Pension and Divorce

JammyD

Registered User
Messages
12
Just wondering if anyone can explain to me why a pension, held by and wholly paid for by one spouse becomes an asset of the marriage on divorce which the other party can have a claim on?

I'm just struggling to understand how the spouse who plans prudently for their retirement can be penalised in favour of the one that does not. I know divorce is rarely fair but it just seems that this is completely unjust.

TIA
 
All assets, whatsoever and wheresoever, available to either party to a marriage
are taken into consideration by the Court when deciding on proper provision on the break up of the
marriage.

mf
 
Last edited:
I'm just struggling to understand how the spouse who plans prudently for their retirement can be penalised in favour of the one that does not.
You were married - the expectation was that you were planning for your joint retirement.

If you remained married and both retired - would you really be cheerfully jaunting off to spain for the winter & leaving your spouse behind saying 'you didn't plan prudently so see you when I get back'?
 
Just wondering if anyone can explain to me why a pension, held by and wholly paid for by one spouse becomes an asset of the marriage on divorce which the other party can have a claim on?
Maybe their spouse was at home rearing the six kids while they earned big money to stuff the pension fund.

I know there are inequities in family law but to suggest that pensions should be totally out of scope in a settlement is absurd.
 
It only applies to the pension contributions during the marriage period I believe.
If both have pensions, this should be part of the pot that is split.
Your solocitor should help with this.
 
Just wondering if anyone can explain to me why a pension, held by and wholly paid for by one spouse becomes an asset of the marriage on divorce which the other party can have a claim on?
Assume husband has a pension. Wife does not. They get divorced. Pension adjustment orders are in place. Husband dies. Neither party has remarried.

If the wife has not remarried she could be entitled to the widower's pension (€220.50 weekly plus €42 for a minor child). The €8,000 Widowed or Surviving Civil Partner Grant. She and any children may be entitled to receive your pension the same way as if you were still married (calculated up until the date of divorce).

If this wasn't provided for in the legislation then it would simply lapse.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to those of you who took the time to give informed answers to my question.

In the case where one spouse worked in the home rearing children etc I do of course see it as just and fair that the pension is part of the “pot”.

In the case where both worked and one just didn’t bother with a pension plan I don’t see it the same way at all and wanted to better understand the reasoning behind it is all.

Not that pensions should be out of scope but considered on a case by case basis I would suggest.

Again thanks for the informed answers
 
Thanks to those of you who took the time to give informed answers to my question.

In the case where one spouse worked in the home rearing children etc I do of course see it as just and fair that the pension is part of the “pot”.

In the case where both worked and one just didn’t bother with a pension plan I don’t see it the same way at all and wanted to better understand the reasoning behind it is all.

Not that pensions should be out of scope but considered on a case by case basis I would suggest.

Again thanks for the informed answers

Because when you’re married, a broad principle of “what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine” applies.
 
Thanks to those of you who took the time to give informed answers to my question.

In the case where one spouse worked in the home rearing children etc I do of course see it as just and fair that the pension is part of the “pot”.

In the case where both worked and one just didn’t bother with a pension plan I don’t see it the same way at all and wanted to better understand the reasoning behind it is all.

Not that pensions should be out of scope but considered on a case by case basis I would suggest.

Again thanks for the informed answers
That sounds like the sort of relationship that ends up in divorce... and yes, I am speaking from experience.
 
Most people who don’t bother with pensions do so for two reasons, either lack of knowledge or inability to pay.

In any event, couples should talk about these things and plan together.

And sometimes, one side is just the finance person.
 
Am I right in saying that both spouses pensions are taken into consideration?

So if spouse A has a private sector defined contribution "pension pot" at age 50 of, say, 600k.

And spouse B has a public sector defined benefit pension of say 40k per annum.

Is this split 50:50? So Spouse A woyld get 30k per annum plus 300k pot, if you follow me?
 
Am I right in saying that both spouses pensions are taken into consideration?

So if spouse A has a private sector defined contribution "pension pot" at age 50 of, say, 600k.

And spouse B has a public sector defined benefit pension of say 40k per annum.

Is this split 50:50? So Spouse A woyld get 30k per annum plus 300k pot, if you follow me?
Yes to Q1
Can't really answer on Q2 - it depends on the totality of assets, nothing is assessed in isolation.
 
Yes to Q1
Can't really answer on Q2 - it depends on the totality of assets, nothing is assessed in isolation.
@ArthurMcB, The unfairness of the current way it works is that future value is not really taken into account. If one party has a pension of €600k but will be unable to contribute to it further after the divorce and the other has a new job with a fantastic defined benefit pension the €600k is split and the DB pension is assessed at it's current nominal value.
 
Back
Top