Pensions when divorced

System

KNJ wrote: »

I might be mistaken, but if his pension is from armed forces, cannot that ( dependent on scheme ) be paid at 50?

Under APFS75 (the old system pre 2005) when a pension is split on divorce the ex spouse can only access the full pension entitlement at age 60. A reduced entitlement can be claimed at 55. As there is no pot then there is no lump sum that can be taken.

My brother (ex RAF) is divorced. He started taking his pension at 42 having completed his pensionable engagement. 50% of his pension was transferred to the ex on divorce. His ex can only access her portion at age 60

Floxxie

At the moment, the OP doesn't have a share of anything so pension age etc. is irrelevant. What the OP needs to find out if she can still go for a share of the assets. OP I would go over to www.wikivorce.com and ask the question for a legal response.

From my own experience, my ex fought 4 1/2 years to avoid giving me a penny of his pension, even though he had agreed to the division at the start of the 'amicable divorce'.

claire111

Lisa - What documents do you have

Do you have a 'Consent Order' regarding split of assets (including pension) ?

or

Do you have only a 'Decree Absolute' which just means you are divorced ?

If you do not have a consent order (and maybe this was why it was amicable...) you need legal advice from a family solicitor, no one on this forum can really help.

Bootsox

Why blokes bother getting married is beyond me, there's just too much risk involved.

Especially with pensions, because if you get divorced late in life, there's just no time to recover.

EdGasket

Bootsox wrote: »

Why blokes bother getting married is beyond me,

..must be love mate.

greenglide

Why blokes bother getting married is beyond me, there's just too much risk involved.

Seriously?

The risks are to both parties as are the benefits. We do see some pretty nasty disputes here were the person with the pension and other assets (usually male) is desperately trying to hide them from their ex-spouse because they see it all as "theirs" and have no concept of "ours" but this has probably been the case throughout the married life. These attitudes could not have helped the marriage IMHO.

atush

EdGasket wrote: »

..must be love mate.

Or at least those who love their children. Children from married households do better in life/education than those from unmarried households.

And these days, with most women working, many with Public sector pensions, not to mention the rise of the house husband, it goes both ways.

molerat

!!!!!! wrote: »

Under APFS75 (the old system pre 2005) when a pension is split on divorce the ex spouse can only access the full pension entitlement at age 60. A reduced entitlement can be claimed at 55. As there is no pot then there is no lump sum that can be taken.

My brother (ex RAF) is divorced. He started taking his pension at 42 having completed his pensionable engagement. 50% of his pension was transferred to the ex on divorce. His ex can only access her portion at age 60

And if there was not a pension sharing order in force they would have got SFA !

Kynthia

Bootsox wrote: »

Why blokes bother getting married is beyond me, there's just too much risk involved.

Especially with pensions, because if you get divorced late in life, there's just no time to recover.

Daft and blinkered comment.

If a couple decide to marry and have children and companionship, deciding for the woman to work less while taking the bulk of the childcare, then it would have been known at the time the pension the man was building was to support both of them. So why should that change if they split?

If someone doesn't want to share their pension then both of the couple could work part time while dealing with childcare in order to share the effect on their pension. They could contribute to a private pension for the woman. Or they could not marry or have children, but that seems a high price to pay.

Bootsox

Kynthia wrote: »

Daft and blinkered comment.

If a couple decide to marry and have children and companionship, deciding for the woman to work less while taking the bulk of the childcare, then it would have been known at the time the pension the man was building was to support both of them. So why should that change if they split?

If someone doesn't want to share their pension then both of the couple could work part time while dealing with childcare in order to share the effect on their pension. They could contribute to a private pension for the woman. Or they could not marry or have children, but that seems a high price to pay.

Well, daft and blinkered comment or not, the UK divorce rate is a whopping 42%.

..and I bet there's a fair chunk of the remaining 58% who are living in abject misery.

It's just as easy for a man to live with a woman and have kids without getting married (in 2013, 48% of children were born outside marriage).

The point I am making is that the law is so heavily biased against men that is has had the (presumably) unintended consequence of making marriage virtually untenable.

...and don't give me all that lovey-dovey nonsense, save that for the TV.