Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Original poster

Pension question

31 replies

knittedbrow · 16/09/2014 20:58

Hello,
I am married to my DH, but he has been married before. They had a clean break/plain divorce (no official financial settlement). I know usually with pensions and wills that a spouse will automatically inherit, and my married friends don't sweat this issue, but is there any extra need in a second marriage situation to make a will/specify who inherits pension? I.e. it would be awful if somehow it all went to his ex wife -- that couldn't happen could it, by some glitch in the system?

OP posts:
mymummademelistentoshitmusic · 16/09/2014 21:00

Watching with interest.....

mymummademelistentoshitmusic · 16/09/2014 21:01

Just a question - did he accrue the pension when they were married? If so, surely it's fair she should get it? I'm speaking as a friend if someone who may be in a similar position.

Original poster
knittedbrow · 16/09/2014 21:03

In this instance that wouldn't be appropriate / fair, no. But others may incidentally answer you when they come along!

OP posts:
impatienceisavirtue · 16/09/2014 21:03

Get him to make sure you're named on the pension as well just to make sure.

CumbrianExile · 16/09/2014 21:07

It will depend on the type of pension/rules of the scheme. Most pensions will pay a spouse pension to the person who was married on death (the one I work for does this). Any death benefits (lump sums etc) are payable at Trustee discretion but will generally be paid to whoever had been nominated by the member. If there is any children who are dependant this may also impact any benefits.

mymummademelistentoshitmusic · 16/09/2014 21:09

The one I know is an old council pension that she's not yet receiving, they divorced without financial settlement and she's remarried. It was all accrued during marriage and he never worked much as she was a seriously high flyer and he worked around that due to having kids.

Original poster
knittedbrow · 16/09/2014 21:16

I suspect, mymum, that your friend should have fought that at the settlement stage and that it's too late now. That's why people have those massive lawyery divorces, because that's when it needs to be settled.

OP posts:
chicaguapa · 16/09/2014 21:17

Agree with Cumbrian. It's my job too and I do loads of these.

You can't will a pension but trustees will take any will beneficiaries into account.

Best thing is he completes an Expression of Wish form and nominates you. But most trustees would consider you anyway if you were dependent/ married. Any decision they make has to stand up to challenge so they have to be able to justify it.

But based on your OP I can't see any risk.

wheresthelight · 16/09/2014 21:18

if the divorce has been done with no settlement agreed regarding the pension then she has no claim on it. your dh does however need to speak to all companies he has a pension with and amend the beneficiary to you/his kids/whoever he wants to leave it to

hope that helps

fedupbutfine · 16/09/2014 22:29

if the divorce has been done with no settlement agreed regarding the pension then she has no claim on it

I'm not sure this is right. Has the ex re-married? If she's re-married, there isn't an issue. However, if she hasn't re-married, everything is quite literally up for grabs until some kind of official settlement is signed off by the courts. It is madness not to get closure in this way. The longer he is divorced and the longer this goes on for, the less likely either can claim that they rely on the other financially, but it does need to be signed and sealed to be 100% sure. Consult a solicitor or try the wikivorce helpline which is free in the first instance.

daisychain01 · 16/09/2014 23:04

They had a clean break/plain divorce

I thought a Clean-break was just that, a line in the sand after which time neither party can make any further financial claims on the other?

If so, I don't think everything can be up for grabs, can it?

fedupbutfine · 17/09/2014 07:27

*I thought a Clean-break was just that, a line in the sand after which time neither party can make any further financial claims on the other?

If so, I don't think everything can be up for grabs, can it?*

there is no such think as a 'clean break' divorce. You need to come out of a divorce with two pieces of paper - the Decree Absolute which dissolves the marriage and some kind of financial order (either by consent or ordered by the court) which outlines how joint assets are to be split. Pensions are part of the marriage 'pot'. Until the finances are sorted, there is always the chance that the ex will demand whatever she considers to be her share. Fine if there is nothing at all, but if your DH is able to accumulate considerable assets over a few years, it can become a problem. He should not assume that because he nominates his new wife on his pension documentation that his old wife won't have a claim in the event of his death. He needs the 'clean break' but he needs it done legally.

The only way to prevent any kind of claim is to tie up the divorce properly.

If the ex is now re-married, it is a moot point as she would have no claim on her ex's assets. By his own re-marriage, the DH in question no longer has any claim on his ex's assets so she is perhaps 'safer'.

WakeyCakey45 · 17/09/2014 09:02

Most divorce financial settlements are by consent, aren't they?

I understand the term "clean break" divorce to mean that the financial settlement agreed placed no further financial responsibility on either party to the other.

I exchanged my "share" of my exH pension for his "share" of the FMH. That seemed quite commonplace at the time.

Original poster
knittedbrow · 17/09/2014 10:04

She hasn't remarried and never will I doubt. But could she really claim anything from after they broke up? Also it would take a very odd person to seek a share of their ex's pension like 30 years after they divorced, wouldn't it?

OP posts:
LIZS · 17/09/2014 10:10

iirc there are a couple of ways of dividing pension on divorce. One divides the pension pot and allocates an income to each party based on actuarial calculations , the other would give her a share of the payout at retirement. I guess this may change when new rules come in . If there was no official financial agreement at the time then I fear she could still make a claim, especially if she did not work during the marriage or raised children. Your dh should have updated his pension details to give you sole right to a death in service benefit for example. Does he have dc by ex ?

Original poster
knittedbrow · 17/09/2014 10:17

She did not work but nor did she raise the children, who were in full time nursery (they had two). They broke up quite young, before he had amassed much pension. Could she claim on the bits since their breakup? She made no financial contribution to the household.

OP posts:
LIZS · 17/09/2014 10:21

Technically if she was reliant on his income possibly. She made no financial contribution to the household. Legal and General value a sahm quite highly. I'm amazed there was no formal financial settlement in respect of the children if not the ex. Unless it was a long time ago it would be contrary to solicitor's advice. If the sc are still young he should include them as dependents.

Original poster
knittedbrow · 17/09/2014 10:24

She wasn't a SAHM mum - she was absent pursuing a hobby and the kids were in full-time nursery then after school clubs etc. with DH picking them up.

OP posts:
LIZS · 17/09/2014 10:27

Think you're splitting hairs , did you know the family personally then or is this his version? Perhaps replace SAHM with "non-economically active parent"

Original poster
knittedbrow · 17/09/2014 10:28

I don't think you'd say that if it was a man off skateboarding all day and night while the mum worked 9-5 and picked up the kids/cooked tea.

OP posts:
WakeyCakey45 · 17/09/2014 10:44

knitted I think you may be getting anxious over nothing.

If your DH divorced his exW with the support of a reliable solicitor, it's very unlikely that the financial element of their split was not legally resolved at the same time.
There has been some confusion on this thread about terminology, I think - in your OP, when you say that there was "no official financial settlement", do you mean that the divorce proceedings did not involve financial disclosure etc, or do you mean that there was no court hearing/order relating to finances and neither was required to pay the other?

If your DH and his ex agreed (via their solicitors) what the financial split would be, then the paperwork would have been rubber stamped by the court and he may not have realised it's significance independent of the divorce paperwork.

Original poster
knittedbrow · 17/09/2014 10:47

I don't think they had solicitors Wakey, just did it with the forms themselves, through the post!

OP posts:
WakeyCakey45 · 17/09/2014 10:58

Oh dear. In that case, it's likely that they have no financial separation at all, which leaves him, and you, in a very vulnerable position.

Perhaps you should seek independent legal advice on how to protect your assets, and leave your DH to do the same with his?

Original poster
knittedbrow · 17/09/2014 11:07

Yes, we haven't bought a house together yet and don't really have any joint assets (or many at all), so I guess we're pretty safe. But I suppose we should do it before we buy a house.

OP posts:
WakeyCakey45 · 17/09/2014 11:21

we haven't bought a house together yet and don't really have any joint assets

As far as I understand it, As you are married, your assets are also included in his "pot". Should you and he die together, it's possible that your beneficiaries would face a legal challenge from her for a proportion of your estate.

Swipe left for the next trending thread