How do Courts Handle Spouses Blocking a House Sale?
Divorce financial settlements can be challenging - but what happens when one spouse refuses to sell the family home, despite a court order?
This frustrating situation is more common than you might think. A recent case, WZ v HZ [2024] EWFC 407 (B), sheds light on how the courts are handling such disputes.
In this blog, we will explore the crucial topic of financial order enforcement in divorce cases, especially when property division is being obstructed. For those facing this frustrating situation, understanding how the courts respond can make all the difference in securing a fair outcome.
The issue: a spouse holding out in the family home
It’s not uncommon for a spouse to resist selling the family home, even when ordered to do so. The case of WZ v HZ illustrates how the courts may intervene when such obstruction occurs.
In this case, the wife, who was ordered to sell the home and use the proceeds for rehousing, spent over three years delaying the sale. She actively prevented progress by:
Removing ‘For Sale’ signs
Using false COVID-related excuses to block viewings
Overloading the court and solicitors with disruptive emails and applications
These tactics frustrated the sale, increased legal costs, and delayed financial settlement enforcement, demonstrating the challenges of property division in divorce cases.
If you're dealing with a spouse blocking a house sale, speaking with an experienced divorce lawyer can help you take the necessary legal steps.
Court interventions: what can be done?
To enforce compliance, the judge in this case, DJ Doman, applied a combination of legal measures, demonstrating the tools available when one party obstructs a financial order in divorce proceedings.
The key rulings included:
1. Reducing spousal maintenance
The judge varied downwards the spousal maintenance payments, partly as a response to the wife’s conduct and her actual earning capacity.
This shows that deliberate obstruction can have a direct financial impact on the non-compliant party.
2. Ordering possession of the home
Since the wife refused to facilitate viewings or engage with the sale process, the judge ordered that she vacate the property to allow the sale to proceed.
This step is crucial in cases where one party is deliberately delaying a house sale during divorce.
3. Using Thwaite jurisdiction to adjust the financial order
The judge relied on a legal principle known as Thwaite jurisdiction, which allows courts to alter a financial order when circumstances change or when a party deliberately frustrates its implementation.
In this case, the order was changed to:
Reduce the wife’s rehousing fund from £650,000 to £545,000, with the difference used to cover legal costs.
Modify pension-sharing provisions.
Allow surplus from the home sale to be paid to the husband, ensuring he could fulfill his own financial obligations under the original order.
The legal framework: how the court justified these steps
Thwaite jurisdiction applies when:
✅ The original order remains executory (i.e., not fully carried out).
✅ A party’s conduct has frustrated the order’s purpose.
✅ Adjustments are necessary to prevent unfairness.
The judge also referred to legal principles set out in H v W [2023] EWFC 120, reinforcing that financial orders in divorce must be followed, and non-compliance will be penalised.
Additionally, the court applied the balance of harm test under the Family Law Act 1996 to determine whether to grant possession of the home.
Key takeaways for frustrated spouses
If you’re facing a similar situation - where your former spouse is blocking a property sale - it’s important to:
📌 Document everything: Keeping detailed records of delays and obstruction tactics will strengthen your case.
📌 Seek legal advice early: The longer delays persist, the more costly enforcement actions become.
📌 Consider Thwaite applications: This case shows that the courts are willing to adjust orders where obstruction is severe.
📌 Be prepared for enforcement measures: Courts have broad powers, including adjusting maintenance, ordering possession, and varying financial orders to address non-compliance.
Conclusion
The case of WZ v HZ serves as a stark reminder that obstructing a financial order can lead to significant financial and legal consequences. For those dealing with a similar challenge, seeking legal intervention at the right time can prevent unnecessary delays and financial losses.
If you need expert guidance on divorce financial settlements, enforcing financial orders, or dealing with a spouse refusing to sell a property, contact Seymours + Solicitors—we’re here to help navigate these complex situations with clarity and expertise.
📞 Looking for expert divorce solicitors in Brighton and Hove? Get in touch today by calling us on 01273 628808 for tailored legal support.