Ex Chooses not to work

Hello all,

Around 7 years ago, my ex gave up working in his chosen profession. We have one child, who was 8 at the time. It was never agreed that my ex would be the home-maker and me the breadwinner. They did some home/child related tasks but would spend a lot of the day watching TV and ignoring any suggestions that I made about getting a job. As a result, I had to reduce my pension contributions to make ends meet.

Fast-forward to today. We have been separated for 2 years and are to attend an FDR. My pension is 3 times what theirs is, however they have far more assets that I do. In the time that we have been apart, they have not worked, but have lived off inherited money. Our child remains with me and my ex has not contributed in any way towards the child. They have not seen each other for over a year, which is my ex's choice.

My ex is seeking a portion of my pension, their initial ask was 30%. Given that it was their choice not to work and their have continued not to work, however likely is it that they will receive some of my pension? We are both in our early 50s and were married for 15 years.

Thank you.

I thought that I would answer my own question, in-case anyone else finds themselves in the same position.

At the FDR, the Judge said that this was a long marriage and marriage is a partnership. Any work that one partner does can also be attributed to the other, so that the two are a team, regardless of how little or how much each partner does. He also said that no court had the time to 'look around in the attic' of a long marriage. My Ex was awarded 50% of the joint pensions to make us equal at retirement.

If you don't mind me asking, what was the judges view on the other assets, considering you have the child and your exs housing need must be less than yours? I appreciate this is FDR so only a guide but it's always helpful to see how judges thunk.

Ours was a private FDR, which meant that the Judge had more time to read the documents. Additionally, my ex had inherited a property, but I was asking for the return of money that I had used to buy a car for him.

The Judge said that my son and I were slightly over housed, but that he would award me the former marital home. This was very generous of him, given that I paid the original deposit and had made all the mortgage payments. Again, he said in a long marriage, it did not matter how contributed what, we were a partnership. The Judge refused to allow the refund of the money for the car, stating that is just want married people do for each other.

The only annoyance for me is that my ex would not just accept the total pensions divided by 2, he wants a pensions expert report to ensure that he gets equal to me at retirement. This means more expenditure on the cost of the report and legal fees, but I am happy not to have to leave my home.

Thank you so much. Its really helpful.

On a positive note though to have equal pensions at retirement the pot will need to be split in your favour as women have a longer life expectancy. Your ex would probably have been better accepting 50%.

You have absolutely made my day, thank you.