Pension Sharing?

I have posted my full financial details here previously.
I have now run out of money to pay my solicitor (spent £6,000)and no nearer a solution.

My only claim is upon his pension, as the matrimonial home, car, savings etc were all split 50/50. There are no children involved.

At present he enjoys the whole pension accrued during (and to be fair some before our marriage). However, in return for a 50% share of the other matrimonial assets he promised me an ongoing 50% share of the pension.

He has reneged on this agreement.

As of today I have told my solicitor I cannot afford their services. Now I am on my own so to speak, my husband's solicitors have suddenly become more vocal.

My only desire is to split everything 50/50, which after a 22 year relationship (3 co habiting and 20 married) seems reasonable... well to me at least. As stated, we split all the assets 50/50. House, car, bank accounts, savings. However, to date he has walked with the pension, which he promised me 50% of in lieu of splitting the aforementioned assets.

Now that I am unable to pay for legal advice, his solicitor has suddenly taken advantage of this fact and has today quoted a case and suggested I look at it. H v H (1993) 2FLR? His solicitor seems to be quoting this as a case for only considering the actual years of marriage and excluding co habitation. This may be of interest to others?

However, I am unable to check the facts of this case and would be grateful for your input.What does this case state and are there any valid counter arguments?

So sorry to be long-winded, but can anyone help me. Please!!! I am now at the end of my tether. I am S@@t scared at having to now act in person, whilst he continues to have the resources to fund legal fees.

However, I must, somehow continue. But I know I will get nowhere. Why should justice be denied to those of us who don't have the money to fight for it? Why should I finally find the courage to walk away from an abusive (mentally and sexually )marriage of 22 years and receive nothing? Is it fair that he is left with the lions share of the income that we jointly accrued, whilst I live hand to mouth?
I know why. Because he has the money to fight it. and I do not

Sorry to rant, but as you can guess, I am very upset at the moment

(((braindead)))

I am not an expert on cases but others here can help with that.What I would say is that for every case that supports one argument there is another that supports the opposing view. Also these test cases are all "big money" and often have no real bearing on the world we inhabit.

Quoting case law to a LIP is not helpful.

What stage are you at in the divorce process? Are you trying to settle the finances without court intervention? It is possible that part of his pension may be left out of the equation ... but I guess it rather depends on both of your financial circumstances. It would be the case in Scotland that pension accrued pre marriage would not be counted - but in England and Wales the rules are different.

You each have a need for housing and for an income now and in retirement. Your need is for a one bed property apiece. You should have an income that provides you with similar lifestyles if possible - but to achieve this you will be expected to maximise your income potential. A pension share may be the appropriate way ahead - but you would not be able to access that money until your retirement date. You may be able to agree a combination of SM now and pension share later if your income is low.

Bear in mind that any agreement you have can be revisited ... it is not yet legally binding. If he really will not budge on the pension and you have not done so already, you may need to apply for AR and self rep - wiki can help. If your income difference is very large you could ask for Maintenance pending suit and/or for him to pay your legal costs (if you cannot get legal aid).

What size of pension are we talking about here? How close is it to being taken?
Are you able to remind us of the financial information please?

Hadenoughnow

As far as I'm aware for a long marriage like yours pre-marital cohabitation is included as/deemed to be marriage - certainly was in my case.It was referred to at court as a 29 year marriage although we were married for 26 years after 3 years' pre-marriage cohabitation.
Their separating out pre-marital cohabitation as non-marriage seems perverse/against normal practice?

H v H 1993 -
not exactly a leading case???
Like you I can't find a full appeal judgement -there's this:
www.sharingpensions.co.uk/caselaw4.htm

"Background
The couple married in 1978 and divorced in 1990. At the time of the divorce they had three children. The husband was a doctor and the wife was a teacher and nurse. The couple had joint matrimonial assets of £158,000, the wife had further assets of £162,000 and the husband had further assets of £242,000. The District Judge ordered that the husband pay maintenance to the children of £2,280 each per annum and maintenance to the wife of £5,700 per annum as well as capital of £180,000.

In this case the District Judge took into account the husband's future family inheritance and the NHS pension rights. The husband appealed and this was allowed. On appeal the Judge said that it was wrong to consider the inheritance and NHS pension rights and should only consider the duration of the marriage, not the pensions post-divorce value of retirement benefits."
I think I'd ask them for a cost-free online reference to the full judgement and failing that a copy of the judgement at no cost to you.
Peter@BDM might be able to tell us how/why reduced CETVs are done?

I think their thing is partly about declaring your pre- marriage cohabitation not part of/same as marriage - found this about how pre-marriage cohabitation has been dealt with in various cases.
www.parkcourtchambers.co.uk/seminar-hand...20_V%20Sterling_.pdf

As usual - "it all depends"....

Apart from the principle involved: Seems a lot of fuss on their part about 2 years' worth of pension but I suppose that depends on the difference it makes to the income produced?
They want you to share a 20 year pension instead of the 22 year pension in the current CETV calculation?
What does 2/60ths of his current salary look like?

maggie

I may be reading this wrong .. but from the summary, I am seeing this as a case where initially future (post divorce) benefits were taken into account. So the pension value was the future value of the pension on retirement (when more would have been paid into it) and not on divorce (which is how it should be valued).

This is about post divorce accrual of pension benefits and absolutely nothing to do with pensions accrued pre marriage.... the stbx's sols are just trying to blind braindead with legal B******t !

Hadenoughnow

I don't think the HvH is very helpful to your husband at all. The main point it determined was that in working out a lump sum to be paid instead of having a share of pension, the court should focus more on the assets built up during the marriage than at the hypothetical future earnings and assets which the husband *might* have.

In a long marriage such as yours, the start point would be an equla split, and even if they look to exclude the small proportion of the pension built up before the marraige you would still be entitled to a share of the pension.

A court is likely to include the whole 22 years. If your husband's pension was built up over more than 22 years then there is an arguament for the pension to be apportioned (e.g. if he built it up over 25 years to say 22/25ths should be split) but even that is open to challenge.

I would recommend that you remind his solicitors both that there is already an agreement between the two of you for a 50/50 split, on which you have relied by releasing the other assets.

You may also want to consider the type of order you are seeking - if it is a pension sharing order, be aware that you may need more than 50% of the fund in order to avchieve equality of income, and if it is an earmarking orderthen as this would end on his death it would need to be backed up by some form of insurance.

Each case turns on the particular facts but where assets originated from becomes less important with the passing of time.

In H v H it was neither a short or long marriage whereas your relationship lasted over 20 years so it's a long marriage. The wife in the slightly more recent case Milne v Milne [1980??] was awarded a lump sum equivalent to 50% of the pension after a long marriage when there was just a few years before retirement.