Money Moral Dilemma: Should I contact my late husband's ex, who's a beneficiary on his pension?

ripongrammargirl

This is a scary prospect for those with money to leave to others. We have wills (20 years ago when we married) and both sections of power of attorneys for each other. We don’t have any children (just a small dog!) and hubby has me as nominated beneficiary for his pensions and I’ve just done one to make sure he gets my tiny pittance of a pension that I have not had money to pay into since becoming disabled- the tiny amount of disability benefit gets eaten up by debts I’ve been trying to pay off for 20 years (next year, hopefully🤞) but as someone with zero savings etc I’m going to take my tiny pension, use it on a world cruise and hopefully peg it at sea so they can chuck me overboard, which is also my wish.
Money can be difficult so best not to have any. Hope the poster gets some help and closure with this dilemma.

Simon_the_saver_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061581#Comment_82061581

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061603#Comment_82061603

For most DB pensions it is an 'Expression of wish' over which the Trustees have discretion, so changes such as 'new' relationships should be taken into account. As I understand my original DB pension, the discretionary decision was not only who to pay a beneficiary pension to, but whether to pay one at all.

One of my DB pensions was sold to Aviva, replaced by first a group insurance, and recently an individual policy.
I asked precisely this question about how discretionary expressions of wish would be handled given there were no longer any trustees…

I wonder if an insurer might just find it 'too difficult' to find a discretionary beneficiary and choose not to pay at all? Cynical? Me? Never…

uk2009

Zero chance of getting any money, voluntarily, from an ex girlfriend of your husband in my opinion. Probably got a family, mortgage and debts herself. You could try and track her down but I think you would be wasting your time.

Marcon

As I understand my original DB pension, the discretionary decision was not only who to pay a beneficiary pension to, but whether to pay one at all. 

One of my DB pensions was sold to Aviva, replaced by first a group insurance, and recently an individual policy. 
I asked precisely this question about how discretionary expressions of wish would be handled given there were no longer any trustees… 

I wonder if an insurer might just find it 'too difficult' to find a discretionary beneficiary and choose not to pay at all? Cynical? Me? Never…

This is yet another post which isn't on topic, but since you've asked…

Your policy will set out the terms on which any survivor pensions would be paid, so have a read - it'l be there. If nobody fits the criteria, then no survivor pensions will be payable - which will accord with the rules of the original scheme, from what you've said.

If there is a guarantee period on your pension (5 years is common in DB schemes) and you die within that time, then again, Thea policy will spell out what happens - probably words to the effect that it will be paid to your spouse/civil partner/eligible unmarried partner, failing which it will be paid to your personal representatives.

Ritusrex

I had an old Equitable Life private pension that I took out in the 1980's.

I had long since stopped any contributions going into it, and during that time had divorced and gone on to remarry, and became a parent.

Only by chance I read an article recommending to check who the nominated beneficiary was on any old life policies and pensions. I was mortified when I saw the private pension was set to benefit my ex husband, someone I'd divorced in 1990! Had I died, my now husband and God forbid, my young son, would've been completely out of the picture.

Needless to say, for me, it was put right there and then.

kimwp

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82061619#Comment_82061619

Presumably that's for when the nomination form is out of date, eg someone nominates their partner, but then has a new partner and doesn't update their nominees. In this case, the husband did update the form, to include both his wife and his ex. There might be room for re-allocatimg allowed if his children with his wife arrived after he made the nominations, but I would think the default would be to align nominations with the wishes of the deceased (in this case a split between wife and ex), rather than the trustees decide who deserves the funds.

For the mmd, no, I do not think the ex should be contacted and appealed to, to return the money - however much anyone else disagrees with the allocation, it was the wish of the deceased to give some of his pension to his ex.

Rocketdogroya

Devil's Advocate:

The wording confuses me? 'Another beneficiary' makes it sound like you were both entitled. If so, he obviously changed his will to include you both so why question it?

I am pretty sure I could find anyone I knew a smattering of facts about and find most people if I knew their name in a couple of hours with the aid of FB. It was obviously more than just a fling so I am guessing he did 'mention' her by name to his wife. Mind you the pensions provider would still be in the wrong to tell you the name of the beneficiary.

Legal standpoint? I have no idea but if my other half had dementia, "all his ducks would be in a row" as a priority.

Pollycat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82062269#Comment_82062269

As you say, the wording is ambiguous in this MMD.

The originator of this MMD has claimed one pension but it is not clear if there was another pension taken out whilst the husband was with his ex but he never changed the nomination or if there was one pension with 2 beneficiaries.

If it is the former, the husband was sloppy with his admin by not updating his nomination.

If it is the latter, then the husband deliberately chose to include his ex as well as his wife. There is no 'right thing to do' in this scenario. The money was distributed as the husband wished.

I know that MSE ruthlessly edit MMDs (as one person popped up after pages and pages of disagreement to post the original submission which made the situation very clear cut) but in this case I don't think they've done the originator of this MMD any favours by not making this point clear.

I question how the wife 'found out' about this extra beneficiary.

.

mlv-1967

I always thought that you needed to prove the existence of a relationship before being able to claim as a dependent. It seems strange that they just paid out without requesting proof, such as mortgage details, council tax bills etc.

dunstonh

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82062079#Comment_82062079

As already mentioned on the thread several times, there would be no reason for you to be mortified. Your ex-husband would not have received the money.

I always thought that you needed to prove the existence of a relationship before being able to claim as a dependent. It seems strange that they just paid out without requesting proof, such as mortgage details, council tax bills etc.

To give you an idea, here's what Standard Life asked on a recent death claim on a pension where the ex-wife was still listed as the beneficiary on the expression of wish.

• Was there a will? If so, provide a copy.
• How was the house owned, and was there a mortgage?
• Were bank accounts joint or separate?
• What was the date of marriage?
• Was there a previous marriage? Provide details.
• A catch-all question asking for any other supporting information
• A list of the family members of the deceased

Standard Life wrote to all members of the family asking them if they felt they had a claim on the policy and to give their reasons if so. they also had the details of the ex-spouse who had since remarried. I don't know if they wrote to her or what her response was, if she did. however, after about three months of waiting for responses and making a decision, they paid the money to the current spouse