Re:Pension offsetting/Maskell v Maskell, and beyond?

I can only comment indirectly, but we are normally asked by solicitors to value all pensions, whenever accrued.

So is it fair to assume that you can firmly express your only wish is that pensions should be treated the same as everything else and shared out as with all other assets/finances/etc.
I really, really do not want to offset anything as I just see this as a pointless exercise in todays world, you can't live without money for now, and money for 20 years time isn't spendable when you need to build a new life.

My view is that you should value all assets on the same basis, which is their market value assuming an orderly sale.

An appropriate actuarial valuation gives you the market consistent value for a pension. For a final salary pension the CETV is the knock down price for an immediate sale and therefore lower.

You use the market price as it is independent of the two parties involved and readily available to both parties and the courts. Therefore the court, as neutral arbitrator, can use it to divide up assets without bias to either side.

You make the reasonable point that in most divorces cash is tight, and therefore both parties might be putting a higher value on cash than pensions, compared to the market view.

This should be taken into account, and normally is by the simple procedure of the different parties "bidding" for the assets they consider most important first. "I want the house", "I want the cash in the bank", "I want the car", etc.

Its a bit like children picking teams by selecting one p­layer­ each from the group available. You each get some of the p­layer­s you most want. However its also considered fair that you get half of the total number of p­layer­s.

In the same way I think when dividing asset up each party should both get some of what they consider the best assets, but I also think that each party should get half the total market value of assets.

The exception is of course unless children or other needs dictate a minimum for one of the parties, which takes precedence.

If pensions are bottom of the wish list for both parties so be it, use Pension Sharing or Attachment to split them between you as the final balancing up between the pair of you.

So in summary my view is firstly that each party should get half the market value of assets, and that secondly each party should get a fair share of the assets they consider better for them now.

That's brilliant, very well explained and puts me at ease, we were married 28 years, all kids grown up n flown 'cept youngest who is 15, we'll have to come to that sooner or later as he really is number 1 but without finances neither of us can live either with him or without him. Sad state of affairs.

stbx 45 i am 46 their cetv 64800 my cetv for 57,000 including avcs. His pension unit ­base­d mine final salary soon to be group pension. He paid 75 quid every month for entirety of marriage i paid £30 avcs to my occupational pension. my predicted pension 13,000 per annum at retirement and his looks like 4500! Not sure how that can be. My question is, is it only cetv taken into account when doing pension sharing. I am disabled, he working. My disability wont get any better so will i have to share my pension with him as that will be a useful help in my old age so i wont be reliant on benefits.

I would repost this as your own question rather than tag on to a 3 year old one you will get better answers. x