Can he go after her pension?

[mouche202]

My best friend is going through a rocky patch in her marriage and has asked me to research what her finances might be if they divorce.

She has been married for 15 years and has one child. She has worked throughout her marriage apart from mat leave and a 9 month career break. Her husband has been in and out of work and has mostly earned less than her. Total time out of work maybe 3 years in the past 15 - a few months at a time.

They own a house jointly. Her pension is roughly ten times his (he only started one recently, it seems). Most savings in her name as she's more interested in that sort of thing.

She knows they will split the house and probably the savings but is worried about her pension. She wouldn't mind sharing that if he had been a SAHP but he has never done much parenting even when he was out of work. Could he make a claim on her pension?

Yes. She needs to see a solicitor.

My understanding is that a pension simply counts as savings, so yes. But someone more knowledgeable than me might come along with better advice.

Yes, pension and savings both up for grabs. She needs a solicitor

Yes he can. Good solicitor needed.

Personal experience is pension can be left untouched if an unequal split of savings is made.

Yes!

Yes. The extent to which he is entitled to her pension will depend partly on their respective ages and the difference in earnings between them. It's very hard to predict an outcome but there are all kinds of principles in law to be aware of such as needs and the sharing principle.

For example, if they're both still early 40s and earning a similar amount now then a view could be taken that he still has time to save his own pension before retirement so maybe a 50/50 split is not appropriate. Or perhaps he earns less and will need more of the home equity, in which case she might keep more of the pension as an offset.

Pensions are also quite complicated because the face value is not necessarily comparable with "current" assets. They're invested, they cannot be gotten at without big tax liabilities until they are in their mid-fifties and investments can go down as well as up so you might value them at about 70% of their current value to take this into account. So you are 'allowed' to diminish their value relative to the other assets in a negotiation.

She needs not only legal but financial advice.

These figures and dates are all quite similar to mine. Ex got shitloads because he convinced them that none of those things were his choice, that he had to work less because I made him, I wouldn't let him save, I wouldn't let him create a pension, I made him take out debt (even though the credit cards dated after we left)...
Lots of factors are taken into consideration, but yes, generally the less well off in the marriage, gets awarded more.

(Interestingly, he still has the same job, working part time for minimum wage, despite a high earning potential...)

@copernicium

These figures and dates are all quite similar to mine. Ex got shitloads because he convinced them that none of those things were his choice, that he had to work less because I made him, I wouldn't let him save, I wouldn't let him create a pension, I made him take out debt (even though the credit cards dated after we left)... Lots of factors are taken into consideration, but yes, generally the less well off in the marriage, gets awarded more.

(Interestingly, he still has the same job, working part time for minimum wage, despite a high earning potential...)

Unfortunately so. The court has no real interest in whether the weaker financial party is in their position out of hard choices made for the benefit of the family (such as staying at home to look after young children for a few years) or whether they're just weaker because they're a waste of space scrounging lazy arse who never bothered building a career. Either way they have "needs" that are "generously interpreted" and tend to get about 70% of the assets or thereabouts.

The only saving grace is that these lazy sods are expected to work rather than be maintained these days. Even then however, they might enjoy sponging off their ex if that ex earns enough and again the courts really don't care whether it's a case of can't or won't maximise their earning potential in a way the general public will interpret it (doing a job commensurate with skill level at divorce is all the court will ever expect. The courts should, in my opinion, assess the ability of the weaker financial party to do more than just get a job with their skills but also factor in promotions etc that would be normal with such a career. The claim that courts don't like a crystal ball is rubbish because they are certainly happy to predict that a high earner won't lose their job and be unable to find another one when they divvy up the assets).

This turned out much more interesting than I though!

So (absolutely in theory only, because we have no plans to split) if my DH and I were to split he would get more than 50% of assets because he doesn’t work? I always assumed it would just be a 50:50 split and then each party goes on their way.

So (at the risk of sounding begrudging here), I work my arse off 60hrs+per week for 30 years while he plays Xbox, and he ultimately benefits from it if we were to split?

Yep my exh didn’t work (still doesn’t) and got half my pension.

Yes.

Assets accrued during the marriage are assumed to be split equally, in the first instance, irrespective of who earned more/saved more/spent more.

3 years out of 15 is still a.pretty small proportion tbh

@TwinkleTwinkleLittleStarFightr

This turned out much more interesting than I though!

So (absolutely in theory only, because we have no plans to split) if my DH and I were to split he would get more than 50% of assets because he doesn’t work? I always assumed it would just be a 50:50 split and then each party goes on their way.

So (at the risk of sounding begrudging here), I work my arse off 60hrs+per week for 30 years while he plays Xbox, and he ultimately benefits from it if we were to split?

Do you have children?

The reason why someone isn’t working (or isn’t working FT) is relevant to the asset split.

If you’re in a caring role (children) that limits your earnings/employment and facilitates the other partner to earn more (by being dinestic at-home partner) then you might get more than 50/50.

If you’re child-free and he’s capable of work but prefers to not work and x-box instead, and can’t demonstrate value added then much less likely to have a case.

He is capable of work but prefers not to, going back to 5 years before we had children, but that also then made it easier for us to have and care for children.

I guess I t would be complicated. Fortunately it’s only hypothetical!

Although I do wish I had known the implications of that before marriage. As I say, I do not expect us to split, and if we did then I would have expected 50:50, but wouldn’t have knowingly signed up to more than that.

Sorry to have hijacked your thread OP. It’s been an eye opener!,

Could OP's friend bide her time a bit and convince the husband to contribute a greater % of salary pre-tax to his pension and also get a better job? Boost his pension with spousal contributions? I'd do that at the expense of family savings, if all that was in the pot for division anyway.

My divorce took nearly 3 years with my ex-husband being a dick and Court delays with Covid. So if there is a positive trajectory in his pension for a period of time and that shows the Court that he can save, maybe OP's friend won't take such a hit on her pension.

And consult a good lawyer now to see what planning would help!

Thank you everyone for your answers. Not an easy message to give her but at least she can decide what to do from a position of knowledge. I'm sorry to hear how many of you have been shafted by lazy twats. From what I know, my friends husband is a hard worker and currently earns relatively good money. But he rarely stays in a job more than 6 months so his income can't be relied on. And he does next to no parenting and is verbally abusive in public to my poor, gentle friend.

My pension was worth 10 times my exh but I got to keep it all & the house, the forms just asked what my pension was & the value, I put it was a final salary one & my current annual salary & it never got picked up.

@TwinkleTwinkleLittleStarFightr

This turned out much more interesting than I though!

So (absolutely in theory only, because we have no plans to split) if my DH and I were to split he would get more than 50% of assets because he doesn’t work? I always assumed it would just be a 50:50 split and then each party goes on their way.

So (at the risk of sounding begrudging here), I work my arse off 60hrs+per week for 30 years while he plays Xbox, and he ultimately benefits from it if we were to split?

Well it depends on a lot of factors but potentially yes, you could end up with less than him. The main principles in most cases are "sharing" and "needs" (needs interpreted generously based on the standard of living in the marriage). However, there are so, so many things to consider in every case, some of which are:

1. Are their children? Their needs trump everything else. If your DH was the primary carer (and unfortunately yes, "primary carer" does include parents who just don't bother working and drag up the kids doing the bare minimum when the breadwinner isn't there) then they'll probably get residency in a divorce, receive child maintenance and get a bigger split of assets. If you earned a lot of money (say six figures or thereabouts) then there would probably be spousal maintenance too.

No children would probably shift things closer to an even split and DH would be expected to get a job rather than rely on maintenance;

2. Age will be a factor. If you're both close to retirement and neither has long to recover from a lesser than 50% share of the assets, then 50/50 is more likely except in the unusual situations where people in their late 50s have young children;

3. Differences in earning capacity. One might be deemed more able to recoup the difference in assets lost than the other or will have a greater mortgage capacity so will lose more of the house in order that the housing "needs" of both can be met;

4. Can a clean break be achieved? If it means giving the weaker financial party more of the assets to free the other from maintenance the law might point in this direction.

These are just examples and there are many others. However, as the DH of someone who never had a career and was more a "parent who didn't work" than a "SAHP" I can strongly recommend you send your DH out into the world of work, otherwise in a divorce you could be dragged down by a sponging loser for years.

@TwinkleTwinkleLittleStarFightr

This turned out much more interesting than I though!

So (absolutely in theory only, because we have no plans to split) if my DH and I were to split he would get more than 50% of assets because he doesn’t work? I always assumed it would just be a 50:50 split and then each party goes on their way.

So (at the risk of sounding begrudging here), I work my arse off 60hrs+per week for 30 years while he plays Xbox, and he ultimately benefits from it if we were to split?

I doubt it in your case. Usually the residential parent will get more because they need to house the kids. If your kids are adults then I can’t see why it wouldn’t be 50:50 same as if it was the other way round.

"I work my arse off 60hrs+per week for 30 years while he plays Xbox, and he ultimately benefits from it if we were to split?L

@TwinkleTwinkleLittleStarFightr yes op that's correct and many men could substitute the Xbox, with shopping and coffee mornings and have the same view as you. The laws were drafted to favour women but occasionally bite us as well given that more are having and keeping a career and the unfairness is becoming slightly more apparent.

A friend of mine (high flyer) got shafted as well. She has a lazy husband (I don't understand why she put up with him) but he did the equivalent of coffee mornings whilst she was out flogging her guts out and then got a huge chunk of the assets as there was a fair amount all generated by her. He argued for a greater share of the cashable assets as he had the greater housing need etc than having her pension

Yes pensions are included as assets in a divorce. Utter madness IMHO?

@Viviennemary

Yes pensions are included as assets in a divorce. Utter madness IMHO?

Silly comment.

Thanks so much for the responses. I think, even though I have no expectation of us splitting, I might take this a bit further and get some legal advice.

For clarity DC are young teens, and we are both late 40s/early 50s. DH was supposed to get a part time job when they started school, but didn’t, and then supposed to get a full time job when they started secondary, but didn’t. He “doesn’t see the point because he wouldn’t earn enough for it to be worthwhile”.

This thread has made me realise that although I don’t intend for us to split, it might not be instigated by me, and I had no idea I had left myself so financially vulnerable to that situation.

I didn’t even want to get married in the first place, but everyone said it “provides security”.

I’ve been working my ass off trying to get us in a position where I could semi-retire (I.e. just move to a more normal job) in my mid 50s, but can see now that if he instigated a split I might be forced to keep working a job I hate for longer just to further sustain his choices.

For the record, I love him, want to stay with him, and don’t even resent his not working (much), but I don’t see why that should be to my detriment. (50:50 is fair enough though).

If anyone is worried that their assets might be given to a spouse who has spent 30 yrs lazing around playing Xbox, I'd offer the following advice:

• In the first place, do not marry someone who is lazy. Choose a grafter. If you must get together with someone like this, don't marry them.
• If your spouse starts doing this (lazing around, not working, and not because they are providing childcare) after marriage, divorce them. Don't leave it for 30 yrs, as the assets you have to give them will only grow.
• Don't labour under the delusion that having 'separate finances' during your marriage will protect you when you divorce. If you are married, you have legally signed up to joint finances, whether you like it or not.

I appreciate that the above advice is too late for some people. But it's sensible for those in the early stages of marriage / relationships.

Before marriage there really should be a compulsory "terms and conditions" document/training session, so people understand exactly what they are letting themselves in for.