Pension and divorce

enthusiasticsaver

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.

Thank you for your understanding and yes I agree independent legal advice is necessary and no there is no question of any sort of abuse. Just to be clear my sister is not refusing to cooperate. The timescale for the financial settlement has been stepped up by my brother in law in the last few weeks and they have had one amicable conversation. She is considering her options.
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.

As I said my brother in law does not want to use courts as he knows it is very costly. They both think they can come to an amicable agreement and yes mediation is a good suggestion which I will pass on.
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.

I will be suggesting she gets a divorce CETV for both hers and my brother in laws pensions
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.

Yes I think that too which is why I am trying to get her to think about the pension. My brother in law has an extremely good pension and he bragged about it constantly. Now they are discussing dividing assets he has not mentioned it which worries me.
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.

I don't think she has even considered this but I think this sounds like a good idea. Whatever their marital problems they are both great parents and just want to give the kids the same advantages they would have had if they had stayed together.

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 have said exactly those words. She is understandably worried for the future and unfortunately it hasn't helped that although my husband and I were in a similar financial position to them a few years ago and we have managed to help our kids buy houses and retired early which she will now not be able to do. I have said all along that he has been fair by paying maintenance for her as well as my niece who is still at Uni. He hasn't pushed until now for things to be sorted. Hopefully a way forward will be found

Thanks for your advice

atush

Both pensions should be taken into acct. hers is nice, but his is HUGE.

So dont agree anything w/o solicitors or independant mediation.

To many times women take peanuts in exchange for a spouses DB pension rights.

atush

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

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.

There is only 1 reason he doesnt want lawyers involved. AS he wants to keep mpre of the marital assets than he is due. Period.

atush

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.

This has zero to do with his children

If he cared about their welfare/residency he could house them himself in his new place. Or he could agree to sell the family home and split proceeds once they are 23-25.

atush

Pollycat wrote: »

This really has no relevance at all.

The relevance is his motivation- he wants to go quickly and cheaply as he has already found a new place/person. But she does not need to hurry.

He wants to go quickly so she doenst consult legal advisers who wll tell her he is being unfair in his proposals.

and dont think that a judge will not see thru his actions and not be more sympathetic with the sister in this case.

enthusiasticsaver

atush wrote: »

Both pensions should be taken into acct. hers is nice, but his is HUGE.

So dont agree anything w/o solicitors or independant mediation.

To many times women take peanuts in exchange for a spouses DB pension rights.

I agree and have suggested she get both pensions valued and speak to a divorce lawyer. My brother in law does not want to go to court Or use lawyers because of the cost but I still think she should get independent legal advice from someone other than my brother in law. He is quite worldly wise and I think he knows how high his pension is and I am suspicious he hasn't mentioned it.

enthusiasticsaver

atush wrote: »

The relevance is his motivation- he wants to go quickly and cheaply as he has already found a new place/person. But she does not need to hurry.

He wants to go quickly so she doenst consult legal advisers who wll tell her he is being unfair in his proposals.

and dont think that a judge will not see thru his actions and not be more sympathetic with the sister in this case.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. 6 months ago there was no rush and he didnt even want to discuss it. In the last month he has talked of moving jobs and to another part of the country and he knows she has some cash from an inheritance received since they separated. My sister thinks he now has a girlfriend too.

The kids can't live with him as he wants to move away from London.

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I agree with you that your sister needs independent advise as to what would be a fair split but I would not mention that to the husband just yet and don't get anyone else involved as an advocate at this stage – just let her be better informed.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]What is absolutely essential is that the capital value of both pensions and all savings are obtained now. Any advisor will need these figure before giving any opinion and even if the parties agree their own deal, the judge will need all the figures to see if the split seems fair before a consent order will be granted.[/FONT]

enthusiasticsaver

He will know she has taken advice if she asks him for details of his savings and pension as he has always dealt with their finances apart from her inheritance which she kept in her name. He knows she is uninformed about pensions. I don't think he will be that forthcoming with that information and he knows she will not know anything about asset split although she has been educating herself.

As I say for her there is no rush. The money he wants her to give him is tied up in a bond although he will not be aware of that as she received it after they separated. I think she should tell him they cannot move forward until he gives her that information and she must be open with him about her pension and savings. They just seem focused on the house at the moment and what will happen re the children.

Thank you for being so helpful.

Tom99

Do they have a decree nisi or absolute yet?