Procedural status: First instance, following proof at Falkirk Sheriff Court. Later history checked 3 August 2026; no later decision found.
A divorce in which almost everything was agreed and three financial questions went to proof: missing cash, missing gold coins, and whether investments that had fallen in value since separation should be valued at the relevant date or at their reduced current value.
Background
The parties separated on 2 November 2022, which was the relevant date. By the time of the proof the parties were agreed that decree of divorce should be granted and had resolved the majority of the financial issues. Each side lodged a spreadsheet setting out their calculations, and the sheriff recorded the court’s gratitude for that approach.
Three matters remained. Whether £10,000 in cash remained within the former matrimonial home at the relevant date. Whether a quantity of gold coins, agreed to be worth £55,000 and bought by the husband over time as an investment, remained there. And whether investments held by the husband that had fallen significantly in value since separation should be valued at the relevant date or at their reduced value.
What the sheriff decided
The cash was not a separate asset. Summary Sheriff Kinnear was satisfied that the £10,000 in the property at the date of separation had been entirely spent on building works to the former matrimonial home. The benefit of that expenditure was reflected in the agreed value of the property, so the cash should not be counted again.
The gold coins were matrimonial property. They were within the former matrimonial home at the date of separation, and the fact that the wife could not locate them did not alter their character as a matrimonial asset at that date.
The investments were valued at the relevant date. Applying Welsh v Welsh, the sheriff considered that the husband’s resources did not justify an unequal division where he would not be left impecunious on an equal division valued at the date of separation.
On those bases the total matrimonial property was £504,588.60, giving £252,294.30 each. As the husband held £178,517.03, a balancing payment of £73,777.27 was due to him.
The sheriff granted decree of divorce, ordered transfer of the husband’s interest in the former matrimonial home and its contents to the wife in return for that capital sum, and ordained him to deliver a disposition on payment, failing which the sheriff clerk was authorised to subscribe on his behalf. The wife remained in the home with the parties’ two school-age children, was employed as a teacher earning around £40,000, and was likely to be able to raise the sum by mortgage. Alternatively, if she could not obtain a loan or did not wish to remain, decree for sale was granted, so as to avoid forcing a sale and the consequent disruption to the children.
Why this decision matters
Assets do not stop being matrimonial property because they cannot be found. What matters is whether they existed and were held at the relevant date.
Cash spent on improving the family home before separation is not counted twice; the benefit is already in the property valuation.
A fall in the value of investments after separation will not automatically move the valuation date. The question is whether the resources of the party holding them justify a departure from equal sharing at the relevant date.
Framing an order as a transfer with an alternative decree for sale allows a parent to remain in the family home if finance can be raised, without leaving the other party without a remedy.
Legal review: Brian Rooney, Managing Partner and Law Society of Scotland Accredited Specialist in Family Law.