You will not be shocked to hear that as a divorce attorney among the questions that I'm typically asked is, 'when is my finest time to submit for divorce in order to get the highest settlement?'.

The reward they want is their hubby (or spouse's) pension and I provide them a very basic answer: the longer the marriage - the bigger the claim.

Take Trudy whose 2nd marital relationship was to Eric, a wealthy residential or commercial property developer who had a few residential or commercial properties, ISAs and financial investments. To Trudy, the genuine prize was Eric's pension which deserved more than ₤ 1 million.

The marriage pertained to an end after 5 years, but when Trudy attempted to declare versus Eric's pension she was devastated to be informed by her legal representative that rather of the half-share that she had actually computed in her mind that she would be granted, she was wrong.

Eric could, in reality, ring fence all the pension that he had actually developed prior to the marriage. This implied that Trudy might just lay claim to a small percentage that had actually accumulated during their short time together.

The judge felt that the excessiveness of Trudy's claim was too high which the bulk of the wealth in the marriage had come from Eric and this was reflected in the settlement that Trudy got.

So while she got a capitalised settlement to show the lifestyle that they had delighted in together, it was no place near her expectations. The moral of this story? A brief marriage equals less properties awarded.

It couldn't have been more different for Gloria, who was married to Frank for more than thirty years. Frank confessed to having affairs with women who he described as 'the hired aid', believing it did not really count as infidelity. It did to Gloria. As the pensions stacked up throughout their three decade relationship, Gloria was able to declare half of it and was granted equality of all the pensions.

Vanessa Lloyd Platt, a top divorce attorney, states the longer the marital relationship, the bigger the divorce claim

Frank might not ring fence one penny of it. And thanks to the length of the marital relationship, Gloria got what is called a 'Joint Lives Order' for upkeep. In other words, this suggests Gloria would be offered upkeep for life, although this is rare today as the majority of maintenance payments are for a set term just.

It was not helped by the fact that Frank had not been upcoming over the real degree of his savings and had at the last minute tried to move funds offshore. He was given a punitive award and Gloria benefited from several thousands more on her side of the divorce equation. The ethical here is that dishonesty does not pay - especially in a divorce court.

So that's brief and long marriages - what about a longer than typical length of marital relationship (12 years) for say 15 years?

Here the court will equalise the capital of the pension unless wealth has actually been accrued before or indeed, for a duration, after separation.

It is always vital that a pensions expert evaluate the worth of a pension so the proper figure can be calculated.

Which is where Gemma came unstuck. She had a 16-year marriage to City broker Paul. His pension ran into numerous countless pounds. Gemma was none too bothered by the pension however, like lots of partners I see, she wanted the security of staying in the home that she loved. So rather of declaring any of Paul's pension she traded it off against the worth of the home.

This is called a 'set-off', but as an attorney I would always recommend to any client that an actuary report is obtained very first and all alternatives are thought about.

Wives in particular can come out with a lesser deal when they choose this option. The ethical here is that you might feel young and ready to start afresh, but do not be too quick to trade away your future pension.

Vanessa says that in a marital relationship longer than the average of 12 years, the court will equalise the capital of the pension unless wealth has been accumulated before or, for a period, after separation

Another concern I'm often asked is whether a mediator will take into consideration all of the couple's possessions to increase a settlement.

Many individuals seem to think that arbitrators will go easy on the celebrations - and husbands in specific - might get away with more by utilizing a conciliator, than if the matter is before the court.

This is a fallacy, as Neil discovered. The business director believed that mediation would indicate that he could put pressure on Judy to settle. It had been a long marriage covering twenty-eight years and he thought that Judy was not the brightest. He felt he could bluff his method through and bamboozle the conciliator.
getboards.com
What Neil had actually not reckoned upon was the persistence and cleverness of the arbitrator who firmly insisted that all information be produced for the conferences. The conciliator might see that Neil was being obstructive in answering questions about financial transactions and motion of money in between subsidiary business.

Little had actually Neil thought that the conciliator had been a forensic private investigator for HMRC, before ending up being a matrimonial conciliator. After many sessions the mediator recommended a settlement figure which Neil was outraged by and insisted they go to court. Unfortunately for Neil - the specific same settlement figure was reached in court. It deserves keeping in mind that mediation can be a better way of solving matters however is never ever a soft alternative.

Mediators will assist the couple and advise actuaries to exercise pension departments whatever the length of the marriage. The courts are now motivating the to think about alternatives to court procedures more than ever. Arbitration is also being encouraged. All these choices are offered simply put, medium and long marital relationships.

This is the factor EVERYONE is separating ... and why your marriage is at danger without you realizing

So no matter the length of your marriage, I advise all my clients not to have impractical expectations of what the final figure must be. It's crucial to understand that you can not punish your quickly to be ex-partner in the courtroom. Unless you can demonstrate that the behaviour of your spouse has actually had a monetary impact, the conduct or behaviour will be ignored.

Let me introduce you now to Henry, who thought that he was being particularly creative when he moved his shares in the household business to his sibling, cashed in the capital from his pension and offered it to a friend and bought himself a Lamborghini.

This was since Claudia, his wife of twelve years had begun divorce proceedings. At the end of the litigation, the court found that he was deliberately attempting to minimize the properties readily available to Claudia and included back all the worth of the pension, the expense of the Lamborghini and the shares to his side of the formula and after that divided all of it in half. Henry's actions were so contrived that his efforts to drain pipes the properties completely backfired on him. Oh and Henry had to offer the Lamborghini.

The ethical of the story when it concerns how to maximise your settlement? Don't try to be too creative, play reasonable and honestly, or run the risk of the extremely opposite of what you wished to attain. Divorce can be a minefield, and it does not have to blow up for either of you if you both take sensible actions towards dealing with matters.

* All names have been changed to safeguard client identity.