Getting your paws on your OHs pension/retirement plan after divorce

Spirit_2

doughnutmachine wrote: »

I've often thought that it's unfair that any inheritances received during the marriage are shared on divorce. It would grieve me if I inherited money from a family member then had to give half of it away

A ouple I know agreed that teh wife would be a SAHM. This continued as the children grew to adults. The husband during the marriage inherited a considerable sum from his parents, the inheritance was used to finance the joint family home and lifestyle.

Following divorce all assets were split, including his pension.

Three years later she has inherited from her parents and gets to keep it all. Her retirement will be far superior to her ex husband.

doughnutmachine

Pollycat wrote: »

Shouldn't all money go into the marital pot to be spent/saved for the benefit of both parties?

I see some of my possessions as being personal, while I see some of my assets as being "family" assets. I don't think it right that things like land/ property that has been in my family for the last century should be split on a divorce.

atush

doughnutmachine wrote: »

but it's not even fair for the people that give the money away in the will. I wouldn't be happy bequeathing money to a family member if they were likely to get divorced.

And yet here we speak of it all the time, and any good solicitor would do, when making a will. If you leave money to a married person, you must be willing to see half of it go in a divorce with the other partner.

thick_tom

not sure i understand who you refer to in your opening post "It'll be pretty obvious which thread has sparked this wonderment in my mind" ??

Mojisola

doughnutmachine wrote: »

but it's not even fair for the people that give the money away in the will. I wouldn't be happy bequeathing money to a family member if they were likely to get divorced.

But if the couple stayed together, wouldn't the money be spent on joint things?

doughnutmachine

atush wrote: »

And yet here we speak of it all the time, and any good solicitor would do, when making a will. If you leave money to a married person, you must be willing to see half of it go in a divorce with the other partner.

yeah, or just give assets away in a trust.

virtuallyfree

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

It'll be pretty obvious which thread has sparked this wonderment in my mind, but all the same, it made me think....

Maybe i'm looking at the smaller picture here, but isn't this sort of thing just plain wrong? I'm not asking is it legal or can it be done, because clearly it happens, but just because something is legal surely doesn't make it 'right'?

Half a bank account, or half a savings account i can understand, but half someones pension? Really? Why should the other person have any entitlement?

Hopefully my wife & I will never get to the stage of divorce, but putting that aside & the fact i pay into a S&S ISA for my retirement plan & not a pension, let's assume for arguments sake i pay into a pension...

So my wages come from the job that I (& not my OH) work hard doing & go direct into MY pension.
The same would apply for OH with hers.

Then comes a bitter (or not necessarily so) divorce & all of a sudden i get dibs on hers & she gets dibs on mine, when neither of us have worked for or contributed to the other?


All seems very wrong to me.

So i'm curious - why isn't this as wrong as i think it is?

From my experience:
- the husband is the highest earner
- the wife is the main care giver
- the wife gives up her career to move into the suburbs as her husband wishes
- the wife works part time or in fits and starts
- the husband continues to commute to the big smoke and earn lots of money
- the husband continually complains about the devaluing of his pension as if it is his alone
- the wife wonders what she is expected to do for money when they retire, she does not want to live in poverty
- the wife leaves
- the husband talks about his pension as if it is his alone, luckily the law/ court disagrees and gives the wife some
- the wife meets a nice new man who is happy to share everything

If you are a scrooge, it will seem wrong.
If you are not, it won't.

lvader

Some partners choose to work / earn less and have less disposable income during marrage. Not every couple has fully joined bank accounts. It seems stange to split things 50 - 50 after a divorce when they weren't 50 - 50 while married.

Pollycat

lvader wrote: »

Some partners choose to work / earn less and have less disposable income during marrage. Not every couple has fully joined bank accounts. It seems stange to split things 50 - 50 after a divorce when they weren't 50 - 50 while married.

Maybe the partners who 'choose' to work less and earn less make up for that 'shortfall' by doing more in the house - such as cooking, cleaning, decorating, looking after the children etc.

I can't see any reason why contributions such as those I mention above should be se seen as less important financially than the income that the main earner brings in.

And, imho, things should be split 50/50 in a marriage.

I guess the posters who don't agree with that or don't split things 50/50 are the people who would begrudge sharing their pension and inheritance with their partners.

lvader

Pollycat wrote: »

Maybe the partners who 'choose' to work less and earn less make up for that 'shortfall' by doing more in the house - such as cooking, cleaning, decorating, looking after the children etc.
.

It's a bit too easy for one partner to get lazy, not contribute financially or by other means, contruct a divorce and then demand 50% of everything when they may have done little to deserve it.

The other strange anomaly is that you can split a pension in a divorce but not in marrage so it can become financially better to get a divorce even if happly married.