Value of pension CETV against house equity

Hello

If I may I would like to enter this discussion by putting my position forward and asking if I am being treated fairly. Me and my wife are nearly at the point of financial settlement. We own 4 mortgaged properties as well as the family home. I have a pension with a CETV of £298,000

We agreed at the outset of our Collaborative Law process that we would split the net asset values of the properties 50/50 and that there would be a 50/50 pension share. She would receive the family home and one of the BTL properties. I would receive a BTL property and a property abroad. This left us with a further BTL property which was sold in January from which we would split the proceeds 50/50. Unbeknown to me my wife used a far larger share than 50% of the sold property to pay off the outstanding mortgage on the BTL property she was to receive in the settlement. She now cannot pay me back as she does not wish to sell any of the properties. Both our lawyers were outraged at her action but nothing was followed through on it.

I have agreed, against the advice of my lawyer, therefore to let her lawyer use my CETV directly against the liquid asset values of the properties. Of course I get to keep my pension in full but she is far better off in terms of liquid assets. I only agrred to this as I could see the entire process breaking down if I didn't make concessions.

Have I made an offer which is totally unfair to me? I believe so. `Even my lawyer said that the CETV should not be considered liquid.

Can anyone suggest a way forward here? the real "nail in the coffin" in this situation is that my lawyer tells me once I have made an offer and it is accepted in Collaborative law, if I try to rescind, a court would enforce it even if it were blatantly unfair.

Forgive me if I sound hard done by, but I do!

Many thanks and any advice gratefully received.

John D

The illiquidity of pensions is an issue that should be considered alongside the NEED of the beneficiary for cash (liquidity). If the beneficiary does not need cash (instead of the pension), then there is an argument for taking pensions and other assets on par. Conversely, if the beneficiary has an urgent and pressing need for cash (liquidity rather than the long-term security (?) of a pension), then it follows that they would be willing to accept a lower cash sum rather than a pension asset; in other words discount the value of the pension. The skill is in deciding on the appropriate adjustment in the particular circumstances, there should be no one-size-fits-all adjustment.

In John D’s case, it sounds on the face of it that both parties will be in relatively good financial positions post divorce, so it is difficult to see the justification for “discounting” the pension value for offsetting. It would seem that the proposed settlement is, from the discounting perspective, fair and reasonable for both parties.

Only my view, but I hope that it helps.

Peter.