Did you go for his pension?

[whymewhyme]

Just done another post about conditional order anyway, did you go for his pension? He's been a nightmare since day one he's made everything hard, he's not decided if he will attend mediation and has said he will go to court over me going for more than 50% and his pension ( i dont plan on going for me than 50%) when I spoke to a solicitor the costs involved if it goes to court with him contesting the pension were eye watering. There's only 51k equity and it seems he's happy to blow the lot of fees if it stops me having more.

I don't know what to do, I feel like cutting my losses and going just for 5050 and leaving his pension alone for a easy life but at the same time I'm sick of being bullied by him and every other divorcee I've spoke to went for the pension. I sacrificed my career so he could excellent in his, my pension will be pittance compared to his.

Do I walk away with my 50% or would you go for the pension?

I should add not looking like he will come to mediation so it's going to cost a fortune in solicitors as it is.

It can get quite complicated once you start comparing pensions to other assets. £1 in a pension is not the same as £1 of home equity for example.

Normally if someone needs more of the house immediately (e.g. lower mortgage capacity) then they would normally be expected to forego some of the pension in what is know as "offsetting."

I don't have a calculation for this so this is only illustrative but for example someone who takes £20k in home equity (an asset that they can access now) then they might offset this against £30-40k of their claim to the shared pensions. Pensions are valued lower because they cannot be accessed straight away, might not keep up with inflation until they can be accessed and will be taxed when they are paid out for example. Offsetting will require an actuary.

I'm on the other side of this. But I managed to walk away with all my pensions (worth x10 my ex). Not in every case can you argue the other person has facilitated your career....I got where I am today all on my own thanks very much - just because he picked the kids up from childcare doesn't mean he enabled my career.

Personally I think "going after" pensions is a bit grubby but really depends on how much one person really did propel the other persons earning power to a level they wouldn't have managed on their own (or by paying for childcare 🤔)

It's not always black and white and with not much equity to fight over a long protracted legal fight is going to eat into it

50 percent of equity and pension share is standard. You are certainly entitled to that don't be bullied into accepting less. Get your solicitor to offer him that in writing. If he refuses and the costs mount up the judge will make him pay his own costs. If you've been married for more than 5 years that's the least you will be awarded by a judge. My ex asked for 80 percent of our business. Judge told him he'd be getting 50 percent and if he wanted more he would have to buy my shares off of me. My exh went mad because he had to pension share but nothing he could do. Judge mad him pay costs too because he wracked up costs by refusing to go 50/50 on everything. I had been married for 21 years.

A lot depends on your age and if you still have time to build up a decent pension for yourself. I divorced after 30 year marriage at 57 so very little time to add to my own pension . We went on basis of 50/50 split of assets and I got 45% of his final salary scheme pension . I had worked as a school TA to fit in with the childcare so had tiny pension in my own right. Luckily we had savings too and equity in the house but now I am retired that 45% makes a huge difference to my monthly income .

I got the house, he got to keep his pension. The alternative would have been to maintain financial ties to each other and (probably) for me to sell the house to pay him his share of the equity at some point. I really didn't want that - I wanted to have a completely clean break on assets. My pension isn't amazing but knowing that focused my mind on building it up post divorce and at some point I will sell the house to release some equity. It's not a route I'd recommend to everyone but it worked for me. The house has increased in value quite a lot since then and I don't have to consider him in my decision making.

But...if the house wasn't already worth a reasonable amount with a relatively small mortgage and I hadn't had the possibility to increase my own pension contributions then I would have gone down a different path.

At the end of the day it’s whether you can be arsed with all the hassle and cost for £25k which will probably be much less by the time he’s had gone through every channel to protect it,

But the equity and the pension are both marriage assets and should be split fairly. Why would you disadvantage yourself by leaving half of the assets on the table?

Presumably he worked full time at a career which enabled the pot to be built whilst you worked at jobs which fitted around being able to care for your joint children. Without your doing this, he would not have been able to do what he did. You enabled him to do that, you should nor be disadvantaged for doing it.

What is the pot's CETV?

My STBXH has a huge pension but I’ve kept the house and my (small ) pension and part of his lump sum when he retires.
The equity in the house will enable me to sell, live mortgage free and top my pension up. The lump sum will be put into an ISA and I’ll retire a few years early and live off that until I draw my pension.

You're entitled to 50%
Add up everything…. Pensions, savings, equity etc and then half it. That's what you’re entitled
to!
How you choose to split it is up to you.
If there hasn’t been so much equity in the house, it would have been sold and I would have done a pension sharing order.

Get a good solicitor.

No I didn't go for his pension. Both parties assets are declared and then he made me sa6 what I wanted and my solicitor spoke with his and him and between us all we came to an agreement. It then went in front of a judge who said yes.

People need to realise it's not for him to make the final decision on what you'll have, it's not for her to say expect to get what she wants, because ultimately the judge makes the final decision out of what you've both said you're happy with. If s/he doesn't think it is fair then it won't be signed off and the judge will tell you both how it is going to be.

I got over 75% of one of his pensions.

Not read all of the thread.

I asked for more house equity instead of getting some of his pension which he has agreed to do. Just need the solicitor to draw it up. Would he accept you having 65-70% of house in return for leaving his pension alone?

Op is not entitled to 50% of everything at all

op is entitled to a fair share all marital assets. Could be more or less than 50%

In a long marriage, I believe that everything is put together then divided to around the 50/50 mark (excluding inheritance kept seperately). millymolly why do you think this is different, do you work in the legal profession or is this from experience?

Pension contribution can make up a large part of the assets. I would not overlook it and seek legal advice.

Because 50/50 is not a legal entitlement it's a starting point from which to start negotiations from really. So many factors come into play.

Sorry you're going through this OP. Your ex and his family are trying to stop you having a share of something you are absolutely entitled to unless this was an extremely short marriage. Both your and his pensions are marital assets, and you are entitled to at least a 50:50 share.

The system and the courts support the financially weaker party receiving a pension share as they are entitled to it and without it are more likely to need help from the state.

In my case EXH argued everything. My solicitor requested a pension actuary report, paid for jointly - this is when an expert looks at the pension situation and makes a recommendation. Solicitors don't do this themselves as it requires significant expertise and certification.

ExH refused the report. Court forced it on us both. Judge said she needed the expert opinion of the actuary and without question was going with the actuary's suggestion.

I ended up getting 50% of his pension. SM for 4 years (capitalised) and the full equity of the marital home (he had already bought himself a new house). marriage was 9 years and no DC together.

I'd never have expected to receive this settlement. But by refusing to engage EXH forced me to take him to court and that ended up working out very badly for him.

legally people are entitled to a fair share. The legal definition of fair is not automatically 50%

fair could be 20% or 80% wholly dependent on many factors and variables. And of course what a court deems fair is rarely considered to be so by each party

No idea how you ended up with that settlement @Wishitwasstraightforward

seems totally unfair however you look at it fir him, more so when there are no children in particular.

His pension is one of the assets that make up the pot that is to be split (with a 50/50 split being the starting point). Pensions are not excluded - why would they be?

So yes, his pension (along with any pension you may have) is included in the calculations.

We each kept our own pension. It worked best for us.

.

Surely it’s not necessarily about ‘propelling’ one persons career though is it? If a couple makes a joint decision that one person is going to stay home to raise their kids and forgo their career (and pension) then the financially disadvantaged party deserves to be compensated in a split. The fact there was childcare available isn’t relevant if both people agreed that they would rather their children were raised by one of their parents. In this case it’s not grubby in the slightest, it’s perfectly reasonable.

I’m not divorced by the way and I’m currently the sole earner while my DP has taken a career break to look after our children. I’m chucking 50k a year into a pension and he’s not adding to his at all. It’s only fair these inequalities are addressed in a split where there are kids involved and someone has taken the hit financially.

I took 100% house equity & left his pension. I have my own pension through PT and now FT work. My mental health is better this way.

Fair enough @millymollymoomoo, I don't want to derail the thread but I don't think you can say it's unfair on my EXH without knowing more details of our assets and circumstances.

I realise in hindsight that my post implied no children were involved, but what I meant was that ExH and I didn't have children together. I have DC from a previous relationship. These are automatically treated as "children of the family", so there needs are very much taken into account.

I initially asked for very little but our divorce ended up in court as he would not engage with the process. He didn't think I would be able to afford legal help to fight my corner, but I borrowed money to use a solicitor sparingly and a barrister for the second hearing.

At this point it was pretty much taken out of my hands as a judge decided what was fair.

Before you get legal advice and make any decisions you need the CETV of his pension and yours as well. It’s impossible to even think about what to do until you know the value of ALL marital assets. As others have said pensions can often be worth much more than house equity and must be considered in negotiations. It may be that the agreement is he keeps the full pension in return for you having a larger share of house equity for example, but all assets need to be valued and go from there.

Please make sure you get good legal advice and both your pensions valued properly.

How judge can decide about split having only my paperwork/ form E ,bank statement etc. Ex refused to provide any doc we going to final hearing ,after he didnt turned up for 2 alleady ( get fined ordered to pay in 14 days and still didnt do.it) so judge will make decision how to split having only info from me ?