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

[Deleted User]

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

Still, i'm not sure i agree with this. I get why it happens, but can't say i agree. If wife pays into husbands pension then fair enough, but if not then why should she get it? Same for the vice-versa. If it comes DIRECT from one persons pay into their pension (as opposed to say a standing order at the banks end) then even moreso - why.

You're missing the bigger picture.

The husband may be the one doing the work however they are able to do that work because they have the support of their wife. Hypothetical: If you had to look after your children full time would you be able to work a 60 hour a week job paying £70,000? Almost certainly not, so when your wife opts to stay home from work and look after your children which allows you to do that job (which causes high contributions to your pension) shouldn't she share in the success?

The point is once you marry someone every single decision is made based on the presence of another person. Marriage is supposed to be until death do you part, therefore it is assumed that every single decision both parties make in a marriage is made based on the understanding that every success will be shared. You cannot pick and choose which matter and which don't.

Pollycat

citricsquid wrote: »

You're missing the bigger picture.

The husband may be the one doing the work however they are able to do that work because they have the support of their wife. Hypothetical: If you had to look after your children full time would you be able to work a 60 hour a week job paying £70,000? Almost certainly not, so when your wife opts to stay home from work and look after your children which allows you to do that job (which causes high contributions to your pension) shouldn't she share in the success?

The point is once you marry someone every single decision is made based on the presence of another person. Marriage is supposed to be until death do you part, therefore it is assumed that every single decision both parties make in a marriage is made based on the understanding that every success will be shared. You cannot pick and choose which matter and which don't.

I think the post below gives an idea of what a stay-at-home partner puts in the 'pot'.
OK, it might not be a financial contribution but surely no less valuable.

borkid wrote: »

But it's not just housework is it? I used to be the taxi service, take the car to the garage , collect/ do any other little things he needed doing, all the phone calls, all the paperwork and accounts, all the present buying posting for his family, all the waiting in for deliveries, all the gardening, looking after sick children ( they seem to get everything going in the first year at school), made the childrens' clothes. This was after I'd refused 2 offers of studying for a Ph.D ( he was already studying for further qualifications), cashed in a pension I'd been paying in for a few years so that we had enough money to move to a larger house, gave up my career which I loved.

As soon as the children were at school I retrained and then worked part time but at a lower wage than I could have earnt if I hadn't had someone else to consider. There were several times when I could have been promoted but refused due to child care commitments. We've been together nearly 40 years but if we had divorced I would have expected all assests to be split 50:50.

I'm not complaining, when you marry you have to make sacrifices but it does annoy me that people think the SAHM contributes less than the main breadwinner.

I wonder if the people who don't agree that stay-at-home partners put more than just a few hours housework into a relationship are the main or only breadwinners. :cool:

doughnutmachine

Pollycat wrote: »

I think the post below gives an idea of what a stay-at-home partner puts in the 'pot'.
OK, it might not be a financial contribution but surely no less valuable.

Have you ever had a job? A lot of people I know work a 50 hour week, with maybe 10 hours of commuting each week, then after work they look after the kids, then at the weekends they do the garden.

You have to remember that most people here know how long it takes to look after a house.....

Pollycat

doughnutmachine wrote: »

Have you ever had a job? A lot of people I know work a 50 hour week, with maybe 10 hours of commuting each week, then after work they look after the kids, then at the weekends they do the garden.

Yes, I have.

Have you read the posts in this thread? Obviously not.

Pollycat wrote: »

I don't have any kids but I've seen enough of my friends' hard work to realise that me working full-time was often a walk in the park compared to what they do/did.

I worked full time for over 33 years.

doughnutmachine wrote: »

You have to remember that most people here know how long it takes to look after a house.....

I think you have to remember (or realise) that it's not just 'looking after a house'.

jem16

doughnutmachine wrote: »

Have you ever had a job?

Have you ever been a stay at home parent?

TBagpuss

on eway of looking at the value of the contribution of a stay at home parent is to ask - what would it cost to pay a full time nanny and a full time housekeeper? Because that's the 'job' your average stay at home parent is doing. Except that unlike the housekeeper or nanny, they don't get holidays, sick pay, time off or any other direct financial benefits.

One of the reasons that courts don't break it down into 'who contributed what? you get out what you put in *except* in short, childless marriages is that you cannot really quantify the value of the contributions each party in a relationship makes.

It isn't just caring for children and housework, its the choices people make about how they manage the entireity of their joint finances. And it's not just pensions - it's very common to have a situation where one party pays [more of] the mortgage - but they are able to do so because the other partner pays more of the mortgage, or cooks more meals from scratch so they pay less for ready meals, or spends time in the garden so they have lower food bills, or has a better credit/safety record so they get lower car insurance rates, or any number of other personal and financial divisions.

Also, no-one AUTOMATICALLY gets 50% on a divorce, either of the pension pot or anything else. What the law says that the court must aim to do is to achieve a settlement which is fair to both parties, taking into account all the relevant circumstances.
The starting point is 50/50, but often the actual settlement will be different, as it is rare for all circumstances to be equal.
RElevant factors include (but are not limited to)
- The length of the relationship
- The age of the parties
- Their respective financial needs
- their respective financial resources
- the needs of any children
- any contributions made by either party
- any other relevant circumstance.

If you have a couple who marry late in life, where one or both of them had already built up significant pension pot, it's unlikely that the pension will be split 50/50, although it may be, if that is the only way to meet both parties reasonable needs.

Inheritances - keeping an inheritance (or any other asset) in your sole name will not prevent your spouse having a claim against it in any divorce, but if the inheritance can still be clearly identified as a separate asset from the jointly acquired matrimonial assets it is less likely that your spouse will get a direct share of that, although thay may get a bigger share of the joint assets because they may well have greater need of them than you.

The possible inheritance they may get in the future is not included in the calculation becuase unless the donor is already dead and you're only waiting for probate, they may never get it. Their parent / rich uncle may live to 110 and the money may all be used in care fees. They may fall out and the elderly relative could leave it all to battersea Dogs Home. The parent could be widowed, then remarry a new partner 40 years their junior and leave everything to that person. Or to their church, or neighbour, or gardener.

Thrugelmir

Spirit wrote: »

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.

There's more to life than being bitter over money. If I have good health in retirement it'll be worth far more to me than any amount of money. Living a simple life is far more rewarding. Money doesn't buy happiness.

Ribin

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's more to life than being bitter over money. If I have good health in retirement it'll be worth far more to me than any amount of money. Living a simple life is far more rewarding. Money doesn't buy happiness.

I couldn't agree more. In the past 2 weeks I have met 3 different IFA's (reviewing my pension) and all have said that their customers with least money tend to be the happiest.


Looks like I could be heading towards a happy retirement then.:)


..and on the subject of this thread, married 32years, 2 kids, my pension pot £600k, wifes £100k. were we to divorce of course we would share everything and there is an argument that she should have more as she put her career on hold to invest in our most valuable asset, our children.

Pincher

Pre-Nuptual Agreement.


If nothing else, it's a good idea to have an inventory, so that the judge can indeed "restore you to the position prior to marriage."

dshart

For anyone who said these words during their wedding ceremony

"With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

and then get divorced, be thankful its only 50% they take as those words could be construed as a verbal contract and they could take you for everything.