What Is a Martin Order and When Will the Courts Grant One?

A Martin order provides a specific way for courts to deal with the family home during divorce proceedings. It gives one former spouse the right to remain living in the property for life or until a defined event, while protecting the financial interest of the other spouse. The order suits limited factual situations and the court applies careful scrutiny before it grants one. This guide explains what a Martin order is how it works when courts will grant it and what practical steps parties should take. The text uses clear language and follows legal practice in England and Wales.

What is a Martin order?

A Martin order is a financial remedy under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The court can make orders about property and occupancy as it considers fair. A Martin order typically:

– Gives the occupying spouse the right to live in the former matrimonial home for life or until a specified event

– Leaves the property held for the benefit of both spouses with defined beneficial shares

– Allows the non-occupying spouse to retain a reversionary interest that becomes payable on the trigger event, for example the occupant’s death or remarriage

The aim is to balance housing stability for the occupant with protection of the other party’s capital interest. The order functions as a long-term occupation right rather than as a short delay pending sale.

Legal basis and terminology

The court bases Martin orders on its general powers to make financial orders on divorce. Judges rely on section 24(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and relevant case law. The order often appears as a schedule or clause in the final financial order. Practitioners sometimes contrast Martin orders with Mesher orders. A Mesher order postpones sale usually for the benefit of children and triggers on child-related events. A Martin order more commonly links to life events affecting the occupant.

When a Martin order is considered suitable

A court will only make a Martin order in narrow circumstances. The key factual features that favour a Martin order include:

– The occupying spouse cannot reasonably obtain alternative suitable accommodation

– The non-occupying spouse does not need immediate capital from the sale of the property

– There is no pressing reason to realise capital now, for example to meet essential living needs

– Children are not the main reason for the delay, or children are not dependent on the property

– The proposed arrangement is fair to both parties when judged against their needs and resources

In practice the order suits long marriages where one spouse has limited means and the other spouse has sufficient capital to meet their housing needs without the sale proceeds. The court focuses on housing need rather than on abstract notions of ownership.

Key factors the court will assess

The judge will consider multiple factors when deciding whether a Martin order is appropriate. Those factors include:

– Housing options of the occupying spouse: Can they find a similar home in the local area on reasonable terms? The court reviews local rental and purchase markets and any health or mobility issues that limit choice.

– Financial needs of the non-occupying spouse: Does the non-occupying spouse require money from the sale to secure housing, meet debts, or support their living standard? If they need capital the court will resist long delays.

– Duration of marriage and contributions: The court looks at the marriage’s length and each spouse’s contributions to the property. These matters inform the fair division of assets.

– Age and health: Older age or serious health problems may increase the need for permanent occupation rights.

– Conduct and fairness: The court will ensure the order does not unfairly advantage one party or impose unreasonable burdens on the other.

– Children’s welfare: Even where children no longer live at home the court considers their interests as part of fairness.

How a Martin order operates in practice

A Martin order usually contains detailed terms to avoid later disputes. Typical features include:

– Definition of beneficial shares: The order sets the percentage interest each party holds in the property.

– Right to occupy: The occupant receives the right to live in the property for life or until a specified trigger event.

– Trigger events: Common triggers include the occupant’s death remarriage or cohabitation. The order must state which events will end the right.

– Payment of mortgage and running costs: The order clarifies who pays mortgage interest capital payments, council tax, insurance, utilities and repairs.

– Valuation and sale procedure: The order establishes how the property will be valued and how sale proceeds will be divided once the trigger event occurs.

– Buy-out options: The order may include an option for one spouse to buy the other’s interest on agreed terms or by using a valuation formula.

– Restrictions on dealing: The court may prevent either party from significantly altering the property without consent.

These terms reduce future litigation and provide a clear roadmap for enforcement. Courts prefer precise drafting rather than open-ended statements.

Differences between a Martin order and a Mesher order

Understanding the differences helps lawyers and clients choose the right approach. Key distinctions include:

– Purpose: A Martin order secures long-term occupation for one spouse. A Mesher order postpones sale mainly to protect children while a defined trigger elapses.

– Triggers: Martin triggers often link to life events such as death or remarriage. Mesher triggers commonly tie to a child reaching a specified age or finishing education.

– Typical context: Martin orders arise where children are not the primary concern and the occupant has limited housing options. Mesher orders suit cases where child welfare requires delay.

– Length: A Martin order can effectively last for life. A Mesher order usually ends on a predictable date or event.

– Financial structure: A Martin order often creates a life interest or a right to occupy while leaving beneficial shares intact. A Mesher order normally places the property on trust for sale with fixed shares to be realised later.

Practical examples

Example 1 — Long-term occupancy for an older spouse

A couple divorce after a 30-year marriage. The wife is 70 with limited savings and poor mobility. The husband has ample savings and does not need the sale proceeds. The court grants a Martin order giving the wife the right to remain in the home for life. The husband retains a reversionary financial interest to be realised on the wife’s death.

Example 2 — Children not central to the application

Two adults separate without dependent children. One spouse cannot afford to relocate. The other has immediate housing resources. A Martin order provides secure occupation and respects the non-occupying spouse’s financial stake.

How the court protects the non-occupying spouse

The court balances interests actively. It ensures the non-occupying spouse does not suffer unreasonable delay in accessing capital. The court may:

– Fix beneficial shares that reflect contributions and need

– Allow the non-occupying spouse to seek variation if circumstances change

– Include buy-out terms or valuation methods to allow earlier realisation in limited situations

– Require the occupying spouse to maintain the property and keep insurance in force

The court wants to avoid leaving a spouse indefinitely unable to realise their asset without good reason.

Advantages and disadvantages of a Martin order

Advantages

– Provides housing security for the occupant who cannot find suitable alternatives

– Avoids forced sale that may cause hardship or displacement

– Protects the non-occupying spouse’s long-term financial interest

Disadvantages

– Delays a clean financial break between the parties

– Exposes the non-occupying spouse to property market fluctuations

– May create enforcement issues if the occupant fails to maintain the property or pay agreed costs

Alternatives to a Martin order

Courts and parties often consider alternatives before choosing a Martin order. Alternatives include:

– Immediate sale and division: Provides a quick clean break and cash for both parties.

– Mesher order: Postpones sale for child-related reasons with predictable triggers.

– Buy-out arrangement: One party buys the other’s share so the occupant retains the home outright.

– Lump sum or pension adjustment: The court may compensate one party by ordering a lump sum payment or pension sharing.

Which option is best depends on the parties’ housing needs financial resources and the presence of children.

Practical steps for parties considering a Martin order

Parties should take practical steps early in proceedings:

– Obtain specialist family law advice from us to understand likely outcomes

– Prepare full financial disclosure to support claims about need and resources

– Gather evidence of housing options for the occupant including local rental market information medical reports and mobility assessments if relevant

– Agree interim arrangements about mortgage payments bills and repairs and reduce disputes by documenting payments

– Consider including variation clauses or review dates in the order to allow future adjustments

Conclusion

A Martin order offers a narrowly focused tool to protect an occupying spouse who lacks alternative housing while preserving the financial interest of the other spouse. Courts grant such orders only when the facts justify long-term occupation and when the non-occupying spouse does not need immediate capital. Precise drafting full financial disclosure and clear arrangements for mortgage and running costs make a Martin order workable and enforceable. Parties should weigh the advantages and disadvantages and consider alternatives such as Mesher orders buy-outs or immediate sale.

Summary — quick bullet points

– A Martin order gives one spouse long-term occupation rights while preserving the other spouse’s financial interest

– Courts favour Martin orders only when the occupying spouse cannot reasonably obtain suitable housing and the non-occupying spouse does not need immediate capital

– Typical triggers include death remarriage or cohabitation of the occupying spouse

– The order sets beneficial shares and often includes mortgage maintenance valuation and buy-out provisions

– Alternatives include Mesher orders immediate sale and buy-out arrangements

– Clear drafting full disclosure and legal advice reduce future disputes and aid enforceability

Form E advice

Alexander JLO Solicitors are well aware that going through divorce can be very difficult. Whilst the implementation of no-fault divorce back in 2022 has made the legal process much simpler, there are times, especially in relation to financial matters, when input from an experienced solicitor is vital.

With that in mind we have developed a revolutionary new service which will ascertain whether or not it’s wise to have legal advice on finances when going through divorce. Simply called Form Easy it will assess your level and type of assets and determine if you qualify for a free, no-obligation consultation to discuss your case with us and decide on the best ways forward for you. Simply click the Form Easy button, or visit the page here, answer a few short questions and we will let you have our input on whether we can help. 

At Alexander JLO we have many years of experience of dealing with all aspects of family law and will be happy to discuss your case in a free no obligation consultation. Why not call us on +44 (0)20 7537 7000, email us at info@london-law.co.uk or get in touch via the contact us button and see what we can do for you?

This blog was prepared by Peter Johnson on 17th April 2026 and is correct at the time of going to press. With over forty years of experience in almost all areas of law Peter is happy to assist with any legal issue that you have. He is widely regarded as one of London’s leading divorce lawyers. His profile on the independent Review Solicitor website can be found Here.

To follow up on any of the above please contact Guy Wilton of our family department. Guy has wide experience of acting for the firm’s clients, their family and their businesses. Guy’s experience as a lawyer started in the Northern and Welsh Circuits, including the Liverpool Courts, where he represented numerous clients after being called to the Bar, before opting to join Alexander JLO in 2017 and qualifying as a solicitor in 2024. He is a highly experienced family lawyer with a particular interest in financial remedy proceedings and child contact disputes.

Guy’s profile on the independent Review Solicitor website can be viewed here.