You moved to France as a couple, bought a house under a French sun you still enjoy, and now the marriage is ending. The first question is not who keeps the house. It is whether a French court can divorce you, which national law that court will apply to your break-up, and how an English decision will be treated in France. The French courts apply the European regulations on jurisdiction and applicable law set out below, while on the English side you need English advice. A British couple with a home in France therefore faces a French track governed by the rules below, alongside a possible English track that must be checked separately under English advice. This article explains, step by step, how to work out whether a French court can hear your divorce, what to have checked without delay if England remains in the picture, which law will govern maintenance and the division of what you own, what happens in practice to a house situated in France, and how an English decision is examined for recognition in France. It is written for British readers living in France, uses British English throughout, and explains every French legal term the first time it appears.

I. Which Court Can Divorce a British Couple Living in France After Brexit

A. Can a French court hear your divorce if your life is now in France?

For most British couples who have genuinely settled in France, the answer is yes, and the rule that gives the French court jurisdiction comes from a European regulation that France still applies. Council Regulation 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019, known as Brussels II ter, organises jurisdiction in divorce between the courts of the European Union Member States, and France applies it to judicial actions brought on or after 1 August 2022. A French trial court restated the applicable text in a judgment of 12 March 2026: “Ce règlement est applicable aux actions judiciaires intentées, aux actes authentiques dressés ou enregistrés et aux accords enregistrés le ou après le 1er août 2022 selon les articles 100 et 105.” The same judgment reproduces Article 3: “Sont compétentes pour statuer sur les questions relatives au divorce, à la séparation de corps et à l’annulation du mariage des époux, les juridictions de l’État membre: a) sur le territoire duquel se trouve: i)la résidence habituelle des époux, ii)la dernière résidence habituelle des époux dans la mesure où l’un d’eux y réside encore, iii)la résidence habituelle du défendeur, iv)en cas de demande conjointe, la résidence habituelle de l’un ou l’autre époux, v)la résidence habituelle du demandeur s’il y a résidé depuis au moins une année immédiatement avant l’introduction de la demande, ou vi)la résidence habituelle du demandeur s’il y a résidé depuis au moins six mois immédiatement avant l’introduction de la demande et s’il est ressortissant de l’État membre en question; ou b)de la nationalité des deux époux”. The judgment is published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25/01268. In plain terms, the criteria turn on where you live: if both of you are habitually resident in France when the papers are filed, criterion (a)(i) above gives the French courts jurisdiction, whatever passports you hold. The Sarreguemines court applied exactly that reasoning: “Au regard de la résidence habituelle des époux située en France, le juge français est compétent aux fins de connaître de la présente demande en divorce.” In plain terms, if both of you are habitually resident in France when the divorce papers are filed, the French courts have jurisdiction, even though you both hold British passports. Habitual residence is a question of fact. One spouse remaining in France is enough in several of the situations listed above, which protects the spouse who stayed when the other has already gone back to Britain.

Once a French court accepts jurisdiction, it is the French judge who runs the case, and in France divorce cases belong to a specialised judge called the juge aux affaires familiales, usually shortened to JAF, which means the family matters judge. Each tribunal judiciaire, the ordinary civil and criminal court of a district, has one. Within France, the court that hears the case is chosen by Article 1070 of the Code of civil procedure, based on where the family lives: you will appear before the JAF of the tribunal judiciaire for your area of residence. The Cour de cassation, France’s highest civil court, recalled its wording in a decision of 4 March 2020: “le juge aux affaires familiales territorialement compétent est le juge du lieu où se trouve la résidence de la famille ; si les parents vivent séparément, le juge du lieu de résidence du parent avec lequel résident habituellement les enfants mineurs en cas d’exercice en commun de l’autorité parentale, ou du lieu de résidence du parent qui exerce seul cette autorité ; dans les autres cas, le juge du lieu où réside celui qui n’a pas pris l’initiative de la procédure ; en cas de demande conjointe, le juge compétent est, selon le choix des parties, celui du lieu où réside l’une ou l’autre. Toutefois, lorsque le litige porte seulement sur la pension alimentaire, la contribution à l’entretien et l’éducation de l’enfant, la contribution aux charges du mariage ou la prestation compensatoire, le juge compétent peut être celui du lieu où réside l’époux créancier ou le parent qui assume à titre principal la charge des enfants, même majeurs. La compétence territoriale est déterminée par la résidence au jour de la demande ou, en matière de divorce, au jour où la requête initiale est présentée.” The full decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 4 March 2020, No 18-24.646. The same decision states the broader principle for cross-border cases: “Selon les principes qui régissent la compétence juridictionnelle internationale des tribunaux français, celle-ci se détermine par l’extension des règles de compétence interne, sous réserve d’adaptations justifiées par les nécessités particulières des relations internationales”, which means that the international jurisdiction of the French courts is built by extending the domestic venue rules, adjusted where international relations genuinely require it. For a British family living in Dordogne, Provence or the Paris region, French divorce jurisdiction therefore rests on the Brussels II ter residence criteria set out above, not on nationality: your French home founds the French court’s jurisdiction. The extension of domestic venue rules to cross-border cases is only a subsidiary mechanism, and the Cour de cassation insists that it be adapted where international relations require it.

The French procedure itself then depends on whether you agree. Disagreements are heard by the JAF in a judicial divorce: each spouse is represented by an avocat, the French word for a lawyer admitted to a French Bar, the judge can make interim orders on the home, the children and money, and the case ends in a judgment that pronounces the divorce and settles its financial consequences. How the French house itself is transferred is developed in the second part of this article.

B. Can you still divorce in England after moving to France, and what if both countries are asked at once?

This guide maps the French side step by step. If England remains in the picture for your family, instruct an English solicitor at once and file nothing before both sides have advised.

The danger is that both doors stand open at the same time. Do not assume that steps taken in one country automatically settle matters in the other. A French court seised of your case verifies its own jurisdiction and the applicable law, as the Sarreguemines judgment published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25/01268 puts it: “Il appartient à la Juridiction de céans de vérifier sa compétence ainsi que la loi applicable.” Parallel cases mean doubled costs and conflicting orders, so the only safe response is speed and coordination: take advice in both countries before anyone files, decide together where the case should be fought in light of the money rules described below, and if agreement on the forum is impossible, file promptly in the chosen country with evidence of habitual residence ready, such as the French tax assessment, utility bills, school certificates and employment contracts. By way of illustration confined to its treaty framework, a decision of 25 March 2026 given under the Franco-Moroccan conventions quashed an appeal ruling and remanded the case, recalling that the foreign divorce is recognised where that convention’s regularity conditions including indirect jurisdiction are met, and that a breach of its lis pendens rule alone does not defeat that indirect jurisdiction. That treaty illustration apart, an English decision invoked in France is examined for international regularity in the concrete case-by-case manner of the 2 December 2020 decision quoted above, so have the English order, its sworn translation and proof that both sides were heard checked early rather than assuming smooth reception. The decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 25 March 2026, No 24-13.011.

II. Which Law Divides Your Money and What Happens to Your French House

A. Which law governs your divorce, your maintenance and the compensatory payment?

Jurisdiction tells you which judge decides; it does not tell you which national law the judge applies. In France, that second question is governed for divorce itself by Council Regulation 1259/2010, known as Rome III, which France applies. Rome III lets spouses choose the applicable law within strict limits, and the Cour de cassation confirmed how that choice works in a decision of 26 January 2022. The Court recalled that “Les époux peuvent convenir de désigner la loi applicable au divorce et à la séparation de corps, pour autant qu’il s’agisse de l’une des lois suivantes : a) la loi de l’État de la résidence habituelle des époux au moment de la conclusion de la convention ; ou b) la loi de l’État de la dernière résidence habituelle des époux, pour autant que l’un d’eux y réside encore au moment de la conclusion de la convention ; ou c) la loi de l’État de la nationalité de l’un des époux au moment de la conclusion de la convention ; ou d) la loi du for.” It then held that “lorsque des époux, dont la situation présente un élément d’extranéité, désignent, dans une convention de choix de la loi applicable au divorce, la loi d’un Etat déterminé, qui n’est pas l’une de celles qu’énumèrent les points a) à c), ce choix est valide, au titre du point d), lorsqu’elle est celle du juge qui a été ultérieurement saisi de la demande en divorce.” The decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 26 January 2022, No 20-21.542. For a British couple in France, the lesson is concrete: a choice-of-law agreement signed while you both live in France can designate French law, and the Court further holds that designating, in the agreement, the law of a specific State outside points (a) to (c) is valid under point (d) where it turns out to be the law of the court later seised. Ask your avocat about inserting such a clause in a marriage contract or a separation agreement before positions harden, because once litigation starts, agreement on anything becomes expensive.

Where the spouses have chosen nothing, Rome III imposes a cascade. Where the spouses have chosen nothing, the same Sarreguemines judgment of 12 March 2026, published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25/01268, reproduces the default cascade of Article 8 of Rome III: “À défaut de choix conformément à l’article 5, le divorce et la séparation de corps sont soumis à la loi de l’État : a) de la résidence habituelle des époux au moment de la saisine de la juridiction ; ou, à défaut, b) de la dernière résidence habituelle des époux, pour autant que cette résidence n’ait pas pris fin plus d’un an avant la saisine de la juridiction et que l’un des époux réside encore dans cet État au moment de la saisine de la juridiction ; ou, à défaut, c) de la nationalité des deux époux au moment de la saisine de la juridiction ; ou, à défaut, d) dont la juridiction est saisie”. The court adds that Rome III applies to actions brought from 21 June 2012. For a British couple habitually resident in France, that cascade normally leads to French divorce law, even though both spouses are British. For a British couple habitually resident in France, that cascade normally leads to French divorce law, even though both spouses are British. The same marriage can therefore be divorced under French substantive law in France; what substantive law an English court would apply there must be checked under English advice. The financial consequences differ considerably between the two tracks, which is why the choice of court examined in the first part is the single most valuable decision of the whole case.

Under French law, the central financial remedy between ex-spouses is the prestation compensatoire, which translates as a compensatory payment and is a capital sum paid by one ex-spouse to the other to offset the gap in living standards created by the divorce. Its statutory seat is in Articles 270 and 271 of the Civil Code. The Cour de cassation restated the mechanism in a decision of 10 December 2025: “l’un des époux peut être tenu de verser à l’autre une prestation destinée à compenser, autant qu’il est possible, la disparité que la rupture du mariage crée dans les conditions de vie respectives”, and “la prestation compensatoire est fixée selon les besoins de l’époux à qui elle est versée et les ressources de l’autre, en tenant compte de la situation au moment du divorce et de l’évolution de celle-ci dans un avenir prévisible.” The decision, published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 10 December 2025, No 24-13.557, quashed an appeal ruling that had refused any payment on the ground that the gap between the spouses already existed before the wedding. The Court ruled that “la différence de situation professionnelle ou de rémunération patrimoniale existant entre les époux antérieurement au mariage ne peut être un critère de refus d’octroi de la prestation compensatoire puisque celle-ci vise à maintenir la parité qu’assurait l’union matrimoniale, et, d’autre part, que c’est au moment du prononcé du divorce, qui met fin au devoir de secours, que le juge doit se placer pour la fixer.” The devoir de secours, the mutual duty of material support between spouses, ends with the divorce, and the judge assesses everything at that date. For a British family where one spouse gave up work in London to follow the other to France, this is decisive: a pre-existing pay gap does not defeat the claim.

Pensions deserve their own warning, because British private pensions and French retirement rights rarely match. In a decision of 5 March 2025, published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 5 March 2025, No 22-24.122, the Cour de cassation recalled that “le juge prend en considération, notamment, la situation respective de chacun des époux en matière de pensions de retraite en ayant estimé, autant qu’il est possible, la diminution des droits à retraite qui aura pu être causée, pour l’époux créancier de la prestation compensatoire, par les conséquences des choix professionnels faits par lui pendant la vie commune pour l’éducation des enfants et du temps qu’il faudra encore y consacrer ou pour favoriser la carrière de son conjoint au détriment de la sienne.” The appeal court had acknowledged equivalent current incomes and refused to look further; the Cour de cassation quashed, holding that foreseeable pension rights must be counted when measuring the gap the divorce creates. Concretely, gather before any negotiation the cash equivalent values of British personal and occupational pensions, the French relevé de situation individuelle for any French quarters earned, and evidence of who reduced working time for the children. Money during the proceedings follows a different track from the end-of-divorce compensatory payment. For maintenance claims in cross-border cases, Council Regulation 4/2009 on maintenance obligations applies to proceedings brought from 18 June 2011, and the Sarreguemines judgment published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25/01268 recalls that its Article 3 gives jurisdiction to the court where the defendant is habitually resident, to the court where the creditor is habitually resident, and to the court hearing the divorce to which the maintenance claim is ancillary, except where that ancillary jurisdiction would rest solely on one party’s nationality, while a court seised of a case outside its jurisdiction must declare itself incompetent of its own motion. For a couple living in France, the divorce court therefore also hears maintenance. The compensatory payment, by contrast, is fixed at the divorce itself under Articles 270 and 271, as set out below. Your avocat will map which French measures fit your situation. The forum you choose shapes the outcome, another reason to take advice on both sides before filing.

B. Who keeps the house in France, how is it divided, and will the other country accept the outcome?

A house situated in France is divided under rules that look first at your matrimonial property regime, which is the French expression for the body of rules governing who owns what during the marriage and how it is split at the end. Many British couples never signed a French marriage contract and assume English ideas of joint ownership apply. They may not. Which instrument identifies that law depends on the date of your marriage. The Sarreguemines court recalls that Regulation 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes applies, for jurisdiction, to proceedings brought from 29 January 2019 inclusive, and, for the applicable law, to marriages celebrated from 29 January 2019 inclusive as well as to choices of applicable law made from that date, even where the marriage itself predates it. Spouses may also choose the applicable regime law by agreement from 29 January 2019 onwards. For earlier marriages without such a choice, the French courts apply the Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 on the law applicable to matrimonial property regimes within its temporal scope: “La Convention ne s’applique, dans chaque Etat contractant, qu’aux époux qui se sont mariés ou qui désignent la loi applicable à leur régime matrimonial après son entrée en vigueur pour cet Etat. Tout Etat contractant pourra, par déclaration, étendre l’application de la Convention à d’autres époux”. The Sarreguemines court recalls, in its judgment published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25/01268, applies in France since 1 September 1992 and applies even where the spouses’ nationality or habitual residence is not that of a contracting State: “La Convention s’applique même si la nationalité ou la résidence habituelle des époux ou la loi applicable en vertu des articles ci-dessous ne sont pas celles d’un Etat contractant”. Its Article 4 provides: “Si les époux n’ont pas, avant le mariage, désigné la loi applicable à leur régime matrimonial, celui-ci est soumis à la loi interne de l’Etat sur le territoire duquel ils établissent leur première résidence habituelle après le mariage.” That first-home rule gives way to the law of the spouses’ common nationality in the three cases the Article lists, covering declarations under Article 5, non-contracting States and spouses whose first homes were in different States, and only failing both a common home and a common nationality does the closest-connection law apply: “A défaut de résidence habituelle des époux sur le territoire du même Etat et à défaut de nationalité commune, leur régime matrimonial est soumis à la loi interne de l’Etat avec lequel, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances, il présente les liens les plus étroits”. In the Sarreguemines case itself, the spouses’ first home was in France and French law governed: applying that Convention, the Sarreguemines court held the spouses’ regime governed by French law where their first habitual residence after the wedding was in France, and the detailed mapping must be left to the notaire. The same first-home starting point was confirmed by the Cour de cassation in a decision of 1 October 2025, which held that the Article 4 first-habitual-residence criterion does not apply where the spouses set up their first post-marriage homes in different States, and quashed a ruling that had applied the law of a State the couple joined only years later. The Cour de cassation decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 1 October 2025, No 23-17.313. Because the answer decides whether the French house is common property to be shared or separate property to be kept, have the regime identified by a notaire or an avocat at the very beginning, before any offer to buy out the other is made.

Identification is only the start; liquidation is the operation that follows. Liquidation means valuing every asset and debt, allocating them between the ex-spouses, and settling any balance, called a soulte, the equalising payment owed by the spouse who receives more than their share. In the Sarreguemines case, the spouses put their convention for the liquidation and partage of their matrimonial regime, drawn up by a notaire, before the judge, who homologated it when pronouncing the divorce after checking that each spouse’s interests were preserved, the route that judgment illustrates for settling property within the divorce. In that 4 March 2020 case, a creditor acting by oblique action on the basis of Article 815-17, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code sought the partage of an undivided immovable situated in France, and the Cour de cassation held that extending the residence-based venue criteria to that international situation was unsuited, retaining instead the place where the property is situated for practical reasons of proximity and effectiveness. During divorce proceedings, spouses may agree the liquidation and partage of their regime, and where the liquidation covers property subject to French land registration the agreement must take notarial form, as the Sarreguemines judgment published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25/01268 recalls: “les époux peuvent, pendant l’instance en divorce, passer toutes conventions pour la liquidation et le partage de leur régime matrimonial. Lorsque la liquidation porte sur des biens soumis à la publicité foncière, la convention doit être passée par acte notarié.” Have the notaire confirm what the registry requires for your transfer. Buyers, banks and future heirs all rely on that publication. If the divorce is pronounced in England with orders concerning the French house, have the English order, its sworn translation and proof that it is final checked for France, and let the French notaire confirm the exact deeds the land registry will require before treating the matter as settled.

Recognition is the final lock on the door, and here each direction has its own test. Assemble from the start a single file with the marriage certificate, proof of residence on both sides and the French judgment once obtained, so each lawyer can work without delay.

The reverse direction, an English divorce invoked in France, follows French private international law. French courts verify the international regularity of the foreign decision, in particular the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, its compatibility with French international public policy, and the absence of fraud. The Cour de cassation illustrated the public-policy side of that control in a decision of 2 December 2020, holding that “Une décision rendue par une juridiction étrangère qui, par application de sa loi nationale, refuse de donner effet à un contrat de mariage reçu en France, n’est pas en soi contraire à l’ordre public international français de fond et ne peut être écartée que si elle consacre de manière concrète, au cas d’espèce, une situation incompatible avec les principes du droit français considérés comme essentiels”. The decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 2 December 2020, No 18-20.691. The teaching point for British readers is that French courts examine concretely, case by case, rather than rejecting a foreign decision merely because foreign law differs from French law. In practice, have any English order and its sworn French translation examined early for France under the regularity check described above, before asking any French authority or notaire to act on it. Check at the same time that the English financial order deals expressly with the French house, because a French notaire cannot guess what an ambiguous English order meant to do with land in France. Where the English order is silent, return to the English court for clarification before asking France to enforce it. Prepare from day one a single bundle holding the marriage certificate with sworn translation, both spouses’ proof of residence and nationality, the pension valuations, the French title deeds, the mortgage statements and any choice-of-law agreement, and both the French and the English tracks will run faster and cost less.

Conclusion

A British couple divorcing with a home in France after Brexit lives under two systems at once, and the outcome turns on three choices made early. First, choose the court deliberately: France will normally take the case where your life is, under the European jurisdiction rules it still applies, while any English route can only be assessed under English advice, so parallel cases are a real risk you must manage rather than a theoretical one. Second, identify the applicable law before negotiating money: Rome III leads a French court to French divorce law in most settled cases, possibly through a choice-of-law agreement you can still sign, while the outcome on any English track must be assessed separately under English advice. Third, secure the French house through the correct channel: identify the matrimonial property regime, liquidate it through the French notaire with a notarial deed where registered property is concerned, and make sure any English decision will be checked for recognition in France before anyone relies on it there. None of these steps tolerates improvisation, because a missed deadline, a filing in the wrong country or a private agreement that ignores the land registry can cost a multiple of what early advice would have cost. With the right forum, the right law and a notaire instructed from the start, the break-up stays a managed legal process instead of becoming a cross-Channel dispute.

Need a quick opinion on your case.

Divorcing with a home in France and unsure whether to file in France or in England? Get a telephone consultation within 48 hours with an avocat of the firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or write via our contact page. We advise British families throughout France.