settlement

Whoa... on the face of it I didn't t see anything wrong with the proposal as an opening for negotiations. It's important to understand the thinking behind the solicitor's advice.

The aim is to put both parties on an equitable (not necessarily the same) financial footing and if it takes 70% of the equity, a % of pension and SM to achieve that, then that's what it takes. Actually there were two significant pieces of the overall picture missing - the value of the pension and the husband's income.

Fiona

I can assure you his net wages were not that much different to hers, whilst they look good on paper, (police wages that is) 11% of it goes into the pension.
I also know a definate outcome of one case (similar to the aboves, similar equity, had children, both worked ect) The husband who was the police officer, gave his wife the house (similar equity) in exchange for him keeping his pension. The Judge asked them both into Court because he wanted to know if the husband was sure he wanted to sign the house over to his wife. Because the Judge felt it was extremely generous!

I was trying to warn this lady of the cost implications if they cant agree between themselves, I also realise she is hurting due to his adultery, (answered another post previously)

For some strange reason many Solicitors wrongly think that people in the services pensions are nice big fat pay cheques and that that person will do anything and sign anything over so they keep their "precious" pensions!

The other spouse also has to weigh up that whilst the person with the pension can retire at 55 ish the spouse who manages to get their share doesn't not get it till they are 60.

Also another thing people dont realise or understand is that whatever the CETV value is, its not cash. We had a demand for 80k cash from my husbands ex wife because his CETV was 160k. No amount of explaining would budge her at all.

So whilst I totally understand that it may of been a reasonable starting point, my guess is the Solicitor was rubbing his hands together with glee when he heard she was married to a Police Officer.

I was trying to warn of the long battle road ahead, where alot of the equity may just get eaten up in costs.

Anyway sometimes it just falls on deaf ears.

Kind Ones
Louise

Sure pensions need to be valued and on a comparable basis, but that the actual value and the annuity they are forecast to buy in the future is all twaddle.

The value of a pension can go up as well as down, Rupert Murdoch MkII may scuttle off with the funds. A Darling Chancellor may copy Brown and seize more money, so many things may happen that these values are just vague indications of the sort of money one might be able to get, whereas a place to live is immediate and necessary.

I regard it fairer for both to share the vagaries of the pension rather than offsettimg something one may never see (due to the intervention of drunk driver or similar) against bricks and mortar or cash-in-hand.


Now, don't get me started on people talking on mobile 'phones in restaurants!

I am in very similar situation husband copper etc.
Am thinking about puting some of proceads from house into an account and leaving it their until i retire instead of touching his pension wich will not be as much as others 'cause he entered police late

You're probably better with the proceeds being in 'bricks' investment than savings account.

You can live with your bricks, (enjoying your home) then downsizing in years to come and probably releasing a lot more equity than the interest from savings.

Also, Interest on savings is taxed! Bricks are not!