Why is it?

[worsleyweb]

I prefer the rules over here - what you had before you got married is yours and after divorce is split 50 50.

Seems fair but far too sensible.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Whatever the rights and wrongs with it, this is exactly the reason why I wont get married again so long as Ive got a hole in my ass. As I get older now I notice that ladies that I take out ask me about my pension. I wouldnt ask someone about anything like that, why would I its personal. Cameroon has already kicked the tits off my pension, I want to keep whats left of it for me.

 

[doots]

I suppose if you're together for 40 years, she's been the loyal and dutiful housewife bringing up the kids, keeping the house in order and having tea on the table every day when you come in from work. You tell her she doesn't need to work and just keep the house ticking over and then,five years before you are about to retire you fire her off and leave her with basic state pension whilst you enjoy a £25k works pension might be seen as unfair?

I've neither lost out or benefited from this ruling but agree with it.

Not quite
10 years, both worked,both have pensions but one pension is slightly healthier than the other.
Also, both shared parental responsibilities, bills,domestic chores etc so the above theory doesn't stack up.

"Both shared parental responsibilites, bills, chores etc" - so why not share the pensions out?


Think you've answered your own question really.

House equity shared 50/50,fine with that.
Matrimonial assets, yeah them too but having a claim on an ex partners future income in 20 years when you haven't contributed towards it?
Ludicrous.

 

[aguero93:20]

Because they're elongated, legless, carnivorous reptiles of the suborder Serpentes with Mammary glands.

Shoot the woman and take both pensions.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Because they're elongated, legless, carnivorous reptiles of the suborder Serpentes with Mammary glands.

Shoot the woman and take both pensions.

Best answer yet

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Not quite
10 years, both worked,both have pensions but one pension is slightly healthier than the other.
Also, both shared parental responsibilities, bills,domestic chores etc so the above theory doesn't stack up.

"Both shared parental responsibilites, bills, chores etc" - so why not share the pensions out?


Think you've answered your own question really.

House equity shared 50/50,fine with that.
Matrimonial assets, yeah them too but having a claim on an ex partners future income in 20 years when you haven't contributed towards it?
Ludicrous.

In some cases it is ludicrous when its the wife who earned the most money has the biggest pension and they divorce after a couple of years because he had other women (affairs) and he's still got plenty of years to go and earn his own pension. 50/50 seems wrong but it happens( or vice versa when it's the man has the biggest pension)

 

[In the land of Barcodes]

Thankfully some rules have been changed just before my Decree Absolute came through in 2010. I have to be careful about saying too much as my son is on here - BlueSmarties - but in essence my non-contributory Military Pension she thought she had a 50% claim to the years she was married to me whilst I was in the Army.

I kicked off bigstyle as I didn't notice her whilst serving in the Gulf, all of the Balkans & Sierra Leone ever laying down covering fire for me or carrying my bergan.

But luckily for me apparently the rule changed regarding non-contributory and her Solicitor kept sending me letters asking me to sign away the 50% for her. I duly rang the solicitor and told her not to send anymore for three reasons:

1. She was filling my recycling bin and it only gets emptied once a fortnight iwith all of her weighty tomes
2. Did she believe that I was a turkey and she was asking me to vote for Xmas

3. My Decree Absolute was through and therefore she would no doubt be charging my ex for each letter she was sending and I just couldn't see her paying.

Strangely enough the letters stopped - the ex gets f*ck all from my pension - and I've only got 12 years to wait before I can retire at 60 on a full pension - untouched by my scheming ex's solicitor (who I do believe was behind it because the divorce was amicable until the pension was mentioned)

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Glad you got it sorted it makes you wonder though how many unknowingly get taken to the cleaners, the girl I know discussed it with her ex and they agreed to keep their own pensions despite the fact the solicitor wanted them to split 50/50.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I suppose if you're together for 40 years, she's been the loyal and dutiful housewife bringing up the kids, keeping the house in order and having tea on the table every day when you come in from work. You tell her she doesn't need to work and just keep the house ticking over and then,five years before you are about to retire you fire her off and leave her with basic state pension whilst you enjoy a £25k works pension might be seen as unfair?

I've neither lost out or benefited from this ruling but agree with it.

She wouldn't qualify for the full basic state pension. She would only have 16 years contributions for looking after the kids. From 2016 you need 35 years contributions for a full state pension.

I fully agree with all assets being split up, including pension pots.

And what if she was a foster carer, carer for someone disabled etc?

It was just a general scenario not to be taken literally.

So your scenario was to be taken as a catch all for every situation?
The example you gave was wrong, that's all.