Ex's pensions

I got a share of my ex's deferred pension in our Consent Order
Could I claim a share of his new pension as a lump sum to replace maintenance later on?

Maggie,

I dont know for sure the answer to this question...but i'm inclined to think that the answer is no for a couple of reasons....

- you already signed a Consent Order, the purpose of which is to finalise an agreement and prevent each party making further demands in the future (unless circumstances change significantly)...you dont mention that this claim is based on a major change in your circumstances.

- in general you are not able to claim a stake of his new assets (which i assume is what his 'new' pension is)

- i dont believe you can convert his new pension into cash in order to pay a lump sum. Money in a pension is locked up until retirement - and even then only a fraction of it is payable in a lump sum.

Thanks for those comments
I'm still struggling with the full implications of our Consent Order.At 60 I have no security.
The problem is that I have a type of term maintenance but I have no idea what the term is because it will be paid until my ex husband retires - date unknown- or "until further order". I know I can vary maintenance and capitalise maintenance but if he retires and the first I know of it is no money into the bank there will be no maintenance order to vary or capitalise- it will have expired.I will have no advance warning - it could happen tomorrow.Maintenance will cease and from then on my total income will be below £10k a year.It's impossible to do any sort of financial forward planning on that basis.I can't commit to any sort of regular payment into anything to give me financial security because my income could reduce to subsistence levels overnight.
I have no insurance against the loss of that maintenance income.
At some point in order to achieve some security I will have to return to court on a fishing trip in the hope that he has amassed capital enough to provide a lump sum to capitalise maintenance and give me some secure better income into old age.My main hope is that his new pension savings will be regarded as capital - as the shared one was - and that part of his pension capital - ie some sort of pension share on variation? - and some of his recently inherited capital can be used in place of maintenance to give me security.

Maggie,

What puzzles me slightly about your posting is that you keep referring to going back for more capital.

Unless his solicitor was rather lax then I would assume that a consent order, though it may provide for maintenance until retirement, would have drawn a line under capital.

If you can go back for more capital and more maintenance then the Consent Order serves no purpose.

Also - i dont believe that you can just choose to capitalise maintenance. You can negotitate to capitalise maintenance before you sign the Consent Order - but if you have one that entitles you to a maintenance income for a set term (til retirement) then I dont see how you could autonomously choose to capitalise it.

So if a Clean Break can't be achieved at the time of the Consent Order it never will be?

another double post - apologies

Dear Wikivorce Team

Sorry, I'm not quite sure you're right.

I think there was a change in the law about ten years ago which gave the recipient of maintenance ( and I think the payer as well ) the right to apply to the Court to substitute a capital sum for a maintenance order. It is clear that if the Court exercises its powers under this section, the maintenance order ceases. In other words, the theory is that the basic structure of the order remains unchanged, but that the Court replaces a maintenance order with an equivalent capital provision.

I don't know if there is much experience of this, probably because most people don't know about it. I think it is clear that such an order could only be made if the payer had the means to pay it without denuding him of his assets. Perhaps the person most at risk would be the irregular payer of maintenance who suddenly came into money ; in such case the Court might be attracted by the idea of substituting a more secure capital provision.

Mike