Separation and pension

L

lonelylad

New Member
Messages
3
Apologies in advance if this has been covered before. A small bit of background information first. My wife and I have agreed to a separation. We are both mid 50's with no dependant children. I work fulltime earning approx. 70K, she doesn't work and has not worked for nearly 20 years. The youngest child has left the house for the last 12 years. So basically she's been at home for the last 12 years not earning or child rearing. There is no mortgage on the house and there is only a few thousand in savings. I have a pension from different jobs I have been in. We plan of doing mediation to see what agreement can be drawn up. I had a few questions and maybe someone here had a similar situation .
1. Should I move out ?
2. By moving out will it compromise my situation ?
3. Is mediation the best way to go or should we opt for judicial separation ?
4. Has she a claim on my private pension from work ?
5. If she has a claim on my pension am I in my rights to say ok she can get it but not for the last 12 years when she could have been working but she choose not to ?
Any guidance would be great
Thanks
 
Hi,
Sorry to hear about the separation

1. If living situation is tolerable & safe for you, don't move out.
2. Probably yes but you need a solicitor advice before you do anything
3. Mediation with a separation agreement is the cheapest and best solution but few ever achieve this from what I have heard.
4 Yes she has a claim to your assets & you have a claim on hers.
5 No I don't think so, that question needs to be answered by a solicitor.
 
I agree with HappyLuck.

Don't move out unless your safety requires it. (And nothing you say in the OP suggests that it does.)

Mediation followed by an agreed judicial separation is your best bet, if you the two of you can make it work for you. But part of making it work is both of you having a commitment to reaching an agreement that takes account of the situations, interests, perspectives, etc of both of you.

All of your assets, and hers, are in the mix — the house, your pension, everything. The fact that she hasn't been working means that there's fewer assets in the mix than there might otherwise have been, but if this goes to court that won't really be a big factor in the allocation of the assets that are available — the court looks at what's available, but generally isn't that concerned about how it became available. I get that you contributed more financially but, looked at from the other side, the fact that you're working and therefore have some experience, seniority etc that she doesn't have means that your future earning capacity is probably signficantly higher than hers, even if she does now look for a job. (The earning capacity of each of you is one of the factors that a court looks at in deciding how to split up the assets that are available.)

Definitely see a solicitor yourself before you go down the mediation route. A solicitor can advise you on how things might pan out of mediation doesn't result in an agreement, and that advice will help you make informed decisions about what you want to get in an agreement, and what you are prepared to give in an agreement. Honestly, the chances of mediation resulting in an agreement are probably higher if your wife also sees a solicitor. That's up to her, not you, but I wouldn't be discouraging her from getting legal advice.
 
Thanks to all for the advice and help
I will be getting legal advise
Just on a side question is there a reason both responses were in favour of not moving out of the house ?
Thanks
 
lonelylad said:
Just on a side question is there a reason both responses were in favour of not moving out of the house ?
Click to expand...
The possibility that it could be characterised as abandoning the remaining spouse, family, family home to the possible detriment of the spouse who moves out when it comes to negotiating a settlement?
 
Note that pensions can only be adjudicated and ruled on in a full divorce and not a judicial separation. If you want pension adjustment orders or pensions to be legally ruled on as part of a final settlement then go straight to divorce. Nil pension adjustment orders can also be part of the divorce ruling which denies the other party a second bite at their x-partners pension. If your pension is substantial then I would divorce and not separate as it's the only way to get the pension apportionment sorted for good.
 
Last edited:
lonelylad said:
Just on a side question is there a reason both responses were in favour of not moving out of the house ?
Click to expand...
If it comes to a row over who gets to keep the house/buy out the other party's share in the house, the spouse in occupation tends to have the edge. The other spouse clearly can live away from the house, because they are already doing that, and by the time this is ruled on in court they usually have made some other arrangement — e.g. rented a flat — so there are somewhat stable arrangements in place. In this situation allowing the person still in the house to keep it looks like a less disruptive option than the alternative.
 
Last edited:
lonelylad said:
5. If she has a claim on my pension am I in my rights to say ok she can get it but not for the last 12 years when she could have been working but she choose not to ?
Click to expand...
She will have a claim on all your pension rights. How big that claim is is down to negotiation/mediation. Most divorces are agreed in advance and consent terms drafted and presented to the judge for ruling as opposed to a judge deciding what a fair split is. In my case my ex-spouse renounced much of her pension apportionment rights and rights to the majority of our joint savings in our divorce consent terms in return for the family home. Worked out well for both parties.

I would suspect if you can't agree consent terms in advance and a judge had to decide on the matter then it would be irrelevant if your spouse could have gone back to work 12 years ago and that the judge would rule for a 50/50% split of all marital assets including pensions. It would be unusal (but not unheard of) for a judge to award spousal maintenance in a case like yours. Feel free to PM me if you want details of my divorce settlement to bench mark against. I had three children though in their late teens.
 
Last edited:
Flybytheseat said:
I would suspect if you can't agree consent terms in advance and a judge had to decide on the matter then it would be irrelevant if your spouse could have gone back to work 12 years ago and that the judge would rule for a 50/50% split of all marital assets including pensions
Click to expand...
That's a huge assumption/suspicion. What might happen is very much dependent on the specifics of the case.
 
I remember reading a case on separation/divorce (UK I think) and the husband had made the comments that his wife had "not worked" and "stayed at home".

This irked the judge who made the observation that his wife reared his children, cooked his meals, looked after the house, entertained his friends etc. etc. and that her doing that enabled him to have the successful career he had. It was an interesting and very valid point.


In mediation, you want to try and avoid as much conflict as possible to ensure the best outcome, so I would have it known that you have valued her contribution to you being able to work and make your career by being and integral part of your work/life balance by managing the home (avoid the word housework) and that having to add these valuable tasks to your time management will be a difficult transition to you.

- so, you are giving credit and also saying that this will will be an added burden to you. (win win :) )
 
Thank you all so much for the response to the questions. I wasn't expecting anything like this interest and I appreciate all the answers.
Especially the staying in the house part I hadn't thought of that.
Just to say I do genuinely value her work in the house and rearing the children and all of that, I'm not in anyway discrediting or under valuing her contribution. It was more the last 12 years when she could have worked but chose not to really was the sticky question.
Thanks again to all
 
lonelylad said:
could have worked but chose not
Click to expand...
In regards to your own profession; consider if you were out of work for 20 years between the ages of say 30 and 50. How do you think your job application would be viewed?

I'd ditch the "could have worked" complaint right now, it will backfire on you.

Unless it would be grossly unjust to do so (e.g. domestic violence) the behaviour of either party during the marriage does not factor into settlement agreements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top