how to count pension in 20+ years time?

have had no advice only what ive read on here. sols will not give ideas on finanace until divorce is sorted. ex will not answer her letters. can't afford legthy sols/court wrangles so i am trying to put forward what i think to be fair.

have read the blub you quote from where i gather if older then larger split is given to me - is this right.

understand s25 - i am parent with care etc.

unfortunately for women like me (low earner) and with children to take care of the only assett we are interested in for the mutual benefit of us all is the house. the pension will not help kids during their studies when they
are uprooted to move house. homes (not houses) are the route of stability for children) especially at times like divorce.

this is the reason why women are desperate to keep hold of them - it is not purely about who gets the most, but what is most beneficial to kids.

i am still confused as to who (because someone obviously does) makes the decision on how much of a percentage of the cetv is offsett against m.h.

InLimbo- aren't you glad you asked?
Judging by the response from DL if discounting the pension CETV for offsetting is proposed by the other side it will probably fall away if you ask for reasons and calculations.
In my opinion you should not volunteer to discount anything at the start of negotiations - especially not the pension CETV which is already heavily discounted.
Why offer to accept less than something's worth until the other side has declared they're unwilling to pay full value?
Taking a reduced value for the pension is not required by law - it's at your discretion - bargaining chips to get the deal you want.I think it's a mistake to give up on pension sharing before you know the value of the pension.
Is there any other way to get sole ownership of the family home or stay in it until you are ready to leave it ? How do people negotiate staying in the family home without giving up their rightful share of the pension?

What about doing a "Martin"
Martyn Type Order
House in joint Names
Party to be allowed to live there for life
"It is ordered that the property [address] be held by the applicant and the respondent upon trust for themselves as beneficial tenants ......and to divide the net proceeds of sale......such sale to be postponed until after the death or remarriage of the applicant or until her voluntary removal therefrom......."
or a Mesher - sale of family home postponed until the youngest completes full-time education?

Would either of these put the full pension CETV back in the arena for sharing?
Not a clean break - but no clean break with children anyway?

Original Post and Response
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?

Hi there
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%.
Amanda

Why?

Hi there

Maggie I think you are right to try and raise some questions over the seemingly automatic discounting of pension values .
I think part of the issue is that there is often the desperate need for 1 party to keep a home for the children , and if retirement is some time off , then both parties may prefer to use discounted pension values and go for a clean break .
As it has already been stated , if both parties understand the implications of what they are agreeing to , then thats fine , but seems to me that both parties cant understand fully what they are agreeing as even after this long post , with many experts helping out , there still seems no real answer as to how the calculations are done and who decides just how much pensions should be discounted if at all .

shiny

thanks maggie -someone else's views ofter make this clearer. As has been said, perhaps we, women focus only on what it mostly beneficial to the kids, i.e. the family home. Perhaps this is where we sell ourselves short - lets face it we become desperate - and in my case ignorant
(although i'm learning fast,. Pensions have always been a male dominated area - thats the way they like it.

Who makes the decision on whether a martin or mesher order is offered or do i put forward my proposals.

I think womens focus on the home is down to ignorance and desperation. Most women, like me, do not earn a great deal compared to our ex's. We know they can access larger funds for legal fees that we can. We are aware that say
£2,000 is not a great deal to pay sols but it certainly would buy the kids a great deal. They (men) only have themselves to consider and in going into debt they will not suffer harm to children. I suppose its 'bully'tactics.

So, perhaps you're right in saying that we should look to pension sharing, i believe 50/50 and not focus on home whilst going through divorce providing that a mesher/martin order is granted - this would hurt macho ego as well.

I know the timing is unfortunate and I am being pushy but I feel that we have had a taste of what people are facing from our lawyers and judges - a foregone conclusion that the CETV will be reduced if you choose to offset and a seemingly arbitrary reduction imposed without explanation.
Are you telling us Amanda that if we want to swap our share of the pension in order to keep the family home intact and stable we have to put up with arbitrary and inexplicable reductions imposed by lawyers and judges?