Telephone
Helpline
Discussions
& Chats
Case
Histories
Available
Downloads

You are not logged in.

Facebook Twitter Google Digg Reddit LinkedIn Pinterest StumbleUpon Email

In order to post messages to this discussion board click here to login/register

Back

Home Register

sometimesitdoesn'twork

Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Subject: Finances and pensions Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:55:03

\"Undervaluing the pension is fine by me as I want to keep as much as possible.\" It boils down to whether you want to be fair or not. The traditional win/lose approach of settling the finances on divorce by each party trying to secure the best possible deal for themselves is adversary. My concern is you are quite vulnerable as there is no court order regulating the finances and until there is either party can make claims against the other based on valuations taken around the time of settlement. When you provide her solicitors with details of the CETV it would be negligent on their part not to advise an expert valuation if it is likely to make a significant difference. Then as I say there are arguments for sharing pensions according to the future income stream they will provide. As a side issue if the former matrimonial home is in joint names there could be capital gains tax implications on your wife\'s share of the property because it is no longer her main residence. To avoid any doubt I am not a lawyer and have no vested interest but my suggestion is you consult one to find out where you stand and what your options are. Many solicitors offer a free first appointment. I would recommend looking for a solicitor who is a member of Resolution, an organization of family lawyers which promotes a non adversarial approach. However, you must satisfy yourself that the solicitor is committed to the Resolution code of conduct. As far as legal fees are concerned the point of having capital is you can borrow against it. In most cases even legal aid is effectively just a loan which has to be paid back at a highish rate of interest and there is a charge put on the property.

Replies

sometimesitdoesn'twork

Username: sometimesitdoesn'twork
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:55:03

Legal aid is means tested and there is a lot of capital in the property so unfortunately I don\'t think you will qualify. With regard to the pension value, any statement less than a year is fine but you need to be aware that although the starting point is the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value, depending on the type of pension scheme, this might significantly undervalue the pension fund. If this is the case an expert valuation gives the true value. Also your wife might wish to account for the fact the growth rate of her fund will most probably be less and she needs a larger fund to provide the same income in retirement. There is a useful guide \"Pensions on Divorce: A Clients Guide\" to download from here; http://www.bradshawdixonmoore.com/downloads.html

mark1955

Username: mark1955
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:54:16

Thanks sometimes. But surely they cannot really ask me to sell my property to fund solicitors in a divorce, that would make me homeless! Undervaluing the pension is fine by me as I want to keep as much as possible. Mark

sometimesitdoesn'twork

Username: sometimesitdoesn'twork
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:55:03

\"Undervaluing the pension is fine by me as I want to keep as much as possible.\" It boils down to whether you want to be fair or not. The traditional win/lose approach of settling the finances on divorce by each party trying to secure the best possible deal for themselves is adversary. My concern is you are quite vulnerable as there is no court order regulating the finances and until there is either party can make claims against the other based on valuations taken around the time of settlement. When you provide her solicitors with details of the CETV it would be negligent on their part not to advise an expert valuation if it is likely to make a significant difference. Then as I say there are arguments for sharing pensions according to the future income stream they will provide. As a side issue if the former matrimonial home is in joint names there could be capital gains tax implications on your wife\'s share of the property because it is no longer her main residence. To avoid any doubt I am not a lawyer and have no vested interest but my suggestion is you consult one to find out where you stand and what your options are. Many solicitors offer a free first appointment. I would recommend looking for a solicitor who is a member of Resolution, an organization of family lawyers which promotes a non adversarial approach. However, you must satisfy yourself that the solicitor is committed to the Resolution code of conduct. As far as legal fees are concerned the point of having capital is you can borrow against it. In most cases even legal aid is effectively just a loan which has to be paid back at a highish rate of interest and there is a charge put on the property.

EnglishRose

Username: EnglishRose
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:54:15

Also she earns more than you so on that basis and presuming you do most of the cleaning, hiousework and child care of the 14 year old who perhaps might live with you if you do split up, may be you should get more than 50% of the assets, not fewer. i earned 10x what my ex did and he got 60% and doesn\'t support the 5 chidlren. Is this the main issue - which of you will the 14 year old choose to live with and whichever it is is then likely to get the higher % particularly given you dont\' work>

sometimesitdoesn'twork

Username: sometimesitdoesn'twork
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:55:03

Umm.. the problem is marital history is relevant and it is generally accepted by courts that disruption to the child\'s established bonds is to be avoided whenever it is possible to do so and when splitting assets judges are directed to give regard to the following which applies to both parties; \"income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including in the case of earning capacity any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect a party to the marriage to take steps to acquire;\" The reason I think you are vulnerable is because it seems you have already given your wife money without any formal agreement so should there now be a dispute and matters go to court you will be asked to disclose the assets at that time and if she has spent anything already it would mean there is less in the pot to share. Until now you appear to have adopted a win/win approach and agreed something which can work for both parties and I wouldn\'t lose sight of that.
You need to login / register to post a reply.