CETV value

Silvertabby

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

GunJack said:

Rather than cetv, would it not be better for your scheme to split your membership with your (soon) ex-spouse? Surely less messy going forward

Not (usually) how it works on divorce. You're looking at the capital value of all assets, and simply doing as you suggest gives no idea of the underlying value of a DB pension.

Yes, I've asked the scheme if they will do pension earmarking (eg give both me and wife 24K). They seem reluctant to do this and anyway the payment to her stops on my death. Plus it doesnt give a 'clean break'.

That's not the way a pension earmarking order works.  Your pension provider can't just pay half of your pension to your wife - they would just continue to pay the full amount to you (as your taxable income).  You would then personally transfer the specified amount to your wife.

An earmarking order would make life much easier for your pension provider, as they wouldn't actually have to do anything - but they are right in warning you of the downsides.  ie, no clean break order and payments would cease on your death.

Earmarking orders were largely wiped out by the introduction of Pension Sharing Orders (PSOs) in which a %age of the benefits valuation are placed into a scheme under the recipients name, and are theirs for life.  
.

Some time ago I was looking at the Teachers Pension Scheme rules in this area on behalf of a friend, who potentially may have to get involved with a Pension sharing order.
If I remember correctly it was possible for the TPS to pay a regular pension directly to the divorced spouse of the pension holder, as part of a legal financial settlement between divorcing parties. I do not remember any mention of it going into a separate scheme. Although I could have read it wrongly.

In the case of PSOs in the public sector the 'gaining' spouse becomes a Pension Credit member of the scheme, with their own record.  Any rights to early payment aren't transferable, so the gaining spouse's pension would have an NRA of 65/SPA.  Public sector pension credit members can't transfer out so, yes, the wife in this case would eventually have received payment of her pension benefits direct from TPS.

Thanks for clarifying that. In fact in this case the Teacher is the wife, and the gaining spouse would be over 65 already. They have similar other assets but as she has been a senior teacher for many years, her pension is a bigger than his DC pot as far as I can gauge from a distance anyway.

It's not cut and dried that the TPS pension will be shared.  The value is just another marital asset, and could be used as an offset.  ie, the husband gets a bigger share of the house in lieu of a pension sharing order.

During my LGPS years I did countless Divorce CETV calculations - but barely 10% progressed to an actual PSO.

wounded_panic

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

GunJack said:

Rather than cetv, would it not be better for your scheme to split your membership with your (soon) ex-spouse? Surely less messy going forward

Not (usually) how it works on divorce. You're looking at the capital value of all assets, and simply doing as you suggest gives no idea of the underlying value of a DB pension.

Yes, I've asked the scheme if they will do pension earmarking (eg give both me and wife 24K). They seem reluctant to do this and anyway the payment to her stops on my death. Plus it doesnt give a 'clean break'.

That's not the way a pension earmarking order works.  Your pension provider can't just pay half of your pension to your wife - they would just continue to pay the full amount to you (as your taxable income).  You would then personally transfer the specified amount to your wife.

An earmarking order would make life much easier for your pension provider, as they wouldn't actually have to do anything - but they are right in warning you of the downsides.  ie, no clean break order and payments would cease on your death.

Earmarking orders were largely wiped out by the introduction of Pension Sharing Orders (PSOs) in which a %age of the benefits valuation are placed into a scheme under the recipients name, and are theirs for life.  
.

Some time ago I was looking at the Teachers Pension Scheme rules in this area on behalf of a friend, who potentially may have to get involved with a Pension sharing order.
If I remember correctly it was possible for the TPS to pay a regular pension directly to the divorced spouse of the pension holder, as part of a legal financial settlement between divorcing parties. I do not remember any mention of it going into a separate scheme. Although I could have read it wrongly.

In the case of PSOs in the public sector the 'gaining' spouse becomes a Pension Credit member of the scheme, with their own record.  Any rights to early payment aren't transferable, so the gaining spouse's pension would have an NRA of 65/SPA.  Public sector pension credit members can't transfer out so, yes, the wife in this case would eventually have received payment of her pension benefits direct from TPS.

Thanks for clarifying that. In fact in this case the Teacher is the wife, and the gaining spouse would be over 65 already. They have similar other assets but as she has been a senior teacher for many years, her pension is a bigger than his DC pot as far as I can gauge from a distance anyway.

It's not cut and dried that the TPS pension will be shared.  The value is just another marital asset, and could be used as an offset.  ie, the husband gets a bigger share of the house in lieu of a pension sharing order.

During my LGPS years I did countless Divorce CETV calculations - but barely 10% progressed to an actual PSO.

What, generally do they progress to, if not a PSO?

Albermarle

It's not cut and dried that the TPS pension will be shared.  The value is just another marital asset, and could be used as an offset.  ie, the husband gets a bigger share of the house in lieu of a pension sharing order.

Yes I fully understand that is what might well happen.

What, generally do they progress to, if not a PSO?

The normal scenario seems to be that all assets are thrown in the pot ( pensions, house, savings etc )

It is shared out  50:50 in various permutations. 

I think what @Silvertabby is saying, is that although the pension value is taken into account in the negotiations, an actual PSO does not happen very often as other ways are found to get to the 50:50 split.

Marcon

wounded_panic said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

GunJack said:

Rather than cetv, would it not be better for your scheme to split your membership with your (soon) ex-spouse? Surely less messy going forward

Not (usually) how it works on divorce. You're looking at the capital value of all assets, and simply doing as you suggest gives no idea of the underlying value of a DB pension.

Yes, I've asked the scheme if they will do pension earmarking (eg give both me and wife 24K). They seem reluctant to do this and anyway the payment to her stops on my death. Plus it doesnt give a 'clean break'.

That's not the way a pension earmarking order works.  Your pension provider can't just pay half of your pension to your wife - they would just continue to pay the full amount to you (as your taxable income).  You would then personally transfer the specified amount to your wife.

An earmarking order would make life much easier for your pension provider, as they wouldn't actually have to do anything - but they are right in warning you of the downsides.  ie, no clean break order and payments would cease on your death.

Earmarking orders were largely wiped out by the introduction of Pension Sharing Orders (PSOs) in which a %age of the benefits valuation are placed into a scheme under the recipients name, and are theirs for life.  
.

Some time ago I was looking at the Teachers Pension Scheme rules in this area on behalf of a friend, who potentially may have to get involved with a Pension sharing order.
If I remember correctly it was possible for the TPS to pay a regular pension directly to the divorced spouse of the pension holder, as part of a legal financial settlement between divorcing parties. I do not remember any mention of it going into a separate scheme. Although I could have read it wrongly.

In the case of PSOs in the public sector the 'gaining' spouse becomes a Pension Credit member of the scheme, with their own record.  Any rights to early payment aren't transferable, so the gaining spouse's pension would have an NRA of 65/SPA.  Public sector pension credit members can't transfer out so, yes, the wife in this case would eventually have received payment of her pension benefits direct from TPS.

Thanks for clarifying that. In fact in this case the Teacher is the wife, and the gaining spouse would be over 65 already. They have similar other assets but as she has been a senior teacher for many years, her pension is a bigger than his DC pot as far as I can gauge from a distance anyway.

It's not cut and dried that the TPS pension will be shared.  The value is just another marital asset, and could be used as an offset.  ie, the husband gets a bigger share of the house in lieu of a pension sharing order.

During my LGPS years I did countless Divorce CETV calculations - but barely 10% progressed to an actual PSO.

What, generally do they progress to, if not a PSO?

You're asking a lot of very basic questions, and seem to have some major misunderstandings (eg what constitutes mediation). For your own protection, are you actually getting proper advice from a solicitor with relevant expertise?

wounded_panic

Marcon said:

wounded_panic said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

GunJack said:

Rather than cetv, would it not be better for your scheme to split your membership with your (soon) ex-spouse? Surely less messy going forward

Not (usually) how it works on divorce. You're looking at the capital value of all assets, and simply doing as you suggest gives no idea of the underlying value of a DB pension.

Yes, I've asked the scheme if they will do pension earmarking (eg give both me and wife 24K). They seem reluctant to do this and anyway the payment to her stops on my death. Plus it doesnt give a 'clean break'.

That's not the way a pension earmarking order works.  Your pension provider can't just pay half of your pension to your wife - they would just continue to pay the full amount to you (as your taxable income).  You would then personally transfer the specified amount to your wife.

An earmarking order would make life much easier for your pension provider, as they wouldn't actually have to do anything - but they are right in warning you of the downsides.  ie, no clean break order and payments would cease on your death.

Earmarking orders were largely wiped out by the introduction of Pension Sharing Orders (PSOs) in which a %age of the benefits valuation are placed into a scheme under the recipients name, and are theirs for life.  
.

Some time ago I was looking at the Teachers Pension Scheme rules in this area on behalf of a friend, who potentially may have to get involved with a Pension sharing order.
If I remember correctly it was possible for the TPS to pay a regular pension directly to the divorced spouse of the pension holder, as part of a legal financial settlement between divorcing parties. I do not remember any mention of it going into a separate scheme. Although I could have read it wrongly.

In the case of PSOs in the public sector the 'gaining' spouse becomes a Pension Credit member of the scheme, with their own record.  Any rights to early payment aren't transferable, so the gaining spouse's pension would have an NRA of 65/SPA.  Public sector pension credit members can't transfer out so, yes, the wife in this case would eventually have received payment of her pension benefits direct from TPS.

Thanks for clarifying that. In fact in this case the Teacher is the wife, and the gaining spouse would be over 65 already. They have similar other assets but as she has been a senior teacher for many years, her pension is a bigger than his DC pot as far as I can gauge from a distance anyway.

It's not cut and dried that the TPS pension will be shared.  The value is just another marital asset, and could be used as an offset.  ie, the husband gets a bigger share of the house in lieu of a pension sharing order.

During my LGPS years I did countless Divorce CETV calculations - but barely 10% progressed to an actual PSO.

What, generally do they progress to, if not a PSO?

You're asking a lot of very basic questions, and seem to have some major misunderstandings (eg what constitutes mediation). For your own protection, are you actually getting proper advice from a solicitor with relevant expertise?

Well, I'm at the early stages and getting proper advice is my next step.

Albermarle

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

wounded_panic said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

GunJack said:

Rather than cetv, would it not be better for your scheme to split your membership with your (soon) ex-spouse? Surely less messy going forward

Not (usually) how it works on divorce. You're looking at the capital value of all assets, and simply doing as you suggest gives no idea of the underlying value of a DB pension.

Yes, I've asked the scheme if they will do pension earmarking (eg give both me and wife 24K). They seem reluctant to do this and anyway the payment to her stops on my death. Plus it doesnt give a 'clean break'.

That's not the way a pension earmarking order works.  Your pension provider can't just pay half of your pension to your wife - they would just continue to pay the full amount to you (as your taxable income).  You would then personally transfer the specified amount to your wife.

An earmarking order would make life much easier for your pension provider, as they wouldn't actually have to do anything - but they are right in warning you of the downsides.  ie, no clean break order and payments would cease on your death.

Earmarking orders were largely wiped out by the introduction of Pension Sharing Orders (PSOs) in which a %age of the benefits valuation are placed into a scheme under the recipients name, and are theirs for life.  
.

Some time ago I was looking at the Teachers Pension Scheme rules in this area on behalf of a friend, who potentially may have to get involved with a Pension sharing order.
If I remember correctly it was possible for the TPS to pay a regular pension directly to the divorced spouse of the pension holder, as part of a legal financial settlement between divorcing parties. I do not remember any mention of it going into a separate scheme. Although I could have read it wrongly.

In the case of PSOs in the public sector the 'gaining' spouse becomes a Pension Credit member of the scheme, with their own record.  Any rights to early payment aren't transferable, so the gaining spouse's pension would have an NRA of 65/SPA.  Public sector pension credit members can't transfer out so, yes, the wife in this case would eventually have received payment of her pension benefits direct from TPS.

Thanks for clarifying that. In fact in this case the Teacher is the wife, and the gaining spouse would be over 65 already. They have similar other assets but as she has been a senior teacher for many years, her pension is a bigger than his DC pot as far as I can gauge from a distance anyway.

It's not cut and dried that the TPS pension will be shared.  The value is just another marital asset, and could be used as an offset.  ie, the husband gets a bigger share of the house in lieu of a pension sharing order.

During my LGPS years I did countless Divorce CETV calculations - but barely 10% progressed to an actual PSO.

What, generally do they progress to, if not a PSO?

You're asking a lot of very basic questions, and seem to have some major misunderstandings (eg what constitutes mediation). For your own protection, are you actually getting proper advice from a solicitor with relevant expertise?

Well, I'm at the early stages and getting proper advice is my next step.

Also athough solicitors cost money ( for both parties), it can be difficult to come to a financial settlement without them.
Negotiating such issues directly with a soon to be ex spouse can be a bit tricky....

Marcon

Albermarle said:

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

wounded_panic said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

Albermarle said:

Silvertabby said:

wounded_panic said:

Marcon said:

GunJack said:

Rather than cetv, would it not be better for your scheme to split your membership with your (soon) ex-spouse? Surely less messy going forward

Not (usually) how it works on divorce. You're looking at the capital value of all assets, and simply doing as you suggest gives no idea of the underlying value of a DB pension.

Yes, I've asked the scheme if they will do pension earmarking (eg give both me and wife 24K). They seem reluctant to do this and anyway the payment to her stops on my death. Plus it doesnt give a 'clean break'.

That's not the way a pension earmarking order works.  Your pension provider can't just pay half of your pension to your wife - they would just continue to pay the full amount to you (as your taxable income).  You would then personally transfer the specified amount to your wife.

An earmarking order would make life much easier for your pension provider, as they wouldn't actually have to do anything - but they are right in warning you of the downsides.  ie, no clean break order and payments would cease on your death.

Earmarking orders were largely wiped out by the introduction of Pension Sharing Orders (PSOs) in which a %age of the benefits valuation are placed into a scheme under the recipients name, and are theirs for life.  
.

Some time ago I was looking at the Teachers Pension Scheme rules in this area on behalf of a friend, who potentially may have to get involved with a Pension sharing order.
If I remember correctly it was possible for the TPS to pay a regular pension directly to the divorced spouse of the pension holder, as part of a legal financial settlement between divorcing parties. I do not remember any mention of it going into a separate scheme. Although I could have read it wrongly.

In the case of PSOs in the public sector the 'gaining' spouse becomes a Pension Credit member of the scheme, with their own record.  Any rights to early payment aren't transferable, so the gaining spouse's pension would have an NRA of 65/SPA.  Public sector pension credit members can't transfer out so, yes, the wife in this case would eventually have received payment of her pension benefits direct from TPS.

Thanks for clarifying that. In fact in this case the Teacher is the wife, and the gaining spouse would be over 65 already. They have similar other assets but as she has been a senior teacher for many years, her pension is a bigger than his DC pot as far as I can gauge from a distance anyway.

It's not cut and dried that the TPS pension will be shared.  The value is just another marital asset, and could be used as an offset.  ie, the husband gets a bigger share of the house in lieu of a pension sharing order.

During my LGPS years I did countless Divorce CETV calculations - but barely 10% progressed to an actual PSO.

What, generally do they progress to, if not a PSO?

You're asking a lot of very basic questions, and seem to have some major misunderstandings (eg what constitutes mediation). For your own protection, are you actually getting proper advice from a solicitor with relevant expertise?

Well, I'm at the early stages and getting proper advice is my next step.

Also athough solicitors cost money ( for both parties), it can be difficult to come to a financial settlement without them.
Negotiating such issues directly with a soon to be ex spouse can be a bit tricky....

...which is where a mediator becomes so useful (and why the courts normally require divorcing couples to have at least tried that route if they've not been able to come to an agreement).