My husbands assets excluding pensions are lined up against 'mine' and because of a property I bought before we married and with a 50/50 split not taking into account money owed to my mother for renovations or capital gains, the maths leave me owing him £30k
My mother has spent over £30k on the property (it was bought for her because she couldn't get a mortgage) but to prove this I am going to have to disclose to him all her finances for the last 6 years (she hasn't kept receipts). So to avoid this I want to offset this £30k I allegedly owe him.
His side of the balance sheet excludes £30k worth of pensions. My solicitor tells me this can't be included. Why not? What is the story with this? If I could include this then we would be at zero which is all I want out of this. I don't want a penny of his money. If I manage to prove my mothers interest and could include the pensions then in theory he would owe me £30k which I hope would scare him significantly into backing down on trying to force me to sell her house and accepting a Clean Break with no transfer of money.
From his stance, he is sticking to his guns because he knows that the work my mother did cannot be 100% proved and he is using this to make out that I have more money than him when I absolutely don't!
Am completely confused over what I'm hearing from my solicitors and why what should be simple maths just doesn't add up!
I dont understand either why your solicitors say this 30k pension cannot be included! All assets are included and pensions are assets too!
BUT.............pensions are not cash value.
His 30k pension (I assume this is the CETV value)is not worth 30k cash, its a pension which he wont be able to get for many years and even then its not 30k cash lump sum.
Courts normally order for a pension report to be done on the pension by a pension actuary. Because of lost benefits or whatever else... i.e for you, then they value the pension higher than the CETV, dont ask me why as i really dont understand it myself. I doubt a report will need to be done on this pension though as the value is not vast, what actually happens is the courts decide how much in percentage terms you should have , say they award you 50% of his pension (and its all based on how long you have been together, how long hes been paying into it ect ect) Then instead of you receiving 50% you can offset this against assets, i.e you can say to him you give me X amount of pounds and you can keep your pension.
I think Your solicitor is right in that 30k cant be added to the total assets, its dealt with seperately but it is included somewhere. So i think what happens is......you divvy up all assets and debts, then pension is sorted, then u can say right instead of pension i will accept more of the assets. (I hope that makes sense)
As for the 30k your mum has spent on the property, i am afraid in our case the judge said these are normal living expenses and could not be taken into account. But I doubt any judge would make you sell the property as your mum is living in it. Is her name on the deeds or yours?
We need more information from you really to give you a better idea on outcome.
How long were you married.
How long was he paying into it before marriage?