Stirling sheriff grants order for matrimonial home sale after finding teenager’s school needs not an obstacle to sale

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC STI 1
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff O'Mahony

Pursuer F and defender T separated on 24 August 2022 following the breakdown of their relationship, with divorce sought on the ground of two years of non-cohabitation. The defender opposed the sale of the matrimonial home, while the pursuer sought sale and equal split of the proceeds.

The case was heard by Sheriff Keith O’Mahoney at Stirling Sheriff Court. Mr Moss, solicitor, appeared for the pursuer, while the defender represented herself.

Fairest way

The parties were married in August 2007, and had two children, one of whom was an adult and the other, J, aged 14, resided with the defender. At the date of the proof, the pursuer, aged 53, was residing with his mother, and gave evidence that he would be unable to buy a property of his own without the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

It was the pursuer’s evidence that the property was valued at around £300,000 and would likely realise in excess of that value, with £65,000 of the mortgage outstanding. He believed that sale was the fairest way to resolve the issue at it would allow both parties to move on with their lives as well as their younger child and knew of no reason why the defender would not be in a position to buy a house within the catchment area of J’s school.

The defender confirmed that she had made criminal allegations against the pursuer, who confirmed he had been admonished three times in respect of breach of the peace and breach of bail conditions. She emphasised that J was entering a crucial stage of his education and that her adult daughter returned to the property on occasion and that it was to be regarded as her home address.

It was suggested by the defender that she could buy the pursuer’s interest in the property from him, but no quantification of this interest was suggested. Her esto position in the event that sale be ordered was that any order should be deferred until J was 18 years of age. However, the defender conceded that she had applied for and received a mortgage offer.

Palpable acrimony

In his decision, Sheriff O’Mahoney described the needs of J as the crux of the action, saying: “The defender argued J was entering a crucial stage in his education. There was no evidence as to why at the age of 14 this particular chapter of his education should be regarded as more crucial than any other chapter. There was no evidence that he required any special educational input. There was no evidence that the child had begun to fail educationally at the possibility and prospect of having to move home.”

He continued: “She was unsure if she could buy a property in the catchment area but doubted it. It was surprising the defender had not researched the possibility of moving house given the ongoing litigation. That would have allowed her to draw some conclusions about the availability of housing in the catchment area, its suitability for her family and the general prices.”

Assessing the demeanour of the parties at the proof, the sheriff said: “The acrimony between the pursuer and defender was palpable. In this action there is value in allowing them to sever contact by resolving the shared property and financial matters. That will also reduce scope for allegation and counter allegation and allow emotion to subside. Making no order, or deferring an order, will allow issues to linger and prevent parties from moving on with their lives.”

He concluded: “A final order now will allow J some certainty and finality of his own. I am unpersuaded that the mere fact he is at school is reason to delay an order. I see no reason why a careful review of available property would not allow the defender to remain at the same school which will mean least disruption to him. I am satisfied on the evidence that having regard to the interests of all parties, it is just and reasonable that I make an order for sale and equal sharing of proceeds.”

Sheriff O’Mahoney accordingly granted decree of divorce, made an order for the pursuer to have contact with J, and granted an order for sale.