In the gilded world of high-net-worth divorce, settlements can include everything from a Mayfair mansion and private vineyard to a superyacht in Monaco and a museum-worthy art collection. In fact, it’s rarely as simple as ‘you take the house, I’ll take the car’. For the super-rich, divorces likely involve questions including: Who gets the Basquiat? The Birkin archive? The château in Provence or the Aston Martin with the custom monogrammed seats?

Welcome to divorce in the age of lifestyle wealth – a world where assets are as much about identity and aesthetic as they are about investment portfolios. And when couples unravel decades of shared luxury, it’s not just the children, the properties or the pensions that stir emotion. It’s the Picassos, the Porsches and the beloved Maltese terrier with its own Instagram account.

As Lisa Payne, associate in the Family team at Wilsons Solicitors, explains, “Whilst the family home is the obvious example of a joint asset, regardless of whose name it is in, luxury items are not as straightforward. They’re often held by one party only and may be emotionally charged.”

From art to watches to wine cellars, these lifestyle assets sit in a bit of a grey zone, one that is part status symbol, part personal treasure.

It’s complicated

In divorce law, one of the first questions is whether an asset is matrimonial (acquired during the marriage) or non-matrimonial (owned prior to the marriage, inherited, or gifted individually). The answer can dramatically change how it’s treated.

“If an asset was acquired during the marriage using joint resources and enjoyed by both parties, it’s likely to be considered matrimonial and shared,” says Payne. “But if it was inherited or bought using separate funds, it may remain with the individual who brought it in.”

Sounds simple enough – that is until the asset in question is a yacht currently being chartered in the Mediterranean, or a vintage car collection split between several international storage facilities. The global nature of lifestyle assets introduces a whole new layer of legal complexity.

The trouble with tangibles

Dividing a pension fund or real estate portfolio is relatively straightforward. Dividing a rare handbag collection, a trophy villa in St. Barths or an art installation hanging in a private jet hangar? That’s where things can get tricky.

“All assets need to be disclosed on divorce, whether that’s art, luxury vehicles, handbags, or jewellery,” says Payne. “But in ultra-high-net-worth cases, one party may not even know the full extent of the other’s collection.”

It’s a challenge compounded by the surge in luxury goods that appreciate in value. An Hermès Birkin once considered a frivolous indulgence might now command auction-level prices. Designer watches, limited-edition trainers and NFT art pieces all enter the fray and not every spouse has receipts or a genuine awareness of their true worth.

“In a recent case,” Payne notes, “there was a considerable art collection. Only a portion of it was valued and then applied proportionally to the rest. This can make the true value difficult to determine, but the court will be guided by expert evidence.”

High drama and designer disputes

As Kiran Beeharry, Family partner at SA Law, points out, the court doesn’t ignore luxury: “All assets over £500 must be disclosed. In high-net-worth cases, an offset approach is often taken – one party retains the asset, the other receives a lump sum or equivalent value in another asset.”

But that doesn’t mean it's without contention. “There’s always a battle between someone seeking the 'copper bottom' asset – property, for example – and the person who wants to retain items of personal or sentimental value,” Beeharry adds.

With values and emotions running high, the courtroom can resemble a luxury auction house crossed with a therapy session. “In our modern world, material items have significant value, not just in monetary terms but in status and sentiment,” says Payne. “People can be embroiled in disputes over these and will litigate fiercely.”

And it’s not just bags and Bentleys; pets are becoming flashpoints too. “We’ve seen parties making submissions to the court similar to how they would in proceedings concerning children,” Payne notes. “But ultimately, animals are still regarded as chattels. One party is awarded ownership, like with a car.”

The emotional weight of these items often exceeds their financial value. A husband may not care for the sculpture he once commissioned but he might care deeply that his soon-to-be-ex-wife nabs it. Likewise, a wife may not want the chalet but may not want her husband to enjoy it either.

Jet-set assets

Add international logistics into the mix and divorce becomes a game of high-stakes asset chess. A wine cellar in Bordeaux, a lodge in Verbier, a yacht moored in Cannes – all need to be assessed, valued and potentially liquidated or divided.

“Luxury items are often stored outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales,” Payne explains. “This adds another layer of complexity to a case. The expertise of an experienced family lawyer is crucial in advising on these issues.”

Yachts, in particular, present challenges. Is it a business asset, generating charter income? Was it jointly used, or a status symbol enjoyed solo? Is it mortgaged, or is its flag state complicating jurisdiction?

As with everything in luxury divorce, context is king and compromise, while not always preferred, is more often than not the only viable path.

Final sale or forever yours?

When it comes to dividing lifestyle assets, the battle is rarely just about numbers, it comes down to meaning. In many high-net-worth divorces, the central question isn’t ‘how much is it worth?’ but rather ‘what does it represent?’ A family château, for example, might be more than just bricks and equity; it could symbolise lineage, legacy or the happiest chapters of family life. Likewise, a yacht might not just be a floating asset, it might be the stage for milestone birthdays, first holidays as a family, or the image of success one spouse worked a lifetime to create.

“These are not just possessions,” says Beeharry. “They often carry emotional weight and reflect an individual’s identity or journey.” Courts, he explains, do have wide discretion in how they divide such assets. While judgments may be presented in strictly financial terms, the emotional backstory almost always plays a role in shaping outcomes.

At the same time, emotional attachment doesn’t exempt an asset from scrutiny. Attempting to hide or downplay the significance or value of items can backfire quickly. “The court will leave no stone unturned,” warns Payne. “If there’s evidence, or even suspicion, that assets have been concealed or undervalued, the court may draw adverse inferences.”

In other words, the strategy of quietly underreporting a rare watch collection or parking an undisclosed artwork in a friend’s pied-à-terre abroad is not only risky, it’s almost guaranteed to be uncovered.

The best approach, Payne advises, is transparency. “Even if an asset is deeply personal or sentimentally important, honesty from the outset allows your legal team to negotiate fairly and proactively – rather than firefighting claims of dishonesty later on.”

Read more: The complexities of superyacht security for modern families