We acted for Mr T. Mr and Mrs T had been married for approximately eight years, and had been separated for five years in total at the time of instruction.
Mr T confirmed that Mrs T was refusing to instigate the divorce, but Mr T now had financial stability which enabled him to resolve all the outstanding issues. Mr T was concerned that Mrs T had retained the former matrimonial home by consent at the time, but Mr T did not form an agreement and did not intend for this to be long-term. Mr T’s specific concern was about his Military Pension. Mr T confirmed that Mrs T was previously a teacher but had recently decided to work part-time without clear justification.
We advised Mr T that the Court would likely consider a Pension Sharing Order, pending financial disclosure, based on the information received about his role and length of service. Mr T’s pension was likely to be significant. We advised that the Court tend to equalise pensions on divorce as this is the new Pension Advisory Guidance. Mr T enquired as to whether he would be able to retain his pension in full, insofar as it was accrued when he was not cohabiting or married to Mrs T. We advised that the length of the marriage left this on the cusp, as the parties had just entered into the threshold of a mid-length / long marriage. We advised that the Court are open to being persuaded to ringfence the pensions but this would need to be a matter for formal litigation as Mrs T will not be likely to agree this by consent.
Mr T instigated the divorce with Mrs T accepting service and engaging now she had instructed solicitors. Mrs T made it clear that she wished to retain the home with no monies being paid to Mr T because of her part-time hours. We advised Mr T that if this is her position even with solicitors, this is likely Mrs T’s unrealistic expectations and he would need to enter into Court litigation.
The Court ordered a pension sharing report to comment on the equalization of pensions. We invited the Court to allow us to incorporate ringfencing in the letter of instruction – asking the expert to consider an appropriate share if a) the last five years when parties were separated was ringfenced, and b) the accrual ten years prior when parties were not cohabiting or married, was ringfenced. The Court endorsed the expert being asked these questions. We advised Mr T that this did not mean the Court would endorse ringfencing as a final Order, but this was a positive step.
The pension report returned and Mrs T remained clear that she would not agree to any ringfencing in the circumstances and cited her needs. Mr T argued that Mrs T had opted to work part-time voluntarily as she had a roof over her head and a mortgage paid for, and she was not using her full earning capacity which would hinder her mortgage raising abilities.
The Court heard submissions at a Final Hearing where we sought that ringfencing was endorsed both pre and post marriage, however it was accepted by Mr T that a pension share for the marriage itself would be appropriate given the case law. Mrs T argued against this, and sought to buy Mr T out of the property but for a negligible sum that equated to 10% of the equity in the property.
The Court ordered that a Pension Sharing Order would be provided for, but ringfenced and only to encompass the eight years of accrual that Mr T worked for during the marriage. This provided Mr T with 100% of some 15 years of pension income. The Court also ordered that the parties would need to buy the other out – if Mr T were to do so, 60% to Mrs T. If Mrs T were to do so, 40% to Mr T. If this was not possible, the former matrimonial home was to be sold. The Court commented that Mrs T’s part-time hours were a lifestyle choice and the Court would not deviate in terms of fairness as a result of Mrs T hindering her own earning and raising capacity.
Mr T had no desire to buy Mrs T out, and sought a sale. It later transpired during post-Hearing discussions that Mrs T wished to keep the home, and was willing to loan 40% of the equity from her parents to buy Mr T out. Mr T therefore walked away with 40% of the equity of the home in total and a ringfenced pension share. Mr T was extremely happy with the outcome compared to his disappointment at Mrs T’s original position, and commended our service.
