When is fair fair Pension vs House

[PaulaBawla]

In the same predicament as half the country it seems DH has moved out married way too long and 2 grown up children who have fled the next and we are in the process of splitting up.

He is going for either 50/50 or me 60 him 40. The stumbling block is his pension.

Hes offered me the house (about £1m) and business t/o 250k a year in return for him getting a small cottage (about 360k and him keeping his DB pension about £630k).

Im saying I want half the pension the business and the house or I can’t afford the upkeep (which would be about 70/30 to me).

But has said that’s ok if he gets half the house?!!! (again 50/50 apart from the business) but that would mean me having to sell up which I don’t want to do.

In the end can/could the court force me to sell and does my offer seem reasonable my solicitor is hesitant and his solicitor is well not very cooperative…

You’re focusing on how much you “need” to fund the aspirational lifestyle you want. Not the fair division of the assets there actually are - which is what a court will be interested in.

Because I don’t want to work until 67

Very few people do. I do think you are being grabby. If you can't afford to run the house then you'll have to sell it. If you do this an buy a smaller house then you can afford to retire before you reach 67! This is what your dh is having to do, I'm not sure why you think it's different for you. I'm afraid you can't have it all.

I think you need mediation or advice from independent financial advisors as well as your solicitors. In my opinion his offer sounds reasonable ...I don't understand why the business would cease to have any value when you retire ? Surely you could sell it on ? And in the meantime it's achieving a GP of £125k , paying you £1k per month plus paying another £1k into your pension pot. You have a reasonable cushion for any contingencies in your savings and a house worth £1million. (Is that even practical for you living alone ?)I think a lot of divorcing women on here would be counting their blessings with that offer, not asking for more !

Wow. When lesbian friends divorced last year one of them wanted more on the basis that she wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle she was used to without it. That didn't wash with the court which gave her short shrift.

The constant refrain of 'I don't want to' won't get you anywhere. Your marriage has broken down and you're going to have to compromise.

You say you have a business with a turnover of £250k which makes 50% profit but you only take £12k from it. So what happens to the rest of the profit?

You say you don't want to work till you're 67. Neither does any other woman. So you either have to find employment that will pay more than £12k a year or downsize or putter on to 67. You expect to be kept in the manner you've become used to, in a £1million house, for the rest of your life? It's not going to happen.

The OP says it's a defined benefit pension, so his won't be.

Just looked back and see you're taking £100k in dividends as well as £12k pay and £12k pension. Are you having a laugh? The reason your solicitor is reluctant is because he knows how unreasonable you're being and knows that if this goes to court you'll only get 50%.

No, you're completely wrong. This is fair. He's giving over his right to half the house so you give up your right to half his pension.

I can't quite understand why you think you should get more that 50%. You earn well, have no dependents, but seem to feel entitled to keep a £1M house that you can't afford to run in your retirement!

Of course you're going to have to sell the house if you can't afford to keep it. Your exH has no obligation to keep you in the house.

The house isn’t huge (it’s only a 3 bedroom end of terrace) just in a really nice area (not in London but close to it) and I really need 3 bedrooms for when my children come to stay or friends. I don’t see why I need to give it up or end up diving into savings to keep it running or as I said before not have a guaranteed pension when I retire that was all

The reason you need to do that is because you're getting divorced. You're no longer half of a couple, with all the financial benefits that brings.

You don't "need" three beds. You're one person. Your children are adults. They've moved out. The courts won't take them into account. And anyway, they are also your exH's children. Does he "need" extra rooms too?

You can go after a guaranteed pension, by giving up half the house. Or get the huge house with three rooms for just you. You can't possibly think it's reasonable to have both?!?

Most people would be grabbing the 60/40 offer on the table with both hands. The court will award much closer to 50/50.

It probably sounds brutal, but you need to stop being so entitled and be realistic. Divorce almost always means a drop in living standards and retiring later. Just be glad you aren't still looking after primary age children, or disabled children, or anything else that's really non-negotiable and stops you working longer hours to get back on track financially.

The situation you describe is incredibly well off and really generous on your exH part already. Think carefully before you turn it down.

For the umpteenth time you don't have to if you don't want. Take the £100k a year you make each year and be sensible and put it into a bloody pension. Rocket science it isn't.

Have you read the other thread on divorce/separation? "how can I afford to live"

You are in a financially stable situation here whatever happens you'll have no money worries and if you can't afford to keep the house just sell it and buy something smaller

Sounds like your soon to be ex husband is being quite fair too I have friends who've come out much worse than this in these situation

Including a judge.

So you want him to do all the giving up. Completely unfair.

You're demands are unreasonable. You can't get everything you want.

You need to work out which irks more important a 3 bed 1m house or the boost to your pension.

If it goes to court, you assets and his assets are combined and split 50/50 so he'd be eligible for half of your pension and savings plus legal fees can be ££££

Because you can’t afford it, according to you, without taking more than your fair share of the joint assets.

How can you claim to run a business yet be completely unable to understand that you don’t get more than half of the assets just because you want it? Did your parents never explain to you that what you want doesn’t define what is fair?

This has to be a reverse. It's so obviously unfair. Well done for keeping it up OP, with the naive "I've never done this before I just want some opinions". Whether it's fair to live in a £1m house with savings of £80k, a business making profits of £120k pa and a £100k pension. Surely you can add up and divide by 2 and work out that your share is bigger than his? If you don't want to work til 67 and are worried about the upkeep on your £1m house, guess what? You can downsize!

Ok well you've made your unwavering position clear and not a single poster has agreed with you I don't think. Neither will the court. So perhaps you need to revisit your options.

How come you need a bigger house for your kids to stay but you think he should have a smaller house? Surely if you’re arguing about bedrooms for the (grown up) kids and being able to stay in the same area he should have the same? Also, why can’t you afford upkeep on a smallish three bedroom house in London?

Either a reverse or the most entitled op in a while.
if the house isn’t huge and only a 3 bed terrace how on earth does it have huge running costs?
you are being grossly unreasonable, please go to court and accept the decision ( hint, it will be a fuck tonne less than your demands)

Surely from biz profits you can put a tax efficient £40K into your own pension each year (plus back pay for a few missed years) and take out enough to cover mortgage each year?!?

OP, is there a mortgage on the £1m property? Otherwise many of us are confused why the costs of maintaining a 3 bed terrace would be such a concern to you.

Trying to get my head around this. Are you assuming that as he's the one who's taken the step of moving out — even though you agree that the marriage was effectively dead — he's the one who must pay the price for making the break? That's not how a judge will see it. You need to lose the 'I don't see why I should' attitude, and the assumption that you're hard-up. Even with a 50-50 split you'd be better off than 85% of the population. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and start feeling thrilled that you're a single woman with a business returning £120k pa and a house worth £1million.

Can’t help but think this is either a reverse or a set up story.

No mortgage, I don’t understand this reverse thing I am/was just worried that I will receive no pension until I’m 67 and won’t be able to support myself until then if I stopped working so wanted some income I love my house dearly that was all

I don't know why anyone (including me) is continuing to respond to this, because you simply aren't reason.

However bangs head against brick wall let's try one more time.

The divorce system aims to leave both parties on an equal footing. It is possible to depart from 50/50 but only where certain conditions are met. E.g.

1. there are children to house and not enough assets for both parents to have enough bedrooms for the kids (not the case here as children are grown and there are plenty of assets).
2. if one person earns significantly more than the other. And the lower earner cannot reasonably increase earnings. (OP, YOU are the higher earner here, your dividends count, and your tax efficient salary is irrelevant).

None of the standard reasons apply here. So I would expect a 50/50 split.

All assets are on the table for that 50/50 split. So for instance your pensions and savings go in as well as his. You can't just decide to split all his assets whilst keeping yours (this would be true even if you could somehow justify a deviation from 50/50 - which you can't).

That doesn't mean everything needs to be split down the middle. Things can be offset. For instance as he's suggested the house vs the pension. You could agree to leave the pension alone in return for the house for instance.

Broadly - leaving the business off the table for now, there are about £2.2mn assets in play.

You each get approx £1.1million. This can be divided however you like.

For instance, you could keep the house, and £100k of you pension.

He could keep his pension, the cottage, all your £80k savings, all £10k his savings and £20k of your pension. - that would be fair.

OR.

You could split his pension 50/50, split the house £50/50, and then divide the savings, your pension and the cottage so it's 50/50 equiv (that could be flogging and dividing OR one person gets the cottage and the other gets your DC pension and the savings).

I've taken the business off for simplicity, but realistically I think one of two things should be happening here.

Either he gets a share of dividends OR he gets a slightly bigger equity split to account for your higher earnings, the cash in the business, etc etc.

His offer is EXTREMELY generous, and gives you more than the courts would. What you're expecting is EXTREMELY unreasonable, unrealistic, and has no basis in law.

• yes you can be forced to sell the house
• if you don't want to sell the house, leave his pension alone (even then you may find that your consent order isn't rubber stamped because the balance of assets is in your favour).