Does she still get half my pension if I die?

Hi Group,

I have wondered what my wife would get of my employment pension if I died. As I understand it, because we have been married for a very long time, she is en­title­d, on divorce, to half my monthly employment pension. If I died whilst married to her, she would get a ‘widows’ pension which (I think) is half the full pension. But if we are divorced she is not my widow so presumably she’d get nothing?

I hope that is correct because she’s translated her en­title­ment to 50% as somehow she has earned my pension and is en­title­d to half of it in her own right; how then, I wonder, will she then reconcile that it stops if I die?

Does anybody know the answer, if we divorce and I die will the pension payments to her stop?

Hi Confused

But if we are divorced she is not my widow so presumably she’d get nothing?


that is correct, I would be entitled to a widow's pension from my husband's employers (he is now retired) should he die while we are still married, however, once divorced, I would not receive anything as I would no longer be his spouse, and therefore, not his widow. I think that I would only receive that widow's pension while I remained a widow, but not if I re-married.(dont think that clause applies to all widow's pensions, so best to check out your own pension clauses).

if we divorce and I die will the pension payments to her stop? Im sorry, but I dont know that answer, there are pension experts on here who will know how to help you further, Im sure they will respond in time.

Hope you are coping, and take care

Ruby

Like Ruby, I feel unable to help you on the subject of pensions, because a great deal may depend on the scheme.

What I think happens ( no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong ) is that the pension ' pot ' is split, and with her share of it, she then gets a pension in her own right, which is not of course affected by your death.

I'd just like to say also that pensions are only part of a wider picture in most cases. Sometimes, for example, a divorcing wife may reduce or even abandon a claim to a share in her husband's pension to get a larger share in the equity in the marital home.

Confused ….

I’m sorry but I am probably about to add to your confusion (sorry I couldn’t resist; and pension are soooooo boring).

It can be better to think of these pensions as dependant’s pension. Who they are payable to, depends on how the scheme defines a dependant.

If you are still partners (most schemes these days don’t differentiate between married an unmarried people) a scheme might pay your financially dependant partner a pension if you die. Typically, the pension will be about half the pension you have built up, to the date that you die; but different schemes have different levels. There are often pensions payable to dependant children as well. These are usually defined in terms of whether or not the children are in full- time education i.e. financially dependant). Some schemes have definitions that allow children’s pensions to be paid if the child is financially dependant because they are unable to work due to mental of physical incapacity.

After a divorce (or dissolution), if you are paying maintenance it is arguable whether your ex-partner is still financially dependant upon you. If you have a new partner, in theory you could have two dependant partners. As you might imagine, this has the potential to create “challenges” for pension scheme trustees whose job it is to interpret and implement the scheme rules. This becomes particularly problematic if there are two dependants, as there is only one dependant “pension pot” and the trustees may have to split it between two partners, not a recipe for harmony and goodwill!

If you divorce and your spouse gets a share of your pension under a pension sharing order - let’s say she gets half – her pension is independent of you. This is one of the reasons why pension sharing was introduced, to allow a clean financial break. Dependant’s pensions then become even more complicated. It is important to remember that the sharing order only applies to the pension that has been built-up at the date it is made. If the member continues to build pension benefits and benefit from salary increases that increase his or her pension, this has no impact at all on the pension received by the ex-spouse/partner.

Schemes that permit an internal pension credit (the ex-spouse has her or his own new pension set up in the scheme) often do not give the new (pension credit) member dependant’s pension benefits on their pension; whereas the original (pension debit member) still has a dependant’s pension as part of their reduced pension benefit. Entitlement to dependant’s pensions in these circumstances depends on how the scheme rules define dependants. At first glance, this seems unfair but dependant’s pensions cost money and if they were provided to both the debit member and the new credit-member all the non-divorced scheme members would have to meet the additional expense, through reduced benefits. I believe that it is possible to make sharing or attachment orders to deal with these problems but they are not common practice.

Attachment (or earmarking) orders, which apart from offsetting, were the only other option before pension sharing was introduced, bring another ser of problems. A pension attachment means that the recipient gets a proportion on the member’s pension when it becomes payable. If the member dies, the recipient member’s pension stops, that is, unless the order was drafted to attach the dependant’s pension benefits as well. The other disadvantage with pension attachment is that if the recipient re-marries, the attachment ceases.

That’s more than enough pensions stuff for one Friday night!

Peter.

I became divorced from a millionaire and did not get half. My brother was trustee of my lump sum alimony that started out at $110,000 and is now $50,000. In Connecticut the family courts are very corrupt. We were divorced but there was really never anyone else. He became ill and died last August. He worked for the state for twelve years and left me his state pension. So, I get half of that because he left it to me as his beneficiary. Am I wrong to assume that it should be more than eighty dollars a month which I am getting? Also, my mother died in November and left me her 401K. She worked for an agency for the mentally retarded as a job coach and sewing teacher for twenty-five years. There is $900 est in the 401K. What is going on and do I have the worst luck of anyone??? Mutual of America wants me to close out the account and take the lump sum, but I want to see where the money is.

I am sorry, but this is a UK site. I doubt anyone here can help you with American law.

Amanda

What about the reverse - if you have the pension & your ex dies before it come into force? With the earmarking order, I would hope that the full pension would return to me, as the whole pension pot is still linked Wishful thinking?

But with a pension sharing order, my impression is that 1/2 the pension pot gets diverted to the ex, and each pot stands alone. (And you can slowly add to yours again if still with the employer....?) So if the ex dies before my retirement I'll lose their 1/2 of the pot - again.