inheriting ex's pension pots???

DRS1

Marcon said:

Brie said:

Work or private pensions?

Work pensions are private pensions. A workplace pension could be trust based, contract based or one of the statutory schemes (eg NHS, Civil Service).

Brie said:

I know for work pensions the scheme administers will act according to the terms of the scheme as set up with the scheme trustees.  

It's the sponsoring employer who sets up a trust based scheme; the trustees then manage it.

Brie said:

Normally a work scheme will pay out to the named beneficiary unless there's a good argument to pay out to someone else.  (i.e. if an ex is named beneficiary but the scheme member has remarried but not updated their nomination then the administrators may decide to pay out to the current spouse).  But you haven't said if you were a named beneficiary on the pension (s).  And a lot will depend on the type of pension and the scheme rules.  

I would guess that in any case your/his children would be entitled to the pensions.  Are there any others that are not yours?  

You're confusing trust based and contract based schemes. If the schemes are trust based, the rules of the scheme will set out what happens on the death of the member. If they've remarried then the current spouse is the spouse and a nomination form can't normally override that. Children would only be entitled if they are 'eligible children' under the rules of the scheme - which usually means under age 18, although if they are still in full time education or training there is often a discretion for the trustees to continue up to (say) age 23; or sometimes if the 'child' was dependent on the member by reason of physical or mental disability, the pension may have no upper age limit.

@Marcon you know more about pensions than I do so you surely know that when @Brie was distinguishing work and private pensions they meant occupational (work) and personal (private) pensions.  Even I could work that out.

As for setting up "trust based schemes" I am guessing you have prepared or read enough Trust Deeds to know that they are made between the sponsoring employer and the trustees so it is perfectly correct to refer to the scheme being "set up with the scheme trustees".  The trustees then appoint scheme administrators to administer the scheme and as far as the scheme member's beneficiaries are concerned it is the administrator who would be the point of contact in the case of the member's death.

On the last point I don't see any confusion between trust based schemes and contract based schemes in what @Brie said.  As far as I can tell both of you are talking about trust based schemes.  It would obviously help if the OP could come back and say what sort of scheme the two pension pots are in (though they probably don't know).  The reference to pension pots suggests that they are personal pension schemes (but of course they could be in a DC occupational pension scheme).  I may be wrong but if the pots are in personal pensions would the age/education/disability conditions mentioned by @Marcon become irrelevant?

It seems to me the OP needs to get in touch with the lawyer who held financial power of attorney for her ex as they are likely to know what provision her ex made for his estate on death (eg new will and nomination forms for the pensions).  I am guessing but I would have thought the lawyer would have tried to get their client to do something especially as he was in a care home.

Cobbler_tone

It is highly frowned upon, unwise and recommended against a divorce without a financial settlement. In fact, I wouldn’t bother going through the process of a divorce without one. Who wants future surprises and a world of potential financial pain?!
People will cite the belief that things can be done amicably in the future but when you factor in subsequent relationships and kids that’ll be rarely the case.
I know several solicitors won’t support it and certain courts don’t readily entertain it.
You may as well separate an do both at once if there is a chance of reconciliation.
Full and final all the way! It’s painful enough without that cloud hanging.

Marcon

DRS1 said:

Marcon said:

Brie said:

Work or private pensions?

Work pensions are private pensions. A workplace pension could be trust based, contract based or one of the statutory schemes (eg NHS, Civil Service).

Brie said:

I know for work pensions the scheme administers will act according to the terms of the scheme as set up with the scheme trustees.  

It's the sponsoring employer who sets up a trust based scheme; the trustees then manage it.

Brie said:

Normally a work scheme will pay out to the named beneficiary unless there's a good argument to pay out to someone else.  (i.e. if an ex is named beneficiary but the scheme member has remarried but not updated their nomination then the administrators may decide to pay out to the current spouse).  But you haven't said if you were a named beneficiary on the pension (s).  And a lot will depend on the type of pension and the scheme rules.  

I would guess that in any case your/his children would be entitled to the pensions.  Are there any others that are not yours?  

You're confusing trust based and contract based schemes. If the schemes are trust based, the rules of the scheme will set out what happens on the death of the member. If they've remarried then the current spouse is the spouse and a nomination form can't normally override that. Children would only be entitled if they are 'eligible children' under the rules of the scheme - which usually means under age 18, although if they are still in full time education or training there is often a discretion for the trustees to continue up to (say) age 23; or sometimes if the 'child' was dependent on the member by reason of physical or mental disability, the pension may have no upper age limit.

@Marcon you know more about pensions than I do so you surely know that when @Brie was distinguishing work and private pensions they meant occupational (work) and personal (private) pensions.  Even I could work that out.

You might be 'able to work that out' but you're wrong too, I'm afraid. A 'work' pension could be a group personal pension and these days frequently is - and that's not an occupational scheme! These days, following the introduction of auto-enrolment, the words 'workplace pension scheme' are increasingly used to cover all arrangements set up by an employer, whether true occupational schemes, group personal pensions, master trusts or whatever. 

DRS1 said:

Marcon said:

Brie said:

Normally a work scheme will pay out to the named beneficiary unless there's a good argument to pay out to someone else.  (i.e. if an ex is named beneficiary but the scheme member has remarried but not updated their nomination then the administrators may decide to pay out to the current spouse).  But you haven't said if you were a named beneficiary on the pension (s).  And a lot will depend on the type of pension and the scheme rules.  

I would guess that in any case your/his children would be entitled to the pensions.  Are there any others that are not yours?  

You're confusing trust based and contract based schemes. If the schemes are trust based, the rules of the scheme will set out what happens on the death of the member. If they've remarried then the current spouse is the spouse and a nomination form can't normally override that. Children would only be entitled if they are 'eligible children' under the rules of the scheme - which usually means under age 18, although if they are still in full time education or training there is often a discretion for the trustees to continue up to (say) age 23; or sometimes if the 'child' was dependent on the member by reason of physical or mental disability, the pension may have no upper age limit.

On the last point I don't see any confusion between trust based schemes and contract based schemes in what @Brie said.  As far as I can tell both of you are talking about trust based schemes.  It would obviously help if the OP could come back and say what sort of scheme the two pension pots are in (though they probably don't know).  The reference to pension pots suggests that they are personal pension schemes (but of course they could be in a DC occupational pension scheme).  

Unfortunately Brie's answer is both confused and confusing to those who've spent far too many decades in this particular arena. Parts of her answer refer to trust based schemes and parts to contract based schemes. The fact you can't tell that rather serves to demonstrate my point, viz:

'Normally a work scheme will pay out to the named beneficiary unless there's a good argument to pay out to someone else.  (i.e. if an ex is named beneficiary but the scheme member has remarried but not updated their nomination then the administrators may decide to pay out to the current spouse).'

A trust based scheme quite simply wouldn't have those sorts of discretions - and it certainly won't be the administrators who decide whether or not payment is made to a particular recipient. They just administer the scheme in accordance with the trust deed and rules - and any discretions which may be relevant are for the trustees to exercise.

DRS1 said:

The reference to pension pots suggests that they are personal pension schemes (but of course they could be in a DC occupational pension scheme).  I may be wrong but if the pots are in personal pensions would the age/education/disability conditions mentioned by @Marcon become irrelevant?

Not just a personal pension pot - they are unlikely to feature in a  DC occupational scheme. A deferred member of the latter would be unlikely to have automatic 'children's pensions' payable on their death; and a pensioner who'd bought an annuity would only have the survivor benefits specified under the terms of that annuity. Active members of an occupational DC arrangement might have the benefit of a DIS lump sum, but that would rarely have conditions attaching to it in respect of children's pensions, although it's possible a few schemes might carry insurance specifically for that purpose.

xylophone

I was named in his will as the benefactor of his estate.

Beneficiary? The distinction is important!

will1122

If you're divorced, you generally can't inherit your ex's pension pot unless a court order (like a pension sharing or attachment order) was made during the divorce, or you're still listed as a beneficiary on their pension. Most pension providers won’t pay out to an ex unless explicitly instructed, so it’s best to check with the pension scheme and review any divorce agreements for clarity.

Albermarle

Unfortunately Brie's answer is both confused and confusing to those who've spent far too many decades in this particular arena. Parts of her answer refer to trust based schemes and parts to contract based schemes. The fact you can't tell that rather serves to demonstrate my point, viz:

'Normally a work scheme will pay out to the named beneficiary unless there's a good argument to pay out to someone else.  (i.e. if an ex is named beneficiary but the scheme member has remarried but not updated their nomination then the administrators may decide to pay out to the current spouse).'

A trust based scheme quite simply wouldn't have those sorts of discretions - and it certainly won't be the administrators who decide whether or not payment is made to a particular recipient. They just administer the scheme in accordance with the trust deed and rules - and any discretions which may be relevant are for the trustees to exercise.

I am thinking here that the confusion might be that with a DC pension, ( work related or personal) you fill in an EOW form with your named beneficiary(s) . It is often stated in many threads on here at least that the Trustees of the DC pension, then decide whether to award the pot to the named beneficiary, or not/investigate further. 
However in your knowledge of the pensions arena, these are not Trust based pensions, but contract schemes, (even though the word trustee is often mentioned in relation to them.)
Is that about right? Or not?

DRS1

Albermarle said:

Unfortunately Brie's answer is both confused and confusing to those who've spent far too many decades in this particular arena. Parts of her answer refer to trust based schemes and parts to contract based schemes. The fact you can't tell that rather serves to demonstrate my point, viz:

'Normally a work scheme will pay out to the named beneficiary unless there's a good argument to pay out to someone else.  (i.e. if an ex is named beneficiary but the scheme member has remarried but not updated their nomination then the administrators may decide to pay out to the current spouse).'

A trust based scheme quite simply wouldn't have those sorts of discretions - and it certainly won't be the administrators who decide whether or not payment is made to a particular recipient. They just administer the scheme in accordance with the trust deed and rules - and any discretions which may be relevant are for the trustees to exercise.

I am thinking here that the confusion might be that with a DC pension, ( work related or personal) you fill in an EOW form with your named beneficiary(s) . It is often stated in many threads on here at least that the Trustees of the DC pension, then decide whether to award the pot to the named beneficiary, or not/investigate further. 
However in your knowledge of the pensions arena, these are not Trust based pensions, but contract schemes, (even though the word trustee is often mentioned in relation to them.)
Is that about right? Or not?

It is probably best if we let @Marcon answer this.

In my experience (20 years out of date) trust based schemes DO have discretionary trust provisions to deal with LUMP SUM benefits payable on death and do have beneficiary nomination forms which can be used when the trustees exercise their discretion as to who gets the lump sum.

In the private sector it was common for there to be NO discretion as to who received the spouse's pension or children's pension on death.  Maybe it is now more common to have an LGPS style EOW to cover the spouse's pension - I imagine that came in to cover the so called "common law" wife who was not legally married to the deceased and who would miss out on the more strictly worded definition of a spouse but perhaps it also covered same sex couples in the days before civil partnerships.  So there could be an element of discretion there as well.

You tended to get the complications with EOWs where the member had remarried but not changed the EOW naming the ex-spouse but that would only really affect the lump sum death benefit.  For the spouse's pension the current lawful spouse would trump the ex every time.

With a DB scheme the lump sum death benefit was typically 4 x salary but for a DC scheme I imagine it could now cover the member's accumulated fund (although I think occupational DC schemes used to have provision for a spouse's pension on death, maybe that got changed when the pension freedoms came along).

Albermarle

With a DB scheme the lump sum death benefit was typically 4 x salary but for a DC scheme I imagine it could now cover the member's accumulated fund (although I think occupational DC schemes used to have provision for a spouse's pension on death, maybe that got changed when the pension freedoms came along).

In my last job I had a workplace DC pension, but a separate death benefit ( 6X)  . Probably because originally it had been a generous DB scheme with a generous employer ( ICI) and when the current owners stopped the DB, they left the death benefit there as a concession to the unions. 

DRS1

6 times seems very generous - the old Inland Revenue limit on lump sum death benefits from an approved scheme was 4 times Final Remuneration but that was before the new tax regime came in (2006?).

Cobbler_tone

We had 5 times for two years whilst we moved from DB to DC and then it reverted to 4. It shows as a separate benefit funded by the company