Pension vs House - i don't want to be stitched up

[whycantitbecalm]

Apologies if this has been answered a million times before but, we are at the stage where we are sorting out finances.

Background:

Married 19 yrs together 22
I am 42 he is 51
We have 3 teens: 13,15 & 16

I am a SAHM with a small lifestyle business turning over between 5-10k annually
I have no pension

He works full time earning 150k annually, with two pensions worth 100k & 650k

We own our home together, 100k left on mortgage, worth around 500k

My Question:

So his biggest worry is that i'll take his pensions. We are about to start mediation, i am concerned that he is going to come to me with an offer of "you keep the house and i'll keep my pensions" (he's a salesman and emotionally abusive and manipulative, hence the divorce)
Selling it to me as a good idea, and blindsiding me with security for our boys short term (who are staying with me)

Anyone have any clue how this should go, and what is a more reasonable settlement?
This is so confusing, and as a wife to someone who has always managed to prey on my naivety for over 20 yrs i can't let this happen again.

Kind advice welcome

OP - I would definitely see a solicitor as it could be a very expensive mistake not to get legal advice on your own circumstances. Seeing a solicitor doesn't mean it becomes acrimonious it just means you are better informed.

There is quite a bit of research suggesting that women either ignore pensions when they divorce or overvalue housing security and give up pension sharing in order to keep the house. There is relatively recent research here www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/pension-inequality-a-major-issue-when-couples-divorce-research-finds/ that may help you - the full report is at the end.

Often though, they take housing security because they have to. Judges aren't just going to give the weaker financial party an extra few grand of pension money on top because they're asked nicely. It would result in an extremely unfair settlement for the other party that is likely to be reduced on appeal.

When the weaker financial party needs almost all the equity to house themselves, it would be egregiously unfair to then give them a significant chunk of the pension too, leaving the other party with very little. Normally it's a reasonable assumption that the party who got the house can downsize and use some of the equity for a pension in retirement (plus if the party is young enough to get a job and save their own pension too).

Well part of the problem is that, as appears to be the case here, the pension is more valuable than the home and taking the home but ignoring the pension can result in far less than 50% of the assets. We don't know anythign about the OPs area and whether they could sell the house and both adequately house themselves as well as splitting the pension Anyway this is not my personal opinion in the OPs situation as she needs tailored advice for that. With a fairly large pension it would be well worth paying for that advice. It's fairly clear that the complexity of pensions means that many couples leave them/don't properly value them in their settlement and that that tends to disfavour women. You can see that research I posted but there is more out there too.

Well, yes, but you need to be careful here about what "disfavouring women" actually means. Normally they're talking about women in their late 50s who get a mortgage free house and then realise they have no income. Not women with more than half their career ahead of them and no rent or mortgage left to pay and therefore lots of capacity to save.

I’d ask for house and 100k pension.

legal agreement that maintenance to be paid for boys until they complete uni!

It can be particularly difficult for older women but the problem isn't limited to older women. On the face of it, if the OP took the house and left the pension she would have less than half of the assets. The research is not at all limited to older women. OP this advice booklet is quite a good starting point but see a lawyer www.advicenow.org.uk/guides/survival-guide-pensions-divorce

Sure, but the flip side is the pension value could be very misleading and could lose value in the next 14 years. It's also totally useless as an asset until you draw it down. Money has a time value and getting the equity in the house has a real value now that can be used, which a pension does not.

Yes which is why I would get detailed advice. Given the complexity of valuing pensions and the fact that the pension appears to amount to around 2/3rds of the marital assets she would be very well-advised to do that and to go into mediation with that expert advice. If there is pension sharing she will need a consent order anyway so it is sensible to understand the legalities.

Do not sell yourself short.

Also if he’s an idiot why not let him half his retirement money? He’s still got years to go before he retires and you are only suing what he’s eating up to 52.

Tell him he has time.

You will need it to spend on therapy for the years of putting up with his shite. And to help your boys. You brought them up and he could only work with you bringing them up.

Ask for a minimum of 50/50 in everything.

Sayon - hat tosh

pethaps ops ex will need therapy from putting up with her? Who knows?! As for him having time - op is 9 years younger with over 20 years to pay her own way and fund her future.

op should get her fair share absolutely but will need to work full time to pay her way

When deciding how to distribute a couple’s assets and income the court has to apply a checklist of factors set by statute. The relevant statute is section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. These factors will need to be applied in every case, regardless of whether you are engaged in court proceedings or negotiating your own settlement. These are often called the Section 25 factors, which the court will take into account when deciding how to distribute assets upon divorce or dissolution.

Section 25 (2)(f)
The contributions which each of the parties has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family.
The starting point is that contributions made by the parties during the marriage are viewed as equal. The contribution of the breadwinner should not be treated any differently to the contribution of the home-maker.

images.ctfassets.net/o8luwa28k6k2/2cpp2mEMwBJWJLuzTiTruB/b5397e7459154fad8927826a2c99acdd/section-25-expert-guide.pdf

Please let listen to @Responsetowhycantitbecalm - her advice is extremely pertinent.

Make sure you get a solicitor who is on the ball.

Also, there must be additional financial assets besides his pensions - ISAs, investment accounts, premium bonds, stocks and shares... I'd be concerned that he might try to hide stuff.

Oh she should skin him.

Anything you earn in top whilst still bringing up your fairly young kids is fine.

You don’t need to be paying your way into old age. You will have his pension pot, yr state pension, you will be fine.

@millymollymoomoo get yourself to work my dear and pay your way. Let the OP take the portion she is entitled to. And the guy can get back to work to make up the difference as he’s only 52.

Skin him guilt free. He took your liberties away too with you having to bring up kids. Guilt free, remember.

you are off your ricjer
hopefully op will simply ignore your delusions

50/50 and you stay in the house until eldest left then sell it.

Sorry until youngest left I mean.

This is what I was going to say

It does not mean 175k from the pension
we have no idea whether these are defined benefit, defined contribution, final salary or their actual transfer vakue

theyvsre not an available liquid asset and as stated £1 of pension is unlikely to be £1 of equity

lip you need mediation and legal advice and a proper valuation of oensions

you should also have an expectation that you’ll need to work to finance yourself

By all means finance yourself when you are ready to. Till then get your fair share. Guilt free, remember. Skin him.

go away sayonarastu

I quick look at wikidivorce calculator puts it at 80./20 in your favour, plus £90 spousal support per week.

However, this doesn't ask the ages of the children and the closer the children are to 18 when your divorce is finalised, the less money you'll get. As it stands now, you'll probably only have one dependant child when the divorce goes through.

I'd make a big push to put it through sooner rather than later.

1. The Wikivorce calculator is notoriously inaccuarate;

2. It's also notoriously out of date;

3. If you based it on OPs income then the data you entered is wrong. A settlement would be based on her earning capacity, not what her lifestyle business makes.

In summary OP

You need to find out more about the pensions and how they will be valued for the purposes of the divorce. As pointed out they may not be worth £ for £ what the equity is.

You should also speak to advisers about your financial future. At 42 you cannot expect to live of £10k per year. Plus you may not want to live off a state pension which you won’t get till 68 in your old age.

At 42 you are in a position to make those adjustments. You should not defer things because all this gets harder the older you are. You will also have a cushion of child support and UC for about another 5 years. Then you will be on your own financially. I guarantee once you get to 50 you will be dreaming of retirement.

It is a long marriage. I would pay for an Actuary report and go for offsetting. Try for the whole house equity (can you take on the remaining mortgage?) And a share of his pensions. The Actuary will state how much house percentage is worth of his pensions. The report is 2000 but worth every penny in high pension cases.