Pension and divorce

enthusiasticsaver

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]True, but your sister has a £750,000 house and her husband is renting, that's quite a difference to make up.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]His high income over the past 29 year of marriage is the one that paid for most of that house but he does not have another 29 working years to make that up.[/FONT]

His income did not pay for the house. My sisters inheritance paid off the mortgage and the extensions. By the time he was earning his present high salary the mortgage was paid off.

Plus it was his choice to walk away.

Pollycat

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

His income did not pay for the house. My sisters inheritance paid off the mortgage and the extensions. By the time he was earning his present high salary the mortgage was paid off.

Plus it was his choice to walk away.

This really has no relevance at all.

enthusiasticsaver

Pollycat wrote: »

This really has no relevance at all.

It does in so far as he needs her cooperation to do what he wants. He wants her to give him £70k of her inheritance now so he can buy a new house. He does not want to go to court. He does not want his adult children to be without a home.

As he was the one who instigated this my sister feels that she would rather wait a while and does not see why she should cooperate.

I have pointed out she may be cutting off her nose to spite her face but acknowledge she is the injured party here (without giving too much away he was not a great husband and I saw evidence of that). She wanted to work on it though.

Pollycat

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

It does in so far as he needs her cooperation to do what he wants. He wants her to give him £70k of her inheritance now so he can buy a new house. He does not want to go to court. He does not want his adult children to be without a home.

As he was the one who instigated this my sister feels that she would rather wait a while and does not see why she should cooperate.

I have pointed out she may be cutting off her nose to spite her face but acknowledge she is the injured party here (without giving too much away he was not a great husband and I saw evidence of that). She wanted to work on it though.

I think if I was a friend of your sister's soon-to-be-ex, I'd be giving him some very different advice about what he should do.

And I think you and your sister should bear in mind that you need him to do what your sister wants.

That fact that he 'walked away' really does have no relevance

DairyQueen

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

It does in so far as he needs her cooperation to do what he wants. He wants her to give him £70k of her inheritance now so he can buy a new house. He does not want to go to court. He does not want his adult children to be without a home.

As he was the one who instigated this my sister feels that she would rather wait a while and does not see why she should cooperate.

I have pointed out she may be cutting off her nose to spite her face but acknowledge she is the injured party here (without giving too much away he was not a great husband and I saw evidence of that). She wanted to work on it though.

Divorce at any age is sad and difficult and I am so sorry about your sister's situation. However there is no such thing as 'the injured party' in the context of a divorce settlement. The only time behaviour is a factor is in exceptional circumstances (e.g. one party has seriously injured the other).

As has already been mentioned it is very important that both parties take independent legal advice. Sadly, your sister's refusal to cooperate will not help her situation. It's likely to alienate her soon-to-be-ex (who seems to be behaving very reasonably) and increase the likelihood of expensive and protracted court proceedings.

She also needs him to cooperate.

Mediation and collaboration are the cheapest and most positive ways to agree a financial settlement. The intervention of the court can easily cost each person £20k and courts rarely impose one party's costs on the other.

After such a long marriage the law is pretty clear that total assets should be split 50/50 unless there are reasons to deviate. It's possible that your sister's 'inheritance' (or was that a gift?) would be deemed non-marital but there is no guarantee a court would view it that way. I think it may create a false expectation to view this particular asset as 'hers'.

Regardless of the value of the pensions (his and hers) it's clear that there are sufficient assets/income to meet both parties' reasonable needs. How they choose to divide those assets will depend on their priorities.

There is no legal obligation for either parent to provide for adult children - including housing. A court would not consider it reasonable for the husband to forego a major share of joint assets for this reason. The needs of the husband and wife are one of the key considerations. The needs of adult children play no part in a divorce settlement.

Courts will also do all possible to ensure a 'clean break' settlement but it's likely that a court would consider some form of term maintenance order to be appropriate given the differences in their incomes. That could be capitalised and offset against his share.

I think it possible that your sister may have to decide between keeping the lion's share of the house or claiming a reasonable percentage of her husband's pension. His pension may be worth as much of the house, it may be worth more. A CETV is essential.

If she decides to keep the house then she has the option to downsize later and realise a large chunk of the equity to provide herself with a pension.

I think that your sister may be prioritising the wrong things. It's very common for women to forego pension rights in favour of house equity and then pay the price in retirement.

She may be better served (given the husband's willingness to house adult children) to agree a settlement in which she takes a share of his pension and he retains a reasonable share in the house. Payment of the latter could be deferred for, say, five years to give the adult children time to house themselves before the marital home is sold. Your sister could then downsize to a more suitable property.

You are obviously doing all you can to help and support your sister. It will be very tempting for her to use the divorce as a weapon against her husband but she risks more than cutting off her own nose, she risks cutting off the noses of her children.

kidmugsy

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

They are doing a DIY divorce .

Just lunatic. Tell her to hire a ruddy lawyer. Nothing else said here can possibly matter as much as that.

Pollycat

DairyQueen wrote: »

Divorce at any age is sad and difficult and I am so sorry about your sister's situation. However there is no such thing as 'the injured party' in the context of a divorce settlement. The only time behaviour is a factor is in exceptional circumstances (e.g. one party has seriously injured the other).

As has already been mentioned it is very important that both parties take independent legal advice. Sadly, your sister's refusal to cooperate will not help her situation. It's likely to alienate her soon-to-be-ex (who seems to be behaving very reasonably) and increase the likelihood of expensive and protracted court proceedings.

She also needs him to cooperate.

Mediation and collaboration are the cheapest and most positive ways to agree a financial settlement. The intervention of the court can easily cost each person £20k and courts rarely impose one party's costs on the other.

After such a long marriage the law is pretty clear that total assets should be split 50/50 unless there are reasons to deviate. It's possible that your sister's 'inheritance' (or was that a gift?) would be deemed non-marital but there is no guarantee a court would view it that way. I think it may create a false expectation to view this particular asset as 'hers'.

Regardless of the value of the pensions (his and hers) it's clear that there are sufficient assets/income to meet both parties' reasonable needs. How they choose to divide those assets will depend on their priorities.

There is no legal obligation for either parent to provide for adult children - including housing. A court would not consider it reasonable for the husband to forego a major share of joint assets for this reason. The needs of the husband and wife are one of the key considerations. The needs of adult children play no part in a divorce settlement.

Courts will also do all possible to ensure a 'clean break' settlement but it's likely that a court would consider some form of term maintenance order to be appropriate given the differences in their incomes. That could be capitalised and offset against his share.

I think it possible that your sister may have to decide between keeping the lion's share of the house or claiming a reasonable percentage of her husband's pension. His pension may be worth as much of the house, it may be worth more. A CETV is essential.

If she decides to keep the house then she has the option to downsize later and realise a large chunk of the equity to provide herself with a pension.

I think that your sister may be prioritising the wrong things. It's very common for women to forego pension rights in favour of house equity and then pay the price in retirement.

She may be better served (given the husband's willingness to house adult children) to agree a settlement in which she takes a share of his pension and he retains a reasonable share in the house. Payment of the latter could be deferred for, say, five years to give the adult children time to house themselves before the marital home is sold. Your sister could then downsize to a more suitable property.

You are obviously doing all you can to help and support your sister. It will be very tempting for her to use the divorce as a weapon against her husband but she risks more than cutting off her own nose, she risks cutting off the noses of her children.

I actually think the OP is doing his sister a big disservice by encouraging her to think the way she is doing. About her inheritance, the (more than fair) equity split, the pension and the totality irrelevant reason for the breakdown of the marriage.

enthusiasticsaver

Pollycat wrote: »

I actually think the OP is doing his sister a big disservice by encouraging her to think the way she is doing. About her inheritance, the (more than fair) equity split, the pension and the totality irrelevant reason for the breakdown of the marriage.

I am not a him and have not encouraged her or discouraged her but just listened for now to what their preliminary conversation covered. I don't think it is wise to make decisions without all the facts. I empathise with her and will not advise. I am not a lawyer and not at all familiar with divorce law. Don't jump to conclusions.

enthusiasticsaver

kidmugsy wrote: »

Just lunatic. Tell her to hire a ruddy lawyer. Nothing else said here can possibly matter as much as that.

I agree. It is my brother in law who does not want to use lawyers. Both my mum and me think she needs some sort of legal advice.

Thrugelmir

Pollycat wrote: »

I actually think the OP is doing his sister a big disservice by encouraging her to think the way she is doing. About her inheritance, the (more than fair) equity split, the pension and the totality irrelevant reason for the breakdown of the marriage.

Employ a solicitor so that the matter can be dealt with in a dispassionate manner. Whatever the in's and outs. The total assets should be shared in an equitable manner. Besides the house and pension. What else is there to be divided.