Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

his aim is to protect his wealth if things go wrong as he does not want to be made to leave his home

It will be her home too, and also the home of any future children, and it sounds like he'd be expecting them to leave. I understand protecting his share of the deposit, but beyond that it sounds like he is (perhaps understandably) entering into this with no notion of us/we. He might be better off having a lodger.

Exactly @PaterPower One of the main reasons he can afford to put in so much more is that she is paying way more of the bills than she should be.

OP I would not suggest DD gets legal advice. If she doesn’t then the prenup will not hold water. If her BF is so keen to have a prenup he needs to work out what needs to happen to make it valid.

Also there are already laws in place so he can protect his pre-existing assets. The marriage of short duration laws. Once a marriage is longer than this, it’s more than likely that one person in it has been financially disadvantaged by a decision made as a couple and they deserve to be compensated for that if the marriage ends.

I think his deposit should be protected, plus his ivestments. Good for him protecting himself. He pays the bills 60 -40 which is fair.

If they have children later and then divorce, he would be liable for maintenance, and if he is decent and on a good salary, he would pay the childcare.

As the daughters Mother stay out if this, make no comment, imagine how it would get if the PIL were to get involved and agreed with their son. I am team future son in law. Your daughter is an adult, she works and she is happy with the arrangement. She would get her deposit back, and get maintenance should they divorce and have children.

Pre-nups are not legally binding in the UK, but they can be taken into consideration.

How will having children work?
She will take the hit no doubt as he increases his earning capacity.
This is not someone to trust having a child with.
They are not a team and she would be mad to consider marrying and having a family with someone like this.
Ultimately all you can do is advise her to be wary.
Is this a huge sacrifice for you to give this deposit to her?
If it is I would rethink it.
She could well end up caring for his parents and children, paying hugely towards bills whilst he builds wealth and his career.

It is a common theme on MN.
She would be living in poverty in his home, paying for her share of holidays.
It has financial abuse written all over it.

Hmmm… So wreck her income. I also wonder if she will be expected to be carers for his parents should they need it - after all he is the man on the bigger salary.

The thing I think is most unfair atm is the 60:40 split on bills. She’s earning less than half what he is, and the bill split should reflect that more closely (IMO). Otherwise she must really be feeling the pinch at the end of each month, whilst he’s busy topping up his reserves and not worrying about spends.

It IS sensible to ring-fence their respective deposits whilst they’re unmarried and I would strongly encourage my DCs to do something similar. But after marriage, (assuming the pre-nup was even enforceable), and post-kids?

I’d be having the same concerns that you are OP.

Ex-wife.

He also sees it as a mans job to provide and would not expect her to work when children small

He wants her unemployed doing all his childcare and housework, but also wants to lock her out of his earnings, that are facilitated by her unpaid labour? How will she pay her 30% when she’s not working? How will she get her promotions? How will she build up her pension (it will obviously make more sense financially to pay into his pension as a higher rate tax payer).
I wouldn’t have kids with him. I would buy a house in the 70:30 split with the knowledge that I’d walk away with 30% (But in the knowledge that he’ll offer to buy her out at under the going rate and sabotage any other potential buyers so I might want to write that in somewhere). As a cohabiter it would mean I could live in a nicer house than I could otherwise afford and have the company (I’m assuming she likes him!) and I’d still be building equity and I could get on board - but I wouldn’t get married and as for putting myself and my babies at risk - not a snowballs chance.

Pre-nups are enforceable in the UK - see Radmacher v Granatino, but they don’t have to be enforced if they are deemed to be unfair.

He basically wants a modern Co-habiting arrangement where you can take out what you put in, combined with a traditional marriage where the wife sacrifices her career for the husbands higher earnings. It’s a good deal, unless you happen to be the wife.

I am supportive of something legal to protect both assets. I am much older in my mid 40s. Met DP few years ago. We both have good jobs, but he earns much more than me. Both been stung before. It’s not the most sexiest chat but needed. If anything shows if financial compatibility is there.

We are buying a house together which means selling both of ours. I have £200k the deposit and him £50k. I want to protect my money if worst happens. He also has a massive pension and mine not so great. He wants to protect that. He we will pay 60% towards mortgage and me 40%.

we have to do a contract to recognise our contributions and split them accordingly if worst happens. Also had to update our wills to state who ever dies first keeps the house - not our next of kin. He has a son when DP dies he will inherit his savings and pension and anything of value, not the house. My niece will get my assets except the house. We have been told marriage may negate this, but need to investigate if a will can cover the above to protect his son.

we are generous to each other. But needed to be sensible. People say we are treating it as a business transaction but we are nog, just an important chat before we financial tie together.

while I understand his desire to keep the house in the event of a split, that leaves your daughter at risk of having to leave.

She needs to consider what will be put in place in regards to her having to leave after a split if they have children. It might be a better idea for him to buy it outright and own it. She can then either save funds for her own house or buy a cheaper property and rent it out.

As PPs have mentioned, how will she be protected if she gives up work to raise their children? Her career and pensions will take a hit. Will he still expect her to contribute 30% towards the mortgage?

He is completely right to have a discussion about protecting his money but it needs to be part of a much bigger discussion that ensures they are both protected.

Please read up on the UKSC ruling.

I have seen so many posts where the man encouraged the wife to be a 24/7 maid, nanny, cleaner, caterer for 10-odd years.

When she began to get a bit of a rest from some of those duties the man begins berating her to get another job out of the home.

So the lady never, ever gets a rest.

Barefoot and pregnant.

I kind of get it but I think there should be some clause to even it out if they have children. It’s all very transactional at the moment with the finances but when they come to have children she will take the burden and sacrifice. 100% of the pregnancy and the toll that takes on the body; 100% of labour and the potential risk that has on the body; probably the majority of newborn care; impact to her salary, long term career prospects and pension from mat leave. This is where I think it’s unfair as marriage is give and take and what she will eventually give is far more and of immeasurable value to their family unit.

I think there is a difference between protecting assets in their current situation and if children are on the cards. That is where she should take some advice. It is one thing to protect as a cohabiting couple but things change.

The sorts of conversations for them to be having are about the hypotheticals of children, part-time work, distribution of labour within the household, spare money and joint goals. Also what happens if he can’t work or loses his higher earning job? How do they split things like furniture or building work in the household.

You realise the end of that sentence is, from his wife and kids.

And she’ll be further disadvantaged financially by looking after the children.

It was a request, not an order.

This, people, regardless of sex should protect their money, I wish I had more when I could have,

He should protect his deposit, as should she.

This, how can he be committed and in love with her if he is feeling some doubts like this already ? Red flag...

Because they are not even engaged and he is telling people what a mans job is…

You can build in automatic review cause or plan in the prenup what happens when children are born. Just need to plan it in advance. I op the man securely protects his assets.

Sounds like he wants her to make all the career sacrifices without access to equal marital assets. Fair would be each protecting their initial investments prior to marriage then marital assets are shared equally. Would he not expect her to work, or would he do so little parenting that she would not have equal opportunity to pursue a career after children?

He sees it as a ‘mans job’ to provide. What happens to the children and their home if they divorce? And what does he see as a ‘woman's job’? As it sounds like he sees than as in the home, beneath him, and financially dependent on him.

A divorce court will still divide stuff based on needs of both parties. They won't care about any prenup. Solicitors will make you one though. They'd make you a sandcastle if you asked and charge you a grand.

However, given he's rich, he will be hiring shit hot solicitors who will be able to make things that aren't fair sound it.

So she's screwed either way, and since he obviously does not trust her with his life, he isn't going to think twice about turning her over once they're done. He'd likely get the kids too if he wanted.

I didn't know that @Ponoka7 thank you