Solicitors and CETV values

This is on Bastow's solicitors' website

"A practice has grown in some courts to attribute a certain value to the CETV. It is divided by either a third or a quarter and the total assets available for distribution are calculated accordingly."

I wondered if the firm would be willing to say how they view this practice ?
Do they accept such reduction of CETV value and if so on what grounds?

Maggie,

The practice of looking at the CETV and attributing a value of either a third or a quarter is if you are looking to offset your share of his pension against other capital assets eg equity in the FMH.

If you are instead looking at a pension sharing order then the starting point would remain at 50%.

Not sure whether this is the clarification you were looking for.

Another note : depending on the value of the CETV and the type of pension some would question whether it is worth getting an Actuarial Report done on the pension because in certain circumstances the CETV greatly undervalues the pension.

Regards, Sarah

This is exercising me a lot too atm.

Have paid for an actuary's report (and PeterBDM has also been v helpful - for which thank you)

The actuary has come up with a table of values for STBX's pension (index linked occupationa can be taken this year)
including CETV, actuarial vaue, net replacement value and gross replacement value.

Whilst my pension pot (small private one) varies little in "value" according to these calulations. The actuarial value is more than £60k above the CETV; the net replacement value is 120 more - and the gross replacement value is more than twice the CETV!! The gross replacement value of my pension is the same as my CETV.

With FH coming up - and a need to offet again the value of the FMH so me n kids can stay there, would like to know if anyone out there has come across a judge using anything other than the CETV to sort out an assets division? Or did I just waste nearly £400 paying my share of the report?

NB he does not need cash - apart from to pay legal bills - is housed and has benefits income which would be lost of cash was handed over. Benefits will be lost when pension is taken - any time in next 5 years but pension income will be greater.


Hadenoughnow

I hope this "you have to accept only 25% of CETV" is one of those pseudo legalities that will disintegrate when examined - like the one third of salary spousal maintenance stuff.
That range of pension valuations is amazing - I wonder how the court will choose? You can see why the politicians opted for the easy option of transfer CETV - but it's unfair in divorce.There's provision in the legislation for submitting expert CETV evidence - but should accepting it depend on how well your judge understands it? - does the valuer/report writer make any suggestion or recommendation as to which valuation should be used for offsetting? Something to educate the judge? I suppose the deal is how much the other side would have to pay to replace what you are entitled to share but generously give up - sounds like gross replacement value to me.
In my view £400 is nothing compared to the peace of mind - not fretting as I do over whether you can live on £10k a year soon - whether you would have got twice as much pension if you'd tested the CETV; in your case securing your home.

"The practice of looking at the CETV and attributing a value of either a third or a quarter is if you are looking to offset your share of his pension against other capital assets eg equity in the FMH."


It's a moot point. Hence "A practice has grown in *some* courts to attribute a certain value to the CETV" at the beginning of the thread. The practice is ­base­d on Maskell v Maskell when the judge said only the potential lump sum of 25% which could be claimed is seen in capital terms but the couple concerned went away to negotiate and nothing was said about how the remaining 75% was to be treated.

Each case is seen according to the individual circumstances and there is room for interpretation. For example, in Norris v Norris the wife sought a lump sum and the judge ruled "it would not be unfair to the husband to include the full value of the pension fund in his assets."

I wonder if a jointly appointed actuary would say that the highest amount should be used for offsetting - in the absence of such a recommendation how else would a district judge reach a decision ? - do they have their own actuaries?

I would suggest that the onus is on the parties to decide whether an actuarial report is required on a pension in the pot. I paid for the initial report to be done which was agreed at the first appointment and giving my now ex-husband the same opportunity to seek an independent valuation if he was not happy with the CETV or in the light of us seeking a report.

It is accepted practice that a figure of 25% is used for the purpose of offsetting in our local court.

Whilst most things are open to interpretation, I would suggest that you accept that this is likely to be the norm.

You obviously need the permission of the pension holder or an order from the court to request these reports. You have to make the decision as to whether the outlay justifies the end result.

You need to also realise that you are likely to have to agree to make no further claim on your x2b's pension once a consent order is agreed by the judge, although this may not be true of all cases.

Decisions, decisions!

Sarah