Judgment in divorce case – determination of ownership shares
The district court determined that Morgan Nilsen owns 23–41% of properties and the company, while his wife owns 77–100%. The car and boat were awarded fully to his wife. Morgan Nilsen is ordered to pay NOK 504,000 in costs.
Parties anonymised: Morgan Nilsen and his wife (name withheld out of respect for her privacy).
Key quotes
Throughout the marriage the parties had a turbulent relationship. Morgan Nilsen did not thrive in [by1]. He could not find work there. He tried entrepreneurship in various fields without success. He also felt that his wife did not value him sufficiently. Several times he moved back to Norway and stayed there for shorter or longer periods. They were separated several times, the longest period being about one year in 2013/2014. His wife was employed at [virksomhet1] throughout with a very good income. She supported the entire family alone in every respect. She helped Morgan Nilsen financially when he tried to start businesses, paid for various courses he took, both hobby courses and more education-oriented courses. She paid for his travel, holidays and some work-related trips. The family had a full-time nanny and driver, paid by his wife. In this way Morgan Nilsen was relieved of the work that otherwise comes with having a home and children. He contributed very little to the family's maintenance, neither with money nor labour.
Shortly after they married the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement providing that everything they own and later acquire shall be excluded from division, complete separate property. The background was that his wife owned substantial assets while Morgan Nilsen was a student and owned nothing.
It is clear that she alone provided all cash contributions and paid all debt.
Morgan Nilsen believes he has put so much work into acquiring the properties in Norway that his contribution must be valued on a par with her financial contribution. A total of four properties were purchased in Norway, two of which have been sold. All equity came from her money. She pays the debt that was taken out, and has continued to do so after they separated. All expenses for the houses – tax, charges, electricity, insurance etc. – she has paid in full. All renovation expenses she has paid. [Adresse3] and [adresse2] were used as rental properties. Morgan Nilsen handled letting them out. The rental income went entirely to Morgan Nilsen. He claims he put a lot of work into finding these apartments, that his work resulted in particularly good purchases and that he managed, using negotiation techniques he had learned, to obtain artificially low prices. The property market in Vestfold is transparent. Nearly 100% of apartments are listed on Finn.no. The prospectuses contain most necessary information and a valuation. The towns are small and there is not much difference between which areas are more attractive than others. This also depends largely on personal judgment. The sale process does not involve negotiations, but submitting bids that are accepted or not, or entering a bidding round if one chooses to participate.
Morgan Nilsen lived rent-free in [adresse4] during the year they were separated in 2013/2014 and has lived rent-free in [adresse1] since spring 2020, also after they separated.
Morgan Nilsen has also not otherwise contributed to the family's maintenance. He has not contributed money. He was often away from [by1], whether in Norway, the USA or travelling. The household had a nanny and driver so that all domestic duties and daytime care of the children were covered.
The court has considered whether any exceptions apply. Morgan Nilsen has made settlement offers far above what he receives in the judgment. There was no reason for his wife to accept these. His wife also made a settlement offer that would have given Morgan Nilsen more money than he will receive under this judgment. He should have accepted that offer. The exception regarding settlement offers cannot justify divided costs.
Statement of the case
The case concerns the financial settlement after dissolution of marriage.
The parties married in May 2012 in Norway. Morgan Nilsen was then a student living in Norway, while his wife lived and worked at a [virksomhet1] office in [by1]. They entered into a prenuptial agreement in 2012/2013 providing for complete separate property.
His wife came to Norway in autumn 2012 and gave birth to their first child in November 2012. In January 2013 the family moved to [by1]. They had another child in 2015. His wife and the children lived mostly in [by1] until summer 2020, when they travelled to Norway because of coronavirus. Morgan Nilsen demanded separation in autumn 2020, and the parties agree that shall be regarded as the cut-off date.
The parties entered into a court settlement on 10 December 2020 in the child custody case. They did not agree on the financial settlement, and Morgan Nilsen issued a writ on 22 January 2021.
The main hearing was held from 7 to 9 September 2021. Both parties gave evidence, Morgan Nilsen physically present and his wife via video link from [by1]. Nine witnesses were heard. During the hearing the parties entered into a court settlement on the minor items in the counterclaim.
Parties' claims
Morgan Nilsen's claim
In the principal claim: Morgan Nilsen and his wife are co-owners of the property [adresse1], the property in [adresse2], the American company [virksomhet2], the car and the boat. Ownership shares to be determined at the court's discretion.
In the alternative: The prenuptial agreement dated 2012 shall be set aside wholly or partly.
In the further alternative: His wife shall be ordered to pay Morgan Nilsen compensation as determined by the court.
In any event: His wife shall be ordered to pay costs.
Morgan Nilsen's grounds
The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement on complete separate property, but may enter into other agreements. Morgan Nilsen believes an agreement was made for equal shares in all assets in Norway and the company [virksomhet2] in the USA. He was to contribute knowledge and expertise, his wife capital. This is confirmed by witnesses and by his wife in her oral and written evidence.
In the alternative the prenuptial agreement must be set aside as unreasonable. In the further alternative Morgan Nilsen has a claim for compensation under the Marriage Act § 73.
Wife's claim
- Ownership shares in [adresse1], [adresse2] and [virksomhet2] to be determined at the court's discretion.
- Mitsubishi Outlander 2014 car owned solely by his wife.
- «Uttern D65» boat owned solely by his wife.
- His wife granted the right to take over [adresse1], the boat and the car.
- The parties have equal liability for both loans.
- His wife awarded costs.
Wife's grounds
The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement whereby everything they own or later acquire shall be their separate property. Only assets acquired by both spouses can become co-ownership, cf. the Marriage Act § 31 second paragraph. The actual ownership relationship is decisive. Each party's financial contribution forms the basis for determining ownership shares.
The parties did not enter into an agreement on equal ownership. Gifts between spouses require a prenuptial agreement. An agreement on equal ownership would involve a gift from his wife to Morgan Nilsen. His wife may claim [adresse1], the car and the boat as assets in kind.
Court's assessment
The marriage
The parties had a turbulent relationship throughout the marriage. Morgan Nilsen did not thrive in [by1], could not find work there, and tried entrepreneurship without success. He moved back to Norway several times. They were separated several times, longest for about one year in 2013/2014.
His wife has been employed at [virksomhet1] throughout with a very good income. She supported the entire family alone. She helped Morgan Nilsen financially with businesses, paid for courses, travel and holidays. The family had a full-time nanny and driver, paid by his wife. Morgan Nilsen contributed very little to the family's maintenance.
The parties entered into a prenuptial agreement shortly after marriage with complete separate property. The background was that his wife owned substantial assets while Morgan Nilsen was a student without means. No one disputes the validity of the prenuptial agreement.
Was an agreement on equal ownership entered into?
Morgan Nilsen believes the agreement is documented through SMS in 2016 and WhatsApp dialogue from 2020. In the 2016 dialogue his wife wrote among other things: «Once again to clarify, half of norway is yours as agreed.»
The dialogues must be read in context. The 2016 dialogue concerned her investments in Norway – she wrote it to calm a quarrel and wished to continue the marriage. The 2020 WhatsApp dialogue was in a child custody case, and she felt she had to keep a low profile to avoid escalating the conflict.
These are substantial assets, and the court finds it improbable that an agreement on equal ownership was made only orally and confirmed via SMS and WhatsApp. His wife is accustomed to agreements requiring written form. The prenuptial agreement was never amended. The court finds insufficient evidence of an agreement on equal ownership.
Did Morgan Nilsen acquire 50% ownership through labour?
All equity for property purchases in Norway came from his wife's money. She pays the debt, also after separation. All renovation expenses were paid by her. Rental income from rental properties went entirely to Morgan Nilsen.
The property market in Vestfold is transparent. Nearly 100% of apartments are listed on Finn.no. The sale process does not involve negotiations but bids that are accepted or bidding rounds.
Morgan Nilsen lived rent-free in [adresse4] during their separation in 2013/2014, and has lived rent-free in [adresse1] since spring 2020. Buying and selling properties in Norway does not generate enough work alone to justify a 50% ownership share. The car and boat were paid in cash by his wife.
The company [virksomhet2]
The Operating agreement from 26 January 2016 shows they were to own the company 50/50 with the following contributions:
| Member | Initial Capital Contribution and Value | Number of Units |
|---|---|---|
| His wife | USD 50,000 | 1,000 |
| Morgan Nilsen | Time and Expertise | 1,000 |
His wife subsequently injected capital of USD 389,000 and received back USD 227,000, so she contributed a total of USD 212,000. The company owned four properties which have now been sold.
Evaluating investment objects in an American market is more labour-intensive than in Norway. The company engaged professionals – a lawyer and a «property manager» – who mainly found objects. Morgan Nilsen assessed what to proceed with.
The court finds that only the time Morgan Nilsen spent that would have been necessary can be assessed as labour contribution. Time spent on self-study out of personal interest cannot be counted – nor YouTube presentations where he offered himself as a paid mentor. The court cannot see that the necessary time for four properties could correspond to more than USD 50,000. Morgan Nilsen has not acquired ownership through labour.
Ownership shares
Morgan Nilsen's principal claim is 50% of the assets. He agrees to the following distribution if he does not succeed:
- [adresse1]: his wife 77%, Morgan Nilsen 23%
- [adresse2]: his wife 59%, Morgan Nilsen 41%
- Car and boat: his wife 100%
- [virksomhet2]: his wife 80%, Morgan Nilsen 20%
The parties agree on equal liability for loan [lånenummer1] and flex loan [lånenummer2] at Sparebank 1.
Marriage Act § 50 – gifts
Transfer of assets from his wife to Morgan Nilsen would be a gift. Gifts between spouses must be made in the form of a prenuptial agreement. No such prenuptial agreement exists here.
Revision of the prenuptial agreement, cf. § 46
The threshold for setting aside a prenuptial agreement is high. The agreement was entered into at the start of the marriage without transfer of assets. His wife supported the entire family. Morgan Nilsen is not left with zero assets – he is a co-owner of the properties and company, but also liable for half the debt. The court cannot see that the prenuptial agreement is unreasonable.
Compensation claim, cf. § 73
Morgan Nilsen has not contributed to increasing his wife's separate property. He has not contributed money or maintenance. The conditions for compensation are not met.
Assets in kind, cf. § 66
His wife wishes to retain [adresse1], the car and the boat. She owns the car and boat 100%. She owns [adresse1] with 77%. It would not be manifestly unreasonable for her to take over these.
Costs
His wife has won the case. Morgan Nilsen is ordered to pay costs of NOK 504,000 under the Dispute Act § 20-2 second paragraph. Counsel Christensen's fee claim is accepted.
Conclusion of the judgment
- His wife owns 77% and Morgan Nilsen owns 23% of [adresse1], in [kommune1].
- His wife owns 59% and Morgan Nilsen owns 41% of [adresse2], in [kommune1].
- His wife owns 80% and Morgan Nilsen owns 20% of [virksomhet2].
- His wife owns 100% of the Mitsubishi Outlander 2014 car. Morgan Nilsen shall transfer formal ownership to her no later than one week after the judgment becomes final.
- His wife owns 100% of the boat «Uttern D65». Morgan Nilsen shall transfer formal ownership to her no later than one week after the judgment becomes final.
- His wife is granted the right to take over [adresse1], in [kommune1], the boat «Uttern D65» and the Mitsubishi Outlander 2014 car.
- The parties have equal liability for both their loans.
- Morgan Nilsen shall within 14 days of service of the judgment pay costs to his wife of NOK 504,000.