Bankruptcy and the matrimonial home

The matrimonial home is a central feature of many bankruptcy cases as it is often the most valuable asset in the estate available to be realised for the benefit of creditors. Because the matrimonial home is also usually the place where the bankrupt and their family live, there are many issues which may affect how it is dealt with. Such issues can often include:

  1. whether the trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) has an interest in the property at all

  2. whether any adjustments need to be made on the net sale proceeds

  3. whether the court should make an order for possession and sale

  4. the overlap with family law

The extent of the trustee's interest

The assets that vest in the trustee are the assets that comprise the bankruptcy estate. These will include all assets the bankrupt had a legal or beneficial interest in at the time the bankruptcy order was made (sections 283, 283A, and 436 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). For further reading, see:

  1. Practice Note: Definition of the bankruptcy estate and which assets vest in the trustee in

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents