A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info


What are we each entitled to in our divorce settlement?

What does the law say about how to split the house, how to share pensions and other assets, and how much maintenance is payable.

What steps can we take to reach a fair agreement?

The four basic steps to reaching an agreement on divorce finances are: disclosure, getting advice, negotiating and implementing a Consent Order.

What is a Consent Order and why do we need one?

A Consent Order is a legally binding document that finalises a divorcing couple's agreement on property, pensions and other assets.


Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


What''s considered a fair split?

  • minusnine
  • minusnine's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
19 Apr 12 #324968 by minusnine
Topic started by minusnine
My ex-wife and I are in the process of agreeing our Consent Order, dealing with a number of factors, one being pension sharing.

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.


Our Decree Absolute was granted in Jan 2012.


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?

Any help would be gratefully received.

  • somuch2know2
  • somuch2know2's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
19 Apr 12 #324971 by somuch2know2
Reply from somuch2know2
How was the house split?
Is she working and what is her capability to work?

I think the issue is that you have young children and if she isnt working this will impact her ability to work full-time and get a pension of her own.

Fair doesnt exist in divorce. He who has the kids wins all- you are just the donkey

  • maisymoos
  • maisymoos's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
19 Apr 12 #324975 by maisymoos
Reply from maisymoos
What is fair will depend on many factors such as ability to make up lost contributions, earning capacity, expectations, and asset split overall.

It is true sometimes pre cohabition years may be excluded but this is by no means always the case. I was entitled to 50% of my exs pension and the judge did not ring fence the pre cohabition part.

  • minusnine
  • minusnine's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
19 Apr 12 #324988 by minusnine
Reply from minusnine
Thank you for your prompt replies.

As you say fair doesn''t appear to come into it. My ex left me, so why is it that she should expect the same benefits as if we were still together?

She is working part time and earning the same as before we met - something which we did try and improve upon during our relationship, but she was never interested in doing anymore than she was.

The proceeds from the house sale were split 50/50.

The deal on the table is far in excess of anything she could have ever accrued on her own, but that still might not be enough. I suppose we shall see if we can agree without the need to go to court.

  • somuch2know2
  • somuch2know2's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
19 Apr 12 #324989 by somuch2know2
Reply from somuch2know2
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.

Stick to your guns and choose your battles.

  • minusnine
  • minusnine's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
19 Apr 12 #324998 by minusnine
Reply from minusnine
I know... I think this site should be required reading for all those going into marriage bliss...:)

That all sounds very familiar. We had been close to equal care of the kids as well, but that all changed following her first solicitor appointment, making more sense now.


I''ll proceed with the offer I described and we''ll see how far we get. No harm in trying.


Thanks for the encouragement and good luck with your house sale.

  • somuch2know2
  • somuch2know2's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
19 Apr 12 #325003 by somuch2know2
Reply from somuch2know2
Yes- please keep me updated, I will do the same.

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.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11