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.<\/p>\n
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 r\u00e8glement est applicable aux actions judiciaires intent\u00e9es, aux actes authentiques dress\u00e9s ou enregistr\u00e9s et aux accords enregistr\u00e9s le ou apr\u00e8s le 1er ao\u00fbt 2022 selon les articles 100 et 105.” The same judgment reproduces Article 3: “Sont comp\u00e9tentes pour statuer sur les questions relatives au divorce, \u00e0 la s\u00e9paration de corps et \u00e0 l’annulation du mariage des \u00e9poux, les juridictions de l’\u00c9tat membre: a) sur le territoire duquel se trouve: i)la r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux, ii)la derni\u00e8re r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux dans la mesure o\u00f9 l’un d’eux y r\u00e9side encore, iii)la r\u00e9sidence habituelle du d\u00e9fendeur, iv)en cas de demande conjointe, la r\u00e9sidence habituelle de l’un ou l’autre \u00e9poux, v)la r\u00e9sidence habituelle du demandeur s’il y a r\u00e9sid\u00e9 depuis au moins une ann\u00e9e imm\u00e9diatement avant l’introduction de la demande, ou vi)la r\u00e9sidence habituelle du demandeur s’il y a r\u00e9sid\u00e9 depuis au moins six mois imm\u00e9diatement avant l’introduction de la demande et s’il est ressortissant de l’\u00c9tat membre en question; ou b)de la nationalit\u00e9 des deux \u00e9poux”. The judgment is published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25\/01268<\/a>. 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 r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux situ\u00e9e en France, le juge fran\u00e7ais est comp\u00e9tent aux fins de conna\u00eetre de la pr\u00e9sente 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.<\/p>\n 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 comp\u00e9tent est le juge du lieu o\u00f9 se trouve la r\u00e9sidence de la famille ; si les parents vivent s\u00e9par\u00e9ment, le juge du lieu de r\u00e9sidence du parent avec lequel r\u00e9sident habituellement les enfants mineurs en cas d’exercice en commun de l’autorit\u00e9 parentale, ou du lieu de r\u00e9sidence du parent qui exerce seul cette autorit\u00e9 ; dans les autres cas, le juge du lieu o\u00f9 r\u00e9side celui qui n’a pas pris l’initiative de la proc\u00e9dure ; en cas de demande conjointe, le juge comp\u00e9tent est, selon le choix des parties, celui du lieu o\u00f9 r\u00e9side l’une ou l’autre. Toutefois, lorsque le litige porte seulement sur la pension alimentaire, la contribution \u00e0 l’entretien et l’\u00e9ducation de l’enfant, la contribution aux charges du mariage ou la prestation compensatoire, le juge comp\u00e9tent peut \u00eatre celui du lieu o\u00f9 r\u00e9side l’\u00e9poux cr\u00e9ancier ou le parent qui assume \u00e0 titre principal la charge des enfants, m\u00eame majeurs. La comp\u00e9tence territoriale est d\u00e9termin\u00e9e par la r\u00e9sidence au jour de la demande ou, en mati\u00e8re de divorce, au jour o\u00f9 la requ\u00eate initiale est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e.” The full decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 4 March 2020, No 18-24.646<\/a>. The same decision states the broader principle for cross-border cases: “Selon les principes qui r\u00e9gissent la comp\u00e9tence juridictionnelle internationale des tribunaux fran\u00e7ais, celle-ci se d\u00e9termine par l’extension des r\u00e8gles de comp\u00e9tence interne, sous r\u00e9serve d’adaptations justifi\u00e9es par les n\u00e9cessit\u00e9s particuli\u00e8res 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> puts it: “Il appartient \u00e0 la Juridiction de c\u00e9ans de v\u00e9rifier sa comp\u00e9tence 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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 \u00e9poux peuvent convenir de d\u00e9signer la loi applicable au divorce et \u00e0 la s\u00e9paration de corps, pour autant qu’il s’agisse de l’une des lois suivantes : a) la loi de l’\u00c9tat de la r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux au moment de la conclusion de la convention ; ou b) la loi de l’\u00c9tat de la derni\u00e8re r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux, pour autant que l’un d’eux y r\u00e9side encore au moment de la conclusion de la convention ; ou c) la loi de l’\u00c9tat de la nationalit\u00e9 de l’un des \u00e9poux au moment de la conclusion de la convention ; ou d) la loi du for.” It then held that “lorsque des \u00e9poux, dont la situation pr\u00e9sente un \u00e9l\u00e9ment d’extran\u00e9it\u00e9, d\u00e9signent, dans une convention de choix de la loi applicable au divorce, la loi d’un Etat d\u00e9termin\u00e9, qui n’est pas l’une de celles qu’\u00e9num\u00e8rent les points a) \u00e0 c), ce choix est valide, au titre du point d), lorsqu’elle est celle du juge qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 ult\u00e9rieurement saisi de la demande en divorce.” The decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 26 January 2022, No 20-21.542<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, reproduces the default cascade of Article 8 of Rome III: “\u00c0 d\u00e9faut de choix conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 l’article 5, le divorce et la s\u00e9paration de corps sont soumis \u00e0 la loi de l’\u00c9tat : a) de la r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux au moment de la saisine de la juridiction ; ou, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut, b) de la derni\u00e8re r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux, pour autant que cette r\u00e9sidence n’ait pas pris fin plus d’un an avant la saisine de la juridiction et que l’un des \u00e9poux r\u00e9side encore dans cet \u00c9tat au moment de la saisine de la juridiction ; ou, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut, c) de la nationalit\u00e9 des deux \u00e9poux au moment de la saisine de la juridiction ; ou, \u00e0 d\u00e9faut, 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u00e9poux peut \u00eatre tenu de verser \u00e0 l’autre une prestation destin\u00e9e \u00e0 compenser, autant qu’il est possible, la disparit\u00e9 que la rupture du mariage cr\u00e9e dans les conditions de vie respectives”, and “la prestation compensatoire est fix\u00e9e selon les besoins de l’\u00e9poux \u00e0 qui elle est vers\u00e9e et les ressources de l’autre, en tenant compte de la situation au moment du divorce et de l’\u00e9volution de celle-ci dans un avenir pr\u00e9visible.” The decision, published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 10 December 2025, No 24-13.557<\/a>, 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 diff\u00e9rence de situation professionnelle ou de r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration patrimoniale existant entre les \u00e9poux ant\u00e9rieurement au mariage ne peut \u00eatre un crit\u00e8re de refus d’octroi de la prestation compensatoire puisque celle-ci vise \u00e0 maintenir la parit\u00e9 qu’assurait l’union matrimoniale, et, d’autre part, que c’est au moment du prononc\u00e9 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, the Cour de cassation recalled that “le juge prend en consid\u00e9ration, notamment, la situation respective de chacun des \u00e9poux en mati\u00e8re de pensions de retraite en ayant estim\u00e9, autant qu’il est possible, la diminution des droits \u00e0 retraite qui aura pu \u00eatre caus\u00e9e, pour l’\u00e9poux cr\u00e9ancier de la prestation compensatoire, par les cons\u00e9quences des choix professionnels faits par lui pendant la vie commune pour l’\u00e9ducation des enfants et du temps qu’il faudra encore y consacrer ou pour favoriser la carri\u00e8re de son conjoint au d\u00e9triment 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 relev\u00e9 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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u00e9poux qui se sont mari\u00e9s ou qui d\u00e9signent la loi applicable \u00e0 leur r\u00e9gime matrimonial apr\u00e8s son entr\u00e9e en vigueur pour cet Etat. Tout Etat contractant pourra, par d\u00e9claration, \u00e9tendre l’application de la Convention \u00e0 d’autres \u00e9poux”. The Sarreguemines court recalls, in its judgment published at Tribunal judiciaire de Sarreguemines, 12 March 2026, No 25\/01268<\/a>, 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 m\u00eame si la nationalit\u00e9 ou la r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux ou la loi applicable en vertu des articles ci-dessous ne sont pas celles d’un Etat contractant”. Its Article 4 provides: “Si les \u00e9poux n’ont pas, avant le mariage, d\u00e9sign\u00e9 la loi applicable \u00e0 leur r\u00e9gime matrimonial, celui-ci est soumis \u00e0 la loi interne de l’Etat sur le territoire duquel ils \u00e9tablissent leur premi\u00e8re r\u00e9sidence habituelle apr\u00e8s 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 d\u00e9faut de r\u00e9sidence habituelle des \u00e9poux sur le territoire du m\u00eame Etat et \u00e0 d\u00e9faut de nationalit\u00e9 commune, leur r\u00e9gime matrimonial est soumis \u00e0 la loi interne de l’Etat avec lequel, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances, il pr\u00e9sente les liens les plus \u00e9troits”. 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<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> recalls: “les \u00e9poux peuvent, pendant l’instance en divorce, passer toutes conventions pour la liquidation et le partage de leur r\u00e9gime matrimonial. Lorsque la liquidation porte sur des biens soumis \u00e0 la publicit\u00e9 fonci\u00e8re, la convention doit \u00eatre pass\u00e9e par acte notari\u00e9.” 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 d\u00e9cision rendue par une juridiction \u00e9trang\u00e8re qui, par application de sa loi nationale, refuse de donner effet \u00e0 un contrat de mariage re\u00e7u en France, n’est pas en soi contraire \u00e0 l’ordre public international fran\u00e7ais de fond et ne peut \u00eatre \u00e9cart\u00e9e que si elle consacre de mani\u00e8re concr\u00e8te, au cas d’esp\u00e8ce, une situation incompatible avec les principes du droit fran\u00e7ais consid\u00e9r\u00e9s comme essentiels”. The decision is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 2 December 2020, No 18-20.691<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> or write via our contact page<\/a>. We advise British families throughout France.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" British couple with a house in France facing divorce after Brexit: which French court has jurisdiction, which law divides money and property, and how an English decision is examined in France.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16494,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80312,80314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2117388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Can you still divorce in England after moving to France, and what if both countries are asked at once?<\/h3>\n
II. Which Law Divides Your Money and What Happens to Your French House<\/h2>\n
A. Which law governs your divorce, your maintenance and the compensatory payment?<\/h3>\n
B. Who keeps the house in France, how is it divided, and will the other country accept the outcome?<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case.<\/h2>\n