how to count pension in 20+ years time?

My day for confessions - I have never understood what Maskell had to do with discounting for offsetting
so today's question: [1,000 CPD points] :
Is Maskell v Maskell the precedent for discounting pension CETVs for offsetting and if so how?
This is Coram's digest of the salient facts :
"D.2 Maskell v Maskell [2001] 3 FCR 296
Christina Morris
Pensions and What Judges Make of Them
Seminar 23 May 2002
Page 7 of 9
Facts : W H 41
Married (no date given but it was described as a long marriage)
3 children under 14 (there was a shared care arrangement between the H and W alternating weeks with each parent)
Pension CETV ,32,000
Net equity in fmh ,26,000
2 policies total value ,10,000
Decision : At first instance and on appeal to CJ decided that W should have the fmh and a policy worth ,6,000 and the H should have his pension and the other policy worth ,4,000
On appeal Thorpe LJ said that the A.. judge is making the seemingly somewhat elementary mistake of confusing present capital with a right to financial benefits on retirement..... He simply failed to compare like with like. @
Appeal allowed and order of lower court set aside Thorpe LJ made no other order other than to invite the parties to go to mediation
Comment : From a costs point of view this case must be a nightmare and in the end the H and W are still left with no solution other than a suggestion that they go to mediation.
This is case is useful if you act for the H who wants to keep the pension fund off the asset sheet."

Can someone put me out of my misery and please tell me what this means:
"On appeal Thorpe LJ said that the A.. judge is making the seemingly somewhat elementary mistake of confusing present capital with a right to financial benefits on retirement..... He simply failed to compare like with like."
If he was comparing the pension CETV with equity in the house wasn't the original judge in fact comparing like with like?

all of this pension offsetting/sharing is really interesting. but pleased to see that its not only me that does not 'do maths'. in real terms, where there is enough equity in a m.h. how much of the cetv can be offsett against the house, e.g. cetv = £100,000. what, pound for pound can be offsett against house worth £250,000 where wife is hoping for 70% of same. any simple to understand advice because its obvious solicitors dont have a clue.

Maggie

" Coram's digest of the salient facts : "D.2 Maskell v Maskell [2001] 3 FCR 296 " doesn't really help.

On face value H got total assets of £38k (CETV at full value) and W got £32k. If the 25% rule is used, then he got £12k and she got £44k; which corresponds to a 70:30 split. Coram doesn't seem to me to give any understanding of what the asset split would have been without the pension; so its hard to build a precedent on it. The question is, are the courts using it for a precendent, if so, in my opinion, they are doing so wrongly.

Hi there

To follow on from forever friends post , if the couple are in their 50s the pension could be taken at a reduced rate anyway . Am I right to assume that there would be less of a reduction than for a younger couple. How much less ? does anyone know ?
I must admit it seems strange to me to call it a cash equivalent transfer value and then say that actually its not worth that at all .

shiny

But its only a transfer value when transfering benefits between pension schemes - eg you leave scheme A and join scheme B when changing jobs. Really, CETV are being latched onto because nothing else exists to value a pension.

ultimately, the only 100% fair solution would be to split the pension income stream when it pays out....but is that even fair, what if your married to someone in a final salary scheme and they realistically have another promotion and some pay increments ahead of them? The pension you would have enjoyed had you remained married would be far higher than what's been considered today.

Original Post said
"married 10 years, co-hab 8 years
2 kids, shared care (termtime 3.5 nights with each, over whole year more like W4+, H~3).
H - house = 545,000, pension c 20,000
W - pension CETV = 140000, EPV = 160000
Joint - Cash savings - 60,000
Each - net monthly income 2500, outgoings 2500. (because he is currently paying half my rent).
He wants to offset all of CETV of my pension against his right to stay in FMH, which he refuses to contemplate selling. Is it right that if retirement is some distance off, it is OK to take only a portion of CETV into account?
Any creative ideas out there?"

DL replied:
"Age is a crucial factor....I am guessing early 40s from your question????
If so he would be lucky to get an offset value of the CEVT at 25% - I would strongly argue for somewhere between 15-20%."

DL,It would help a lot of potential offsetters if you could could talk us through how you arrived at that decision.

I would be interested too.

Actual age of original question = late 30s.