Separation - Bespoke Financial Issues

PompeyPete

Grateful if you could help with a few financial issues regarding Separation.

Both in their 60s

House owner, Joint names, fully paid up
No Mortgage
No debts
No dependent children

She has no income of her own, and isn’t eligible for her State Pension for another 4 years.

He has an Armed Forces Pension, Civil Service Pension, State Pension, and a Ministry of Defence War Disablement Pension.

All the income is taxable except the War Disablement Pension.

The questions are…..on Separation what should be the Financial share [%] of the total incomes? Should the War Disablement Pension be included in the share, as it’s meant to compensate him for his Disability.

I’ll have separate questions regarding the house, and would be grateful if any answers could be focused solely on what I’ve asked above.

Many thanks.

Browntoa

Disablement pension income is a total disregard so not part of income.

Pension sharing is allowed on all the others

https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/family/divorce-and-separation/military-pensions-divorce/

tacpot12

Percentage might take into account what benefits or future state pension the wife is/will be entitled to.

Sorry if this is starting to go beyond your request, but I think the wife will be expected to claim benefits, work or live of the proceeds of the sale of the house if she can't afford to by another property. The proceeds from the house sale are ignored as capital for means tested benefits if she intends to buy a property within six months of receiving the capital.

Tom99

Browntoa wrote: »

Disablement pension income is a total disregard so not part of income.
Pension sharing is allowed on all the others
https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/family/divorce-and-separation/military-pensions-divorce/

The link says a pension sharing order cannot be applied for but does that automatically mean the value of the pension can be ignored?

PompeyPete

Thanks for the replies.

It looks like in the circumstances I described in the OP, that the wife has a 50% entitlement in all the Pensions except the War Disablement Pension, from which she has no entitlement.

Is that correct please?

If this is all done amicably between the two parties, is there a need for solicitors from the outset?

Thanks in advance.

Browntoa

PompeyPete wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

It looks like in the circumstances I described in the OP, that the wife has a 50% entitlement in all the Pensions except the War Disablement Pension, from which she has no entitlement.

Is that correct please?

If this is all done amicably between the two parties, is there a need for solicitors from the outset?

Thanks in advance.

I believe so

Solicitors not required if both parties agree on financial side only to dot the i's and cross the t's on the paperwork

Tom99

PompeyPete wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

It looks like in the circumstances I described in the OP, that the wife has a 50% entitlement in all the Pensions except the War Disablement Pension, from which she has no entitlement.
Is that correct please?
If this is all done amicably between the two parties, is there a need for solicitors from the outset?
Thanks in advance.

An expectation of sharing everything 50%/50% and whether a pension can be the subject of a pension sharing order are different things.
The War Disability and the basic State Pension cannot be the subject of a sharing order but that would not prevent their value being taken into account if that was appropriate.
The other pensions could be split differently to even things up.

Silvertabby

Tom99 wrote: »

An expectation of sharing everything 50%/50% and whether a pension can be the subject of a pension sharing order are different things.
The War Disability and the basic State Pension cannot be the subject of a sharing order but that would not prevent their value being taken into account if that was appropriate.
The other pensions could be split differently to even things up.

I'm not a lawyer, but have to chip in to say that War Disability pensions are not handed out like smarties. The money is meant for the recipent to have a better quality of life so, if it's true that the value could be taken into account when divvying up total marital assets, I would hope that the ex wife has the common decency to tell her lawyer to disregard this money.

Tom99

Silvertabby wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, but have to chip in to say that War Disability pensions are not handed out like smarties. The money is meant for the recipent to have a better quality of life so, if it's true that the value could be taken into account when divvying up total marital assets, I would hope that the ex wife has the common decency to tell her lawyer to disregard this money.

I agree with you and hope it cannot be taken into account. I don't know the answer and was just pointing out that the link above was about whether a pension sharing order could be applied, which it cannot.

TBagpuss

Are they married? How long for?

The starting point woulf be 50/50, but the overiding principal is that the settlement must be fair to them both. That may well mean 50/50 of eveything except the disability pension, and *possibly* a very small adjustment to take account of the fact that her state pension won't kick in for the next 4 years.

That said, if she is younger, then the amount of pension needed to give her equal income may well be mor ethan 50% of the total pension, so they may need specialist advice to work out the correct % split, and also to work out whether it makes sense to split both the civil service and armed forces pensions or whether to give her a larger share of one and leave the other in sole name (many pension providers make a charge to implement a pension sharing order, particualrly where the pension is already in payment)

TBagpuss

Regarding the disability pension - a court has to consider what is fair. So taking it into account might mean that the court considers what additional needs the husband has (whether it is paying for care, paying for items or assaitance which an able bodies person would not need, etc) as well as looking at the fact that he has additional income. They can then determine that it is fair and reasonabl that he retains the benefit of the income because he has greater needs as well.