We are waiting to go to court, Married 19 years, 2 kids. Main assets - £200k in house and our pensions. His solicitor argues that his pension should not be taken into consderation (Maskell v Maskell) only the retirement lump sum payment. And has not as yet provided us sight of his CEV.
Q... What may be the likely split of equity considering I will need to purchase a 3 bed house? Will the court totally disregard my obligation to provide a home for the eldest because he is 18?
As you care for the 2 kids you may get the greater share of the assets in the house (perhaps 60:40 ro 70:30).
I dont think what his solicitor is saying re: the pension holds water.
Maskell vs Maskell set a precedent that the CETV value of the pension is not to be valued at its full value when traded off against another asset usually the house. Unfortunately the case did not make it fully clear how much the CETV should be valued at, some say 50% some say 25%.
You would be well advise to strongly pursue any claim on his pension so that then you could trade it off against the house.
Depending on the CETV value of the pension you could increase your 70% of the house to 80%,90% or 100%. Leaving him with all or the bulk of the pension.
A counter arguement to the Maskell one is the there is a growing belief that the CETV undervalues a pension and you could say that you want to get the pension valued using another method.