Pensions when divorced

mark5

mania112 wrote: »

I am naive to way a divorce works: Is the general rule that you split all assets accumulated during the marriage 50/50? If so, this becomes slightly tricky if one party is clearly contributing more, financially, than the other.

For me anything held by a sole account holder should be kept
by that person and anything held jointly should be split equally.
That's to simple though!

Pollycat

mark5 wrote: »

For me anything held by a sole account holder should be kept
by that person and anything held jointly should be split equally.
That's to simple though!

And unfair, imho.

It could be that the money is held in one person's account instead of a joint account because of tax reasons i.e. one person pays no tax or less than their partner.

Is it then fair for one person to take all the money in that account?
Not in my book.

Malthusian

For me anything held by a sole account holder should be kept
by that person and anything held jointly should be split equally.
That's to simple though!

And this is probably why you aren't a judge. At the risk of labouring Pollycat's point, this would result in a very large number of divorces involving couples who have done sensible and mainstream financial planning having their investments split 90% / 10% or more in favour of the lower earner, with the higher earner only getting to keep his (or her) ISAs.

greenglide

having their investments split 90% / 10% or more in favour of the lower earner, with the higher earner only getting to keep his (or her) ISAs.

Exactly. Within a marriage you cannot equate "ownership" with the name in which the account is held.

I do detest the way that people do bang on about "mine" rather than "ours" though.

Azure11

I'm still wondering if the OP actually has any agreement in place otherwise I would think she doesn't have a leg to stand on with regards getting any of her ex husband's pension whether that be right or wrong. Surely the pension is owned by the ex if no other legal claim on it so any money he draws out and gives to her will be subject to any tax that he has to pay first?

ZiggerZagger

I think it's unlikely the divorce is fully through - you wouldnt be able to without finances being disclosed

mark5

Pollycat wrote: »

And unfair, imho.

It could be that the money is held in one person's account instead of a joint account because of tax reasons i.e. one person pays no tax or less than their partner.

Is it then fair for one person to take all the money in that account?
Not in my book.

The risk you take when you use tax avoidance methods.

I don't see how taking sole assets off one partner and giving 50% to the other partner because they were married is fair?

mgdavid

mark5 wrote: »

...........I don't see how taking sole assets off one partner and giving 50% to the other partner because they were married is fair?

The one partner does not have sole assets. From the point of marriage onwards they become joint assets.
Simple enough for you?

mark5

mgdavid wrote: »

The one partner does not have sole assets. From the point of marriage onwards they become joint assets.
Simple enough for you?

I understand that, I don't agree with it though.

jamesd

mgdavid wrote: »

The one partner does not have sole assets. From the point of marriage onwards they become joint assets.
Simple enough for you?

It's simple but it isn't true, even more so in Scotland. Writing a will is one way to demonstrate this if you were to give all money to charities or place in trust for children instead of spouse, though the spouse might try to overturn your wishes.

mania112 wrote: »

I am naive to way a divorce works: Is the general rule that you split all assets accumulated during the marriage 50/50? If so, this becomes slightly tricky if one party is clearly contributing more, financially, than the other.

No, but in Scotland that is the initial presumption for marital assets. In England and Wales it's more likely to be 50:50 split of all marital assets regardless of when they were acquired. Marital assets can exclude things like property owned before marriage, gifts to a single person or insurance payments to an individual.

In neither location is this the required final result. That depends more on the needs of children and the spouses and whether there was any pre-nuptial agreement. The duration of the marriage and the ability of the spouses to support themselves also matters a lot. A just about to retire woman without high pending pension income would probably not be required to pay much to support a 40 year old male spouse who is able to work and in a high paying job but he might be required to support her if the marriage has been a long one. He'd be very unlikely to get half of her pension because she needs it while he has ample time and means to provide for himself.