1) The current status is my solicitor is preparing for a court order because the other solicitor is still disagreeable for further actuary calculation with Ex-wife's retirement age 65.
The other solicitor could not quite remember the conversation with my counsel on the first hearing date! We have the written evidence from counsel. I presume the other solicitor also took notes.
By law is it possible to get that note? We sent our counsel note to the other solicitor.
My solicitor wrote to the other solicitor that we have the evidence on joint agreement (sent a copy), and if the court accepts our point to revise calculation by the actuary, then all comensation has to be paid by them. The risk is there for them. But nothing much happened.
The letter of Instruction to the actuary: both solicitors forgot to add retirement age assumption for the actuary's calculation.. The actuary asked my last solicitor, but she did not reply. The actuary assumed 60 for Ss retirement age without explaining the possible consequence to me . Is this correct action for actuary to take or assume? Surely there should have been a reminder to my solicitor and advising her the possible effect in the results for different retirement ages of Ex-wife either at 60 or 65?
2) I am divorced on 1 June 2012, re-married on 11 August,2012, i.e. few months later. I asked a question to the actuary, and he replied as follows:
For the money-purchase SIPP, all accrual and contributions were before June 2012 – the change in CETV between then and now is a result of (passive) investment growth. The pension which will be payable on retirement has not changed in its essentials – it is the pension which can be bought from the underlying investment assets after whatever investment growth is actually achieved.
Yes all the contributions were before June 2012, but quite a lot accrual happened after June 2012, which is the investment growth, accruals due to dividends etc.
I am responsible to S (Ex-wife) upto June 2012, and responsible to my wife (P) from August 2012. Hence any accrual benefit for the above (post June 2012) investment growth including additions of dividends etc. after June 2012 should not go to S's favour but to my wife's favor surely?, otherwise my wife will miss out from my accrual benefit.
After the divorce S lost her right to claim on any growth of my pension fund after June 2012..
Is this correct assumption?
If P goes to court and complains that any accruals for husband after 11 August 2012 should be in her interest, not S's, what the court will say?
Example: Suppose I had £1000 in SIPP pension in June 2012 and it is increased to £1300 now.
Let us assume financial settlement with S is resolved just before June 2012.
In this case could S claim any benefit from my pension accruals after that settlement date/ divorce date? The answer is likely to be 'NO'?
Because the financial settlement did not happen after divorce until today, it should not mean that she can claim or deserve a 'second bite at the cherry'. This is the important point.
Surely the actuary knows that I have remarried to P in August 2012, few months later the divorce in June 2012. Why the actuary is not prepared to consider my wife?
Suppose I had £1000 in SIPP pension in June 2012 and it is increased to £1300 now.
I think for pension sharing I have to give away to S £500 to her pension fund (50%) as was at the divorce date (June 2012). And after that date remaining pension pot £500 + any increase or decrease is my pension pot. Is this correct assumption?
3) The actuary assumed 8% growth in 7 months for some of my pension funds. They look very high. Sometime funds go down as well. Possibly in average 5% growth can be assumed?
4) Our FDR date is very near. If the court order is done but the actuary can not complete the calculation with Ss retirement date updated to 65 then what happens at the FDR date? What will be court decision?
Will they say further adjournment or give a direction such that actuary does the calculation and both party agrees that calculation slightly at a later date when the pension equalisation report is issued.
I am assuming court will give clear direction during FDR.and the pension sharing will be sorted between solicitors as updated report is issued?, assuming other financial bits are sorted?.