AIBU to want half of the pension after divorce?

The OP isn’t going to be rich though is she?

@DivorcingDebbie25 so I am assuming that when you mention your small pension - are you referring to a state pension or has he been putting money into a private pension for you?

I am no expert but I believe you do have a claim on his pension. A forty‑year marriage as a SAHM, supporting his career and raising his kids. This is textbook long‑marriage, needs‑based, equal‑sharing territory.

You do not have to accept “half the income.” I think your husband is describing a pension attachment order (also called earmarking). These are rarely used because it means you only get income when he chooses to retire, he controls the timing, you get nothing if he dies first, you cannot take a lump sum, you cannot plan your own finances and it keeps you tied to him and so Courts avoid these because they are controlling and unstable.

The normal route is a Pension Sharing Order (PSO). As part of the financial settlement for the divorce, a percentage split is decided (can be 50/50) of the actual pension fund as it stands upon your divorce.

But you do not get it as cash, it gets transferred into a pension scheme in your name so you have control of your share of his pension and he no longer has any entitlement to it or any say in what you do with it. A PSO means you control when you retire (as long as its within the terms of the pension). So I am assuming you are early 60's so lets say 62, so for example pick a pension scheme with an expected retirement date of 63 then at 63 you can take 25% tax‑free lump sum (if the receiving pension allows it) upon retirement which you can use for whatever purpose but presumably to top up funds available for a house. Then with the remaining 75% you then get your own income stream, separate from him as a pension, if he dies, your pension is unaffected so basically you are financially independent of him. This is the standard outcome in long marriages.

You can ask for half the value (but if you have a private pension he can ask for half of yours too). In a 40‑year marriage, the starting point is 50/50 of all marital assets, including pensions. Courts don’t say “half the income.” They say “half the value.”

Future inheritance - Once divorced, you have no automatic claim on his future inheritance unless you leave the financial order open (which you shouldn’t).
But you can argue that you sacrificed earning capacity as having been a SAHM for 40yrs diminishes your earning capacity now (if you are young enough to work) as you supported his career especially with child and home care, but that should not affect your long term financial security, This affects the settlement now, not future inheritance. But if he is coming up to retirement if they do afford you like a maintenance payment, it would only be until he retires not after.And if that is the case he may just retire now.

Asking for half the current value of his pension fund upon divorce is the norm, but it goes into a pension for you, it is not cash. Whilst he is asking for a rare, disadvantageous option that keeps you dependent on him and allows him to control you and will significantly reduce your options.

Speak to a solicitor for the financial settlement. Do not agree to anything until you have had advice,

No it doesn’t although it’s certainly unwise to never go back to work because of situations like this.

I don’t really get this argument to be honest. The fact I wash & cook doesn’t detract from my ability to do my job same for DH.

I assume that you live in a large property in a sought-after area so is it really true that you would need more than half the value of your house to be able to buy a property for yourself? Or do you mean that you need more than half the value of your current house because you expect to carry on with the same luxurious lifestyle once your are divorced?

Your marriage sounds really old fashioned, like one from the 1950s. Did you have domestic staff such as nannies and cleaners?

Depends on the job doesn’t it and how long the working hours are.

And the fact that OP’s DH may not know how to do any of these things as he’s probably never had to do them himself.

Why should she be entitled or allowed a penny of a pension she didn’t work for? She chose not to contribute for 40 whole years even when her children were/are grown ass adults.

She’s had more than her fair share out of her nearly ex husbands pockets for the last 40 years so for me no she shouldn’t be entitled to a penny of his hard earned pension when she chose not to work for a single day which blows my mind her children are adults she’s just chose to sit on her bottom for the last 35 years now expects him to continue to make her comfy for that.

how do I know he’s worked hard? He clearly has worked hard for a good enough pension for the OP to be going after considering he’s the only one that worked ever. For the last 40 years he’s definitely managed to make HIMSELF quite a nice pot to retire on. He has no obligation to fund a woman’s life who could have picked up her own income at any point but chose not to.

Wow you have such a moochie attitude. I get being a SAHM but seriously your youngest is 38. You are entitled to a share but probably not 50% of his pension. I think you might need to reevaluate your lifestyle or where you live. I think this is a sad post in some ways as you seem to have built no life outside of this marriage. Praying you find the right path.

Half his pension is unfair. Personally I could justify 50% for the period you were looking after kids between ages of 0-18 which depending on the age gap of you kids could be e g 20 years. The rest of his pension belongs to him, you should have been working and paying into your own pension pot. He's already done more than enough to keep you by working during your marriage while you pottered round the house.

50% of the house value is fair.

half his pension does indeed mean half the total capital (yours and his) but it needs to be transferred into a pension pot in your name - depending on your age and the conditions you may or may not be able to realise some of the capital.

Just getting the income and leaving him with the capital is absurd and does not protect you in the same way.

Definitely get legal advice - key point mentioned above is that 50/50 of total assets incd pension is the starting point in UK - there need to be reasons for it to be different

I’m not sure why I’m being called greedy and a parasite. He didn’t want me to work. He was happy to pay for everything. More fool me for assuming it would last forever but here we are.

But that’s not fair. She gave up her future earnings by being a SAHM so she gets half of all the assets they worked for together. That’s the law in UK even with all the misogyny and patriarchy screwing us beforehand.
Have you seen the latest re women invoicing for all the unpaid labour they do? It can run into the millions depending on how many years they put in to the household, the husband, each kid. 🤔

Pottering around the house? Being a housewife is a job!

Whereas I know loads. It is very common among those able to afford private school to also be able to afford and enjoy the status of having a wife at home. I would say probably 60-70% of the wives I know in their 50s do not work.

I think people are perhaps just envious?
My mum-in-law, older than you in her mid 80s, worked for a couple of years only in between getting married and having kids. Once she had the kids, she never went back to work and she had them at 18, i.e. she was 38/40 when the kids were aged 20!

I'd never expected her to start working aged 60 after all that time.