Going Solo after 25 years

NewKittenHelp

GoingSolo wrote: »

Never

Pension pot last year from what I recall from the statement at 62 was pension of

£19,000 with commuted cash lump sum of circa £119,000

I have the option of no lump sump but a better pension but for tax reasons it's better to take a lump sum we are told.

This years statement is due this month according to HR at work.

Then that changes everything. Any joint assets will be yours to split 50/50 (I recommend that you remove your 50% of the joint savings immediately) but anything held in your name alone is, legally, yours, and hers is hers. Your pension is yours and yours alone, as likewise hers is hers.

She has no legal or moral claim on your pension and savings, just as you have no legal or moral claim on hers.

GoingSolo

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Then that changes everything. Any joint assets will be yours to split 50/50 (I recommend that you remove your 50% of the joint savings immediately) but anything held in your name alone is, legally, yours, and hers is hers. Your pension is yours and yours alone, as likewise hers is hers.

She has no legal or moral claim on your pension and savings, just as you have no legal or moral claim on hers.

You mean not marrying I guess?

We have three accounts for savings with two in joint names the other in just mine. Getting her to agree to signing/handing over 50% maybe difficult at the moment.

Also have money in Schroder's but that's just in my name and came from shares issues many years ago via my employment. She didn't know about them until the son was born when I cashed them in and we agreed to put the money away for later years.

NAR

GoingSolo wrote: »

You mean not marrying I guess?

Yes not being married makes all the difference.

As NewKittenHelp states it is only joint assets that will be split ie house and 2 savings accounts. Are two signatures required for withdrawals from the savings accounts? If not problem solved.

GoingSolo

NAR wrote: »

Are two signatures required for withdrawals from the savings accounts? If not problem solved.

Yes on two but not sure on the third one that's in my name. Not to concerned about it though as it would be sorted somehow.

NewKittenHelp

GoingSolo wrote: »

Yes on two but not sure on the third one that's in my name. Not to concerned about it though as it would be sorted somehow.

What's the breakdown between the two joint accounts £37.5k in each? The one solely in your name is yours alone.

NewKittenHelp

GoingSolo wrote: »

You mean not marrying I guess?

We have three accounts for savings with two in joint names the other in just mine. Getting her to agree to signing/handing over 50% maybe difficult at the moment.

Also have money in Schroder's but that's just in my name and came from shares issues many years ago via my employment. She didn't know about them until the son was born when I cashed them in and we agreed to put the money away for later years.

As long as she can't access the money herself then it's not a huge problem until one of you needs the money.

Do either of you want to remain in the house?

GoingSolo

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Do either of you want to remain in the house?

I may do depending on finances at the time of seperation

edeneve

I think on separating after 25 years married or not if finances are split 50/50 given that you have a great pension and good earnings, your partner comes off worse as her earnings and pensions are low.

Think all finances including pension pot need to be divided 50/50 and perhaps an extra percentage given to your partner for her future as probably her future earnings could have been more had she not invested a percentage of 25 yrs raising your child if she did the majority of childcare/homemaking.

Perhaps letting her keep the home in lieu of your pension security (you keeping your pension and lumpsum) and dividing the rest of the finances 50/50.

Married or not after 25 yrs together this morally would be the right thing to do but obviously legally you wouldn't have to do it.

mustmakealist

You said that your pension at retirement will be £19k. This means that the amount in your pension fund will be considerably higher than that.

As Newkittenhelp has said as you were not married then your partner will have no call on money or assets that are in your sole name.

What it might come down to in the end is how much are you prepared to share? Are you civilised enough to try to reach an agreement that is 'fair' to both of you given that for 25 years you were prepared to share or are you selfish enough to want as much as you can get? These are very difficult questions and only you can work that out.

One way that I found useful when consider when splitting assets (admitedly at a divorce) is what is the minimum amount that you are prepared to settle for and what is the maximum that you feel entitled to? What you actually settle for is likely to be somewhere in the middle.

I hope that this helps

NewKittenHelp

edeneve wrote: »

I think on separating after 25 years married or not if finances are split 50/50 given that you have a great pension and good earnings, your partner comes off worse as her earnings and pensions are low.

Think all finances including pension pot need to be divided 50/50 and perhaps an extra percentage given to your partner for her future as probably her future earnings could have been more had she not invested a percentage of 25 yrs raising your child if she did the majority of childcare/homemaking.

Perhaps letting her keep the home in lieu of your pension security (you keeping your pension and lumpsum) and dividing the rest of the finances 50/50.

Married or not after 25 yrs together this morally would be the right thing to do but obviously legally you wouldn't have to do it.

I don't agree with this so-called moral argument at all. If you live off of someone for 25 years without the benefit of marriage and the protections it brings then that's a risk you take. 25 years of living a higher lifestyle than you could otherwise afford seems a fair payoff to not funding it yourself. There was someone in the news recently who was warning about this situation as more young women are allowing themselves to be kept by a man and have no hope of ever supporting themselves, despite the obvious dangers of this.

The lady in question here has had a quarter of a century without having to support herself, the gentleman hasn't had that luxury. So really, who got the better deal?