Post-divorce financial claims face significant legal hurdles, particularly where assets were acquired after relationship breakdown.The AGS v RKS (2026) is was a family court case about money after divorce.
A husband (AGS) asked the court to order his ex‑wife (RKS) to:
- pay him ongoing financial support (called “maintenance pending suit”), and
- pay his legal costs so he could continue the case.
Background
The couple:
- got together in 2013,
- married in 2015,
- divorced in 2018, and had three children.
The husband had a serious fraud conviction and owed a large amount of money under criminal confiscation laws:
- about £1.4 million benefit identified,
- with over £500,000 to repay.
The wife:
- effectively bought him out of the former family home,
- later used that money to buy a new home in her own name.
What was the husband arguing?
The husband claimed:
- Even though they divorced in 2018, they continued living together like a married couple until 2025.
- Because of that, he said the wife’s later assets (like her home) should still be treated as shared “marital” property.
In simple terms: he was trying to claim a share of wealth she built up after the divorce.
What did the wife say?
The wife strongly disagreed:
- The relationship ended years earlier.
- She had rebuilt her life and finances on her own.
- Any money or property since the divorce was hers alone.
She also said the case was part of ongoing abusive behaviour from the husband.
What did the court decide?
The judge refused the husband’s application.
Key reasons:
- His claim looked weak
The judge thought his argument (that post‑divorce assets should be shared) faced “considerable hurdles”. - Lack of proper financial information
The husband had not given full and clear disclosure of his finances, which is essential in these cases. - Criminal background mattered
He still owed a large sum under a confiscation order, and any money he recovered could potentially be taken by the authorities. - Courts are cautious about funding weak cases
Judges won’t usually order one party to fund the other’s legal costs if the underlying case seems unlikely to succeed.
Final outcome
The husband did NOT get:
- maintenance, or
- legal costs funding.
Key takeaway (in simple terms)
This case shows that:
- You generally cannot claim a share of your ex‑partner’s new wealth years after divorce, unless you have a strong legal basis.
- Courts expect honesty and full financial disclosure.
- If your case looks weak, the court is unlikely to make the other person pay for it.
- Criminal issues (like fraud and confiscation orders) can seriously affect financial claims in family court.
How can we help?
Louise Scott is a Senior Associate in our Family Law team, she has dealt with this issue on many occasions and can guide you through the proceedings with compassion and clarity. If you would like tailored advice on this issue, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
She also advises on divorce, dissolution of civil partnerships, finances and private children disputes.
For more information or advice, please call Louise or another member of our team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.
Contact us