We sold our home and split the proceeds equally in July 2011.
I began paying into a personal pension in Feb 1992, opting out of SERPS at the same time. Since then I have had a final salary scheme (member for 8 years) with a previous employer. And a current final salary scheme (member for 10 years) with my present employer. Both my personal and previous employer''s funds have been transferred into my current employer''s scheme.
My ex has her second state pension and a stakeholder through her employer, which she began in February 2012.
I have received a CETV, carried out by an independant actuary firm so it should be accurate.
I met my ex in Jan 2000, she moved in with me in Jul 2000 and we married in Jan 2002.
My offer to her was based on her receiving a 50% share for the period of the marriage. It also allowed her to keep all of her second state benefits as well as her stakeholder.
calculated simply as;
1992 to 2012 - pension benefit accrued over 20 years.
2002 to 2012 - married for 10 years.
So we were married for 50% of the time the pension was being accrued. With her receiving 50%, so 25% of the total CETV.
This however was rejected by her solicitor with them advising her "...there is no good reason why there should not be a 50% pension sharing order made..."
I have since revised my offer and included 2 years of cohabitation. Thereby giving her 30% of the total CETV.
I don''t plan on revising this offer any further. It gives her 50% for all the time we were together, including the last year whilst the divorce was going through, with her also keeping all of her own benefits. I don''t see how she can have a claim on the pension accrued before I even met her!?
I want to avoid court as I don''t see how paying 6-10K in fees would result in anything else other than what I have already offered - or am I missing something?
You are singing to the choir mate.
It doesnt matter who left who or why. The biggest consideration is who has sole custody of the children, and if its not you, she will walk away with the majority "for the kids" of course....
At least you got 50% of the house. I am aiming for 30%.
As soon as you marry things become "joint".. and by that it means 50/50.
By her not working full time you set the status quo. Did your kids benefit from it-absolutely, but I am guessing, like me, it had more to do with the fact her earning capacity would not have negated the cost of child care.
I have many regrets in my life, but marrying her is the biggest. If men knew (or those on higher incomes than their be-loved) what the consequences of divorce are financially and emotionally, I dont think they would be so quick to marry.
Also- Pre-numptuals need to start meaning something. Its ridiculous that they dont.
And finally- The courts need to accept that times have changed. We are not in the 50s anymore. Both sexes have a choice at education and career. It shouldnt be ridiculous to ask someone to return to work even if they havent for 15 years. I have many friends who cant afford for one parent to stay home and mother. This is a luxury and should be treated as such, not as an excuse to remain on payroll, especially once all kids are in school.
Im probably angering a few people today but I am feeling robbed. SM is nothing more than legalised theft.