- Posts: 387
A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce
This is an important decision. And you need to consider it carefully.
So please only take my thoughts as one input...you should probably seek professional legal advice also.
Ok...lets try and think this through.
Lets compare each of the others to Option 1:
I would have to say option 1 is better (either way you get the house paid off mortgage free after 22 years). But with option 1 you also get a pension share.
The one thing you should negotiate to 'add' to Option 1 is for him to insure his life (with you as beneficiary) for amount enough to pay off mortgage. Cos otherwise if he is run over by a bus you lose out in a big way.
Well here you have cash instead of equity in a house. The danger is if you spend the cash over next 5 to 10 years...you will have much less of a nest egg for retirement. You would need to invest the cash...but what in? Something better than property? Not so sure.
Note that in this option you also need to get him to insure his life to protect the rental payements you are relying on.
I cannot really do the maths on Option 1 vs Option 3 cos you do not say how much equity is in the house. And how much pension share you get in Option 1.
Are you getting 50% of house equity and 150K lump sum in option 3?? WHat does this total to.
OK ....so I had a quick stab at it but.....
you need to be more specific about how much you are getting in each option....you were a little fuzzy in the post which prevents me actually pointing you in the right direction.
1&2 What is his income, how long before he retires, would he be seen to have the ability to pay SM?
3&4 Pensions aren't a liquid asset and can't be cashed in like other forms of savings and investments. They only pay out a lump sum as % (usually max 25%) of the fund on retirement and the rest used to provide income. How long before reaching retirement age?