Til Death do us part..not even for the divorce settlement
Quote:
Man Must Share Pension with Ex-Wife's Husband
Thu Sep 11,11:31 AM ET
\t
\tAdd Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!
BERLIN (Reuters) - A German court has told a man that the pension he used to share with his ex-wife must now be shared with her widowed husband, authorities said on Thursday.
Bernhard Wanwitz, a judge at the administrative court in the western city of Mainz, said the man withdrew an appeal to keep his entire pension when the court said the widower was entitled to a share of his late wife's divorce settlement.
Under German law, when a couple divorces, the ex-spouse with the smaller pension has a right to top-up payments from the other's pension.
After the woman died, her new husband inherited her pension and then exercised his right to collect the money.
The retired civil servant will now have to pay around 700 euros ($785) of his pension each month to the widower. "This is the first time I can recall a case like this," said Wanwitz.
Man Must Share Pension with Ex-Wife's Husband
Thu Sep 11,11:31 AM ET
\t
\tAdd Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo!
BERLIN (Reuters) - A German court has told a man that the pension he used to share with his ex-wife must now be shared with her widowed husband, authorities said on Thursday.
Bernhard Wanwitz, a judge at the administrative court in the western city of Mainz, said the man withdrew an appeal to keep his entire pension when the court said the widower was entitled to a share of his late wife's divorce settlement.
Under German law, when a couple divorces, the ex-spouse with the smaller pension has a right to top-up payments from the other's pension.
After the woman died, her new husband inherited her pension and then exercised his right to collect the money.
The retired civil servant will now have to pay around 700 euros ($785) of his pension each month to the widower. "This is the first time I can recall a case like this," said Wanwitz.
Does this make sense to anyone anywhere?
How can a partner who was never even married to the guy benefit from the pension? Isn't the point of retirement benefits supposed to be that you eventually die and thus save some for the other folks who contributed as well?
Weird..
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Weird...
Nooo, it's not weird. It's the worst damn büllshit doable to a divorced person, IMHO.
Originally posted by Harald
You really have a bee in your bonnet about this sort of stuff don't you?
"trumptman wakes up....trumptman showers, shaves....trumptman eats breakfast......trumptman scans papers for something to be outraged by......trumptman shares with us........
--
OK, so the man withdrew his appeal. Stupid man.
It's the first time the judge can recall a case like it. Not normal.
This proves nothing about how the laws are stacked against the poor men in this world. No matter how much you may wish to think it does.
Originally posted by Harald
Bernhard Wanwitz, a judge at the administrative court in the western city of Mainz, said the man withdrew an appeal to keep his entire pension ... "This is the first time I can recall a case like this," said Wanwitz.
--
OK, so the man withdrew his appeal. Stupid man.
It's the first time the judge can recall a case like it. Not normal.
This proves nothing about how the laws are stacked against the poor men in this world. No matter how much you may wish to think it does.
First I didn't say anything about this working against a man. It also worked out for another man. If anything it is one man benefitting to the detriment of another man.
There are two issues here the first is if the legal claim on the pension is legitimate, and second is when do the obligations of pensions end.
The first issue in this instance is odd because they gave a man a legal claim to another man's pension even though they had no formal legal relationship. That could be very bad news for people attemping to retire.
The second issue is also worrisome because pension obligations are supposed to end when the parties to whom they are obligated die. It is also true that marital obligations are until death do you part. This man is being held to an obligation for a party who has died. You don't find that a bit odd at all?
Nick
Seems pretty shitty behaviour to me.
This all stems (yet again) from the belief that the man handles all the money, and the women only gets what she is given.
The money belongs to her. She's dead. Her heir gets it. Easy peasy.
Further undermining your charge of sexism is (yet again) the fact that this works both ways and, as the article states, the money goes to the partner with the lesser pension. Which in this case happens to be the woman.
Someone explain to me how this is different from the husband claiming back any other part of the divorce settlement after her death?
edit: this was written before the previous respones but most of it still stands.
Originally posted by trumptman
You don't find that a bit odd at all?
Nick
The whole thing is totally extraordinary. More then odd.
Which is my point. And this man's fault too for not fighting this ludicrous quirk of fate and law.
and
Trumpman has a bee in his bonnet about this sort of stuff
like he scans the world high and low for misdeeds done to men in the name of women
hM?! I wonder, were you divorced recently nick?
Originally posted by pfflam
yes this is utterly absurd . . . how can it even be considered much less judged legal
and
Trumpman has a bee in his bonnet about this sort of stuff
like he scans the world high and low for misdeeds done to men in the name of women
hM?! I wonder, were you divorced recently nick?
Nope happily married with two children for over 8 years now.
I still don't see how this was a misdeed in the name of a woman though. Her claim of her former husbands pension has gone to her new husband now that she is dead.
What about the former husband's current wife who might have to do without because of this man's claims?
I think some of you draw your conclusions a bit to quickly.
A man is the beneficiary of a dead woman's part of her exhusbands's pension. This is seen as... a woman committing a misdeed against a man?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I think some of you draw your conclusions a bit to quickly.
I agree with you, Nick, some people do draw conclusions a bit too quickly....
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Hold on. So when a women dies, her ex-husband has the right to claim back her property she got in the divorce settlement from her rightful heirs?
Seems pretty shitty behaviour to me.
This all stems (yet again) from the belief that the man handles all the money, and the women only gets what she is given.
The money belongs to her. She's dead. Her heir gets it. Easy peasy.
Further undermining your charge of sexism is (yet again) the fact that this works both ways and, as the article states, the money goes to the partner with the lesser pension. Which in this case happens to be the woman.
Someone explain to me how this is different from the husband claiming back any other part of the divorce settlement after her death?
edit: this was written before the previous respones but most of it still stands.
Good questions Fox. I would say your argument holds water if it were a 401k, 403b or something of that nature where you contribute the money, it might be employer matched and you own the account even when you die.
However this is a pension. The trade-offs for pensions are a typically higher payout, a defined benefit (amount of payout) that doesn't change no matter how long you draw, and no ownership of the money when you die.
It is possible to drain your 401k down to nothing if you draw too much on it, misestimate how long you will live, etc.
This isn't so with a pension but the trade-offs are nothing to leave to the kids and no payouts after you die.
Seriously, very valid questions though, some food for thought with regard to retirement outside of pensions.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I would say your argument holds water if it were a 401k, 403b or something of that nature where you contribute the money, it might be employer matched and you own the account even when you die.
Well, if someone has inherited the pension I would assume that something like that is the case here.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Well, if someone has inherited the pension I would assume that something like that is the case here.
Pensions are defined benefits. They end when you die. You do not own them and cannot pass them on.
It's easier to understand if you think about it in the context of other benefits. Imagine this court ordering this man to put his ex-wife's husband on his medical insurance for example.
401k's and 403b's are defined contributions. You contribute, you withdraw, you own it.
Pensions are defined benefits. They are paid by your employers for years you contributed to the pension fund and worked.
There are arguments about which is better and trade offs with each, but a pension is a benefit and cannot be owned or passed on.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Does this make sense to anyone anywhere?
It's Germany. Es ist einfach so.
I stopped asking questions about stuff like this around here a long time ago.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
my grandmother still gets payments from her deceased husband's UMWA pension. she still is covered by his medical benefits as well.
There are usually survivor benefits available in pension plans. To take them you have to accept a lower payout while you are living, but your spouse continues to get to get the lower payment until he/she dies as well.
So as a hypothetical your grandfather might have had a pension payment due of $1200 a month. However there would likely be an option where he would get say, $800 a month instead and the pension would still provide it to the spouse even when the employee died.
It's all trade offs.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
There are usually survivor benefits available in pension plans. To take them you have to accept a lower payout while you are living, but your spouse continues to get to get the lower payment until he/she dies as well.
So as a hypothetical your grandfather might have had a pension payment due of $1200 a month. However there would likely be an option where he would get say, $800 a month instead and the pension would still provide it to the spouse even when the employee died.
It's all trade offs.
Nick
i don't believe that is how hers works, but that's beside the point. you clearly said all pension benefits end when the person dies, clearly you're wrong.
clearly you don't know everything. i think spj may be right.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i don't believe that is how hers works, but that's beside the point. you clearly said all pension benefits end when the person dies, clearly you're wrong.
clearly you don't know everything. i think spj may be right.
Or perhaps you could just do a search on survivor benefits and see if what I say is true. Or perhaps you could just ask your grandmother if they accepted a lower payout in exchange for continued pension payout after your grandfather passed.
Lastly ask your grandmother if she can leave the pension to anyone.
Nick