Army pension

Skylark,

I like the idea of an eyemarking order, but you probably mean an earmarking order: close! Earmarking is very different to pension sharing.

You can agree any order without solicitors, the important thing is that you are really sure what it is that you are agreeing, and all the consequences. You may want to spend the time and effort doing this yourself, and there is lots of info in this forum, but do be careful. Pensions are really difficult to understand even for solicitors! Things in pension terms rarely are as simple as they look.

The deal sounds a good one expressed like that, but without knowing more of your circumstances it is impossible to say.

Swapping (offsetting, as its usually called) pension for cash may make sense in your case. Not only do you not get the immediate benefit from a pension share at this stage, but of course if he is already getting his pension, if it is shared now then his income will drop by the percentage of the share even though you don't get any money yet. All these issues need to be considered.

A Forces pension share is likely to be worth over £100K in many cases, so spending a little on decent advice isn't a bad idea. How comfortable would you be buying a house without a solicitor? Its much the same sort of issue.

If you read back just through this one lengthy forum item, you'll see the huge range of issues related to Forces pensions, and to some extent this is just part of it. I'm not saying you can't do it yourselves, but do be very cautious about assuming that it is easy just because splitting a pension by a percentage sounds a simple concept.

I have been reading this forum on pensions with interest. I am a serving member and have recently divorced but the epension is the big contestation. (is that a word?) I have recently signed 100 % of my pension to my spouse. there are no children, all other assets are 50/50, I took all the debt. Now I have 1 year left in my job b4 I finish 22 yrs service.

Questions I do not understand.

Why do we talk about pension as a future asset? The pension isn't an immediate pension until I (me the soldier) have done 22 yrs. Why do we summise that the soldier WILL serve until immediate pension. Something that can only be decided by the individual.

What happens to the pension? If I have given away 100% as at now, what is left for me in a years time? Surely if SVPS cannot tell me whats left until its given away then I can't split it fairly until its matured, ie receiving it? Plus the gratuity? Is that affected by the pension implementation order? What if in a years time they hand me a P45, £20 a month for life and a lump sum of £4.50??? What then?

As you can see I am very much frustrated by all of this. I actually want to give my wife what she deserves (forget that she didn't really want to work, forget the times she lived in a beautiful stable civilian environment while I served all over the place for 8 years.) I am forgetting that business cos it gets you nowhere and hurts a lot. But I want to give her the % she is entitled ton which is just less than half. 16yrs marriage. And I seem to have given her everything to my detriment. If this is the case then what happens?

In a real world of security, which is what two people and often children are fighting for (literally) is stability and security. One should not be offsetting the other partner. It should be equal. The contention seems to be when that security should be measured. At 40? At retirement? Now?

I require food, job, housing in that order. (Also love comes at the front of it all but I was talking physical stuff) If I have no income or starter then its gonna be very difficult indeed.

Hope I havent gone off the point. Just wanted to try and get you to think about the other side. I want fairness not beating someone into submission and emotional blackmail. i will keep watching this post

sir remealot wrote:

I have been reading this forum on pensions with interest. I am a serving member and have recently divorced but the epension is the big contestation. (is that a word?) I have recently signed 100 % of my pension to my spouse. there are no children, all other assets are 50/50, I took all the debt. Now I have 1 year left in my job b4 I finish 22 yrs service.

Questions I do not understand.

Why do we talk about pension as a future asset? The pension isn't an immediate pension until I (me the soldier) have done 22 yrs. Why do we summise that the soldier WILL serve until immediate pension. Something that can only be decided by the individual.

What happens to the pension? If I have given away 100% as at now, what is left for me in a years time? Surely if SVPS cannot tell me whats left until its given away then I can't split it fairly until its matured, ie receiving it? Plus the gratuity? Is that affected by the pension implementation order? What if in a years time they hand me a P45, £20 a month for life and a lump sum of £4.50??? What then?

As you can see I am very much frustrated by all of this. I actually want to give my wife what she deserves (forget that she didn't really want to work, forget the times she lived in a beautiful stable civilian environment while I served all over the place for 8 years.) I am forgetting that business cos it gets you nowhere and hurts a lot. But I want to give her the % she is entitled ton which is just less than half. 16yrs marriage. And I seem to have given her everything to my detriment. If this is the case then what happens?

In a real world of security, which is what two people and often children are fighting for (literally) is stability and security. One should not be offsetting the other partner. It should be equal. The contention seems to be when that security should be measured. At 40? At retirement? Now?

I require food, job, housing in that order. (Also love comes at the front of it all but I was talking physical stuff) If I have no income or starter then its gonna be very difficult indeed.

Hope I havent gone off the point. Just wanted to try and get you to think about the other side. I want fairness not beating someone into submission and emotional blackmail. i will keep watching this post

Well said, I can understand and feel for you, not sure some of the STBX wives on here will though
It all gets a bit one sided on here sometimes so its good to see another perspective.

I too have taken on all the debt, but when mentioned this at mediation I was told that debt isn't a factor and couldn't be split 50/50! Why the heck not if the assets were shared????

Anyhoo, i'm sure the Forces ex's will be along soon to beat us into submission lol

Hello Sir Remealot,

How much do you think is left if you give away 100% of any thing??? Why do you think a pension is termed a future asset? because you get it in the future not now so it's of no immediate benifit now, as far as i know gratuity and pension are two seperate beasts.

'Beat you in to submission' this is a forum where everybodys views are welcome so express away but keep on topic!!..

Gene Hunt wrote:

Hello Sir Remealot,

How much do you think is left if you give away 100% of any thing??? Why do you think a pension is termed a future asset? because you get it in the future not now so it's of no immediate benifit now, as far as i know gratuity and pension are two seperate beasts.

'Beat you in to submission' this is a forum where everybodys views are welcome so express away but keep on topic!!..

gratuity and pension are not two different beasts : as you rightly say if you take away 100% of anything what is left? only what you can build up in the last 11 months serving. If you take 100% then what is left will make up your gratuity and your pension, what will that leave? No one can tell me until the deed is done. That's the point I'm making. How can you easily divide up but on the other hand not be able to tell what's left? Surely my stake in this is more important than hers as I need it immediately for resettlement not some holiday when I'm 60. I take ALL the risk, she takes NONE. What's fair about that? No one can argue that's not the case.

Also this future asset. If I don't do 22 yrs then there is no asset to speak of. It doesn't exist as I don't have an immediate pension so how can you base an actuarial report on an asset that's not confirmed? Can anyone answer that?

The quote of submission and blackmail refers to my own circumstances and not those views of anyone posted here. I want to help everyone with as much informed information as possible. I certainly don't want anyone else to have to go through what I'm going through now.

Sir R,
I don't think anyone should take you to task, you quite rightly make the point that a court always should have in mind, and anyone involved in negotiations at any stage or level should have in mind, that any settlement is a question of balance.

I can't comment on your particular situation: I recollect previous postings about the somewhat complex calculations involved in your pension sharing, and the strange figures it seemed to produce. I hope you yourself understood how it all worked by the end.

Overall, pensions are dealt with on the basis of what they are worth now, and a court can only share what they are worth now. Clearly they have value, and the value can be recognised as existing now, but it can't be accessed (assuming it is not yet in payment). So it is difficult to deal with something that can't be accessed but which is clearly very valuable. That is where all the difficulties in pensions stems from, as this forum shows.

But it is common for pension shares to be considered in terms of what effect they will have when they actually start paying out. That isn't necessarily a case of assuming that someone will keep working. Its just looking at what a particular pension split does in practice, as far as it can be predicted by calculation.

Pensions are difficult to deal with generally because they are an odd sort of asset, lots of potential value but very tied up and heavily controlled by tax and other law. I don't think anyone thinks we have come up with a perfect way of dealing with pensions. In Scotland they do it very differently (as with divorce claims generally). It is much more a fixed formula related to length of marriage compared to length of pensionable service. Better? Depends on the case. Certainly less flexible.

I very much hope you haven't been left with a vastly inferior pension to that which your wife got: that shouldn't generally happen, and whilst it may happen in an individual case for particular reasons, it shouldn't happen to you other than by choice or for very clear and specific reasons. Its not so much the % used as the effect of applying that percentage that is important, they are not always as closely linked as may be assumed. The % is applied to a CETV at a particular date and pensions do not necessarily accrue value at an even pace. Some can leap hugely in value over short periods for various reasons. Maybe that was what was happening in your case, I don't know.

Ideally, you would achieve security and stability both at the current time, and for the future. But often there just isn't the money to achieve this. If two of you had about enough to be stable together, it is going to take nearly twice as much to achieve the same living separately, and not many people have 100% surplus cash/assets to hand. That is where all the bargaining and mutual belt-tightening comes in, with both sides having to make various concessions (or have them inflicted on them by a court).

But any settlement should leave you able to meet the necessities you refer to, as far as it is possible to do for both of you, fairly, with what is available. And if you are not sure of what you are actually getting, I think you should get your solicitor to make it clear to you: no point reaching a settlement for you if you don't understand what it is.

Best of luck sorting it out.