Assets that were inherited before or during the marriage will more often than not be sought to be ring-fenced or excluded form the matrimonial pot. Whilst there is no reference made specifically to inherited assets within the law, certainly inheritance prospects are taken into account although little weight will usually be given to it especially in a case where a party’s financial needs cannot be met without recourse to such a resource. Thus, whether a non-matrimonial asset is likely to be significant or not depends on whether the remaining assets are sufficient to meet the needs of the parties.
Having said that, the court, in the famous case of White v White 2000 expressed its views on this issue that inherited property (and property owned before marriage) should not be treated in the same way as property acquired during a marriage and that the other party will have a weaker claim to it. Although the court will take it into account, much depends on the nature and value of the asset and when and the circumstances in which it was acquired.
It is generally the case that in shorter marriages, the argument to protect inherited property or property acquired before the marriage carries more weight. It follows therefore that in longer marriages where the parties finances have become intermingled or entangled over time, it would be very difficult to differentiate between the different categories of assets by reference to its original source. Certainly, inheritance prospects cannot be excluded from consideration if it were needed to be taken into account to meet the basic needs of the parties and those, in the first instance of dependent children.