] 1 All ER 126. In this case, the parties’ matrimonial home was jointly owned by them. The wife wished to remain in the property with their child, but the problem facing the court was the perceived unfairness of both options before it - transferring it to the wife or ordering its sale. To transfer the home to the wife would leave the husband without his fair share, but ordering its sale would provide the wife with a large sum but not a home (the husband had already bought a new property). Instead, the court ordered the property to be held on trust for the parties, and then sold once their child reached the age of seventeen. The parties would split the mortgage repayments equally and then upon the sale of the property, the net proceeds would be divided equally.
The benefit of a Mesher order is that it can help provide stability for children in what is often a turbulent or unsettling time. However, Mesher orders have generally fallen out of favour with the courts. In general, the courts have shifted their approach to focus on helping parties regain their financial independence. A Mesher order also contravenes the court’s general approach of ordering a ‘clean break’ between the parties where possible.
Like a Mesher order, a Martin order also defers the sale of the property, but it’s used when there are no dependent children. Instead, the occupying party may stay in the home until:
In Martin v Martin [1978] Fam 12, the court held that the wife could remain in the matrimonial home for the rest of her life. This was determined on the basis that the husband had no immediate need for a capital sum, and the wife lacked sufficient ability to rehouse herself without the matrimonial home.
Mesher and Martin orders are less common today. Courts now favour clean break orders that help parties achieve financial independence. However, they may still be used in cases where:
Our expert divorce solicitors can help you understand your options and secure a fair outcome regarding your family home. Contact Vardags today for a free initial consultation.
A: It’s a court order that delays the sale of the family home until a child reaches adulthood or finishes education.
A: It allows one party to stay in the home indefinitely, often until remarriage or death, when there are no dependent children.
A: Yes, if your circumstances meet the criteria. Courts assess housing needs, financial resources, and fairness.
A: No. Ownership remains joint, but sale and occupation are deferred under trust arrangements.
The information on this website is intended as a guide and does not constitute legal advice. Vardags do not accept liability for any errors in the information on this website, nor any losses stemming from reliance upon the statements made herein. All articles and pages aim to reflect the legal position at time they were published, and may have been rendered obsolete by subsequent developments in the law. Should you require specialist advice, tailored to your situation, please see how Vardags can help you.
Vardags Limited is a limited company trading as Vardags, Company No 7199468, registered in England and Wales, having its registered office at 10 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7NG. Vardags is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number 535955). Its VAT number is 99 001 7230.
Vardags uses the term ‘Partner’ as a professional title only, to describe a Senior Solicitor, Employee or Consultant with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications (whether legally qualified or otherwise) to merit the title. Our Partners are not partners in the legal sense. They are not liable for the debts, liabilities or obligations of Vardags Limited. Similarly, the term ’Director’ is a professional title only, to describe an employee or consultant of Vardags with relevant experience, expertise and qualifications to merit the title. It does not necessarily imply that the relevant individual is a director of Vardags Limited.
A list of the directors of Vardags Limited and a list of the names of those using the title of ’Director’ and ’Partner’ together with their official status is available for inspection at Vardags’ registered office.