Is it really fair??

Hi all,

I have asked this question before, but I didn't get any replies as such because when I first asked it there weren't a lot of us on here, but now it seems we have more and more experienced people maybe this time I may get an answer.

Can anyone tell me why after 5 years of divorce absolute even though finances were never sorted with a Consent Order do the other side think they have a right to say half of the others pension value as of today and not of the value when absolute or separation.

My partners ex solicitors rang today and said............if you offer 40% (which equates to 50%, dont ask me why cus its complicated) of pensions value as of today (5 years after divorce) then i will strongly advise my client to accept it! Why wont they take it from the date of separation? Even the Judge at the FH (adjourned) wants the report based on time of separation! My husband has paid into this fund for 5 years with no contribution from her????
And a Judge at a previous hearing said "this is an easy case" You take the assets at time of the divorce and take the debts away from them, whatever is left is split 50/50 simple and you need to get this sorted and stop wasting money and time! So they asked for 80% and wouldnt budge! hey ho!

Btw they quote Rossi v Rossi! ANY clue anyone? Please.

Kind ones
Louise:unsure:

Does nobody know the answer to the above?.... Really?

If a divorce absolute was made 5 years ago, but no legal advice at the time, I understand that the finances arent settled. But does it really mean that they can have half of what each other has, 5 years on or is it at time of seperation, divorce, why is the other side so adamant that she is entitled to half (infact they always go for more but there u go) what he has today, even when that means he should have half of what she has today and she has more than him (mind you she hasnt now because shes paid her solicitors fees with it!)

Its seems daft can anyone give me a cut off date that we could work too?

Kind ones
louise

Hi Louise11,

PASSIVE economic growth that arises after separation continues to be matrimonial property. It may be being argued that although your partner's pension contributions since separation are non-matrimonial, the growth on the original is.

That is why 40% of the fund now, is equal to 50% of the fund then.

Yep thanks for that I had read that somewhere before too, but...................

She started the AR proceedings 2 years after the divorce...
Its taken 3 years to get to the FH,(due to her side 100%, they dont turn up for hearings ect,ect) his pension then increased in value greatly as he had done 25 years at Christmas. Should all this not be taken back to when she put Form A in. I beleive its taken this long as they knew it would increase greatly once he hit the 25 year mark. (lets put it this way it wouldnt of suprised me)

They now even ring us to say...............if we accept 40% we want your assurance and it will be written into the consent order to say " you will continue working till retirement age! and not retire before that date!!! Unbelieveable! But hey ho.

All advice appreciated
Louise

Louise11, this is a grey area for me but what exactly does the other side want; offsetting, lump sum, attachment, sharing?

The court can specify the date for valuation and in Hedges v Hedges it was said that the CETV should be divided by the number of years service and multiplied by the number of years of cohabitation (or marriage presumably).

The above depends on ages of spouses and how long to retirement.

Hope that is of some help.

Thanks both

Fiona.....am I right then in thinking it hurt their own case to bring Rossi v Rossi? I read up on it and from my understanding it went against them greatly.

They wanted 70% of my husbands pension value as of today, 5 years after they divorced.(they finally accepted 50% but wanted a cash lump sum and the value of the pension as of today)
My husband wanted to give her 50% of his pension the value of it up until seperation.

In monetary terms

When they seperated value of CETV 160k
When divorced value of CETV 173k

Now the CETV is 320k,as it increased in value the minute he had done 25 years. Although by them having a pension report done on it they put a value on it of 400k.

Vail they now want a pension sharing order of 40% based on their figure of 400k, when in actual fact the CETV is 320k.

The courts will only deal in percentages, so we want to give her 50% of the CETV as at seperation (and a Judge at FH has already indicated that, by asking for the report cetv up to that date) so she has 80k in her own fund. ( My husband had earned exactly 50% of his full pension when she decides to run off with another fella!) So by his reckoning she should be entitled to 50% of that which is obviously 25% of his full pension) He earns the other 50% of his pension in the 10 years hes not with her.
But they want 40% of the 400k what they say its worth today.
The judge also asked that in the pension report I need to be included but still they have ignored little ole me! (how can anybody ignore me?? lol) So now it makes me angry that her solicitor is ringing my house trying to get my husband to agree something between her and him and they are all still ignoring me! When unless I agree to it it will be impossible for them! The judge has already given me leave to protect my interests! DOH!!!!

Does any of this make sense? I dream of ruddy pensions and its making me ill. I Just want this woman off our backs with whats fair!
My thanks for your posts
Louise