Pension set off

Hi there

Just to throw some further confusion on this topic, a pension in payment is one of those unique assets the divison of which depends on all the circumstances of the case - there is not one overall answer.

If the income provided by the pension is only enough for the receiving party to derive enough income to live on, it will be viewed as an income stream and left alone.

If it is a generous income stream, one of the things that can happen is that rather than going down the line of a pension share, the income is split by way of spousal maintenance payments.

The reasons that it may be viewed that SM is preferable to a pension share order will in part be dependant on the health and ages of the parties. For instance, if say the wife was in very poor health, she is likely to get SM rather than a pension share, because otherwise if she dies we have unnecessarily split a pension, deminished the pension of the receiving party, only for that to be lost if the wife dies.

Conversely, if the receiving party is in very poor health, then a pension share is preferable to SM because when he dies she would be left high and dry.

This is one of those areas where legal advice really is required, so that a proper view of the assets and all the circumstances of the case can be considered. Of course there is nothing stopping you self repping once firm advice has been given and all the factors considered, but I would not advise going alone completely in these cases.

Hope that helps
Amanda

Amanda

I can follow the logic of Spousal Maintenance if the wife (recipient) is in poor health. Presumably, SM in this context is similar to an attachment/earmarking order but less costly to arrange and implement. But you go on to say that “…if the receiving party is in very poor health, then a pension share is preferable because when he dies she would be left high and dry.” May I suggest that in fact, if the recipient is in poor health a SM or attachment order is preferable, so that the surviving spouse’s pension will revert to the full level on death of the recipient?

A more cynical view is that if one party is in poor health there are opportunities for “creative” planning. For instance, if the “pension owner” is in poor health, subject to how the scheme implements sharing orders, it may be possible to maximise the pension value by agreeing that high percentage share goes to the spouse with the better life expectancy.

Peter.

Hi Peter

That is what my post says/means - I was getting jumbled with my receivers!!!

When I ay "receiving party" I mean the person receiving the pension, not the person receiving the SM....am tired today!!!!

Amanda