What are Mesher and Martin Orders?
Mesher and Martin orders allow spouses to continue owning a property jointly post-separation until a certain trigger event happens. They are often referred to as “deferred orders for sale”. You may want a Mesher order if, for example, you want to stay in the family home with the children but you do not have the financial means to take over the mortgage.
Mesher and Martin orders are both types of settlement of property orders that can be used to adjust finances on divorce when the matrimonial assets are being split. A settlement of property order creates a trust over the property for the benefit of one or both parties (or for the benefit of a child of the family).
Both Mesher and Martin orders create a trust of land in which the parties hold the property as tenants in common in defined shares. This means that the property is owned jointly, but each party owns a separate share in the property. If one party dies, their share passes to their beneficiaries in accordance with their will or intestacy.
Mesher orders trigger an order for sale once a certain event happens. The proceeds of sale will then be split in accordance with the parties’ defined shares. Possible examples of triggering events under a Mesher order could be:
- Youngest child of the family reaching 18.
- Remarriage (or cohabitation) of the resident party.
- Death of the resident party.
- Further order.
When a Mesher order is in place, the joint legal ownership of the property is retained by both parties, even if only one of the parties remains living in the property. As the property remains jointly owned, the terms of the trust will often specify the contributions of each party to the mortgage payments, maintenance and upkeep of the property and insurance.
Mesher orders are complex and are often only appropriate in certain circumstances. This is because parties remain joined together in property ownership after their relationship or marriage has broken down.
A Martin order gives one party the right to occupy the former matrimonial home for life or until re-marriage.
Martin orders tend to be used if a couple have no dependent children and the non-resident party has no immediate requirement for capital to pay for somewhere new to live. For example, a Martin order could be used if the non-resident party is living in a second property which is worth much less than the matrimonial home. Likewise, a Martin order may be appropriate if the outright transfer of the former matrimonial home to the resident party would produce an unfair capital split.
Related FAQs
The government released further clarification on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme on 4 April. The wording referred to concerning public sector organisations and organisations receiving public funding remains the same.
The revised guidance does provide a helpful insight into how HMRC will deal with applications made to it for assistance under the scheme. It appears that there won’t be a particularly forensic approach adopted by HMRC. The guidance says you can furlough staff if you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus.
It goes on to say that all employers are eligible to claim under the scheme and the government recognises different businesses/organisations will face different impacts from coronavirus. The need to demonstrate the impact of coronavirus on your business/organisation is not one of the criteria businesses/organisations are going to need to satisfy, so the government does not appear to intend to set a specific test to determine if a business/organisation is “severely impacted by coronavirus”. It is hoped that this should provide additional comfort to publicly funded organisations facing significant restrictions to their operations during the Covid-19 crisis.
The CLC has also prepared a template letter that firms may adopt and issue to their workforce regarding travel to work. This can be accessed at download document.
The CLC’s current advice to those carrying out works on site is to carry out your own risk assessment on each site and determine whether or not it is safe to continue to work in accordance with the Public Health England instructions and the CLC Site Operating Procedures. If it is not possible to work in accordance with the above they should not work.
The Act is intended to facilitate the rescue of businesses that are in financial difficulty by preventing suppliers from invoking certain termination clauses under a supply contract, and therefore maintaining supply of goods and services to the business whilst plans to save the business can be considered.
Supply contracts often contain a clause enabling them to terminate the contract, or take other steps such as requiring payment in advance, in the event that the customer enters an insolvency procedure.
This new Act removes any such contractual right by dis-applying any clause that allows the supplier to terminate the contract, or take any other step, due to the customer entering an insolvency process.
Suppliers are also prevented from demanding payment for pre-insolvency debts owed by the customer as a condition of continued supply.
Additionally, where the supplier had a contractual right to terminate the contract due to an event occurring before the customer went into the insolvency process (whether or not linked to payment issues), the supplier loses this right for the duration of the insolvency process.
If an employee is required under government guidance to wear a face mask during the course of their employment and there is no applicable exemption, any fine issued would be payable by the employee, not the employer.
In the event that the worst happens and contractor insolvency occurs, there are a number of steps which the employer should take immediately:
- Confirm that insolvency has actually occurred and the type of insolvency (for example liquidation or adjudication) – actions taken based on rumours can have adverse consequences
- Secure the site and carry out an audit of the plant, equipment and materials present – this may extend to changing the locks on site in order to prevent overzealous contractors and sub-contractors seeking to return and take what they see as their possessions. The building contract may contain a provision that these are the employer’s property, but they can be difficult to recover if they are not within the employer’s possession – possession is 9/10ths of the law!
- Ensure that there are adequate insurance and health and safety arrangements in place for the site – these would usually be dealt with by the contractor and therefore may no longer be in place, so alternative arrangements may be required
- Ensure that any further payments to the contractor are stopped pending a more detailed review
- Consider whether any off-site materials have already been paid for and can be secured. This can however be difficult in practice where the materials are not physically within the employer’s possession
In addition, there are also a number of further actions which the employer should consider in the slightly longer term:
- Investigate the options available and ascertain the cost of completing the works to assist in deciding how best to proceed
- Consider whether termination of the contractor’s employment under the building contract is required, and if so take the necessary steps in accordance with the building contract
- Consider whether there are any bonds or guarantees in place upon which the employer can rely, and if so assess their terms as to whether and how to make a claim
- Make arrangements to complete the works – as a general rule of thumb the cost of completing the works may increase by around 30% if it is necessary to get a replacement contractor
- Consider whether direct payment to subcontractors is possible or desirable
- Although we would say this(!) we would strongly recommend taking legal advice, as insolvency and its implications are complex and it is easy to inadvertently fall foul of the various different requirements