House/Equity and pension confusion

[Ashleyupnorth]

Just seeking some clarification for myself as also at the starting point of a divorce. My H is going to be still financially comfortable and able to manage after the divorce whereas i will need to move and probably struggle each month.

After speaking to a colleague yesterday who is going through a divorce. She had a pension prior to meeting her H. She has been informed her H will only be entitled to a share from it when they started living together. They have a home/mortgage together but H took out a mortgage one year before they met and then she moved into this home it was in his name till they bought a place together eventually.

My question is despite him placing a deposit to buy his first home before they met this is discounted as they now have a marital home for 10 years +. However, she is not entitled to his pension which he had before they met.

Seems fair of course but I am just wondering what the difference is? probably the obvious is staring right at me!!

I think it depends on a lot of factors including age, length of relationship/marriage etc. our pension sharing order puts us in the position of equal income in retirement, despite STBXH paying in for 10yr before we met. This was a 30yr marriage though and retirement imminent for him and 10 yrs away for me.

I was awarded my ex's small pension fund (£40k) that he had from way before we met, but only because he drew down the entirety of the main fund in a year whilst we were divorcing. I was also awarded the equity from the FMH bar £20k for his legal fees.

Each situation is different and there are always exceptions. Get yourself the best legal team you can afford, especially if your STBX H is as awful as mine was.

You need legal advice as this is a negotiation. For example if he wants to keep his pension intact then he might be told to give more equity in the house to you. It’s impossible to say. Get proper advice.

Is it not dependent on what apparently the lower earner 'sacrificed' financially? As in you had a similar high earning career which you gave up? How many dc?

Unless your friend has gotten a court order stating this, she doesn’t know what she is entitled to yet. She is interpreting what her solicitor is advising she can make a case to ask and argue for as part of negotiations.

In a short marriage, the legal process will attempt to put you back to where you were before you married. But this won’t apply in all circumstances. For example if there are children.

In long marriages with children and lots of life changing events the idea is make you equal. How that is achieved is often but not always determined by needs. If one party earns a lot of less and can’t improve that situation then they need more capital to live off. They can ask for a bigger share of the asset pool.

In England, unless it is a short marriage, it is quite hard to ring fence assets and exclude them from the asset pool which will be split. Usually only guaranteed with inheritance kept separate from the marriage. Even if you succeed they will be taken into consideration when assessing needs.

Your friends solicitor may have strong grounds for her ask but it will be based on the specific context of her marriage. She might not be successful.

Thanks all. Food for thought there.

I was advised that pension growth is included as a marital asset even if the pension itself was started and only paid into outside of the marriage.
it can be hard to get a value for the growth but a solicitor can usually get a signed mandate that allows them to gather this information on their clients behalf.

These are not hard and fast rules, but depend on the situation and how a fair break can be achieved.