Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

Protecting pre marital assets as childless newlyweds is one thing. Protecting future earnings as essentially “bagsy-ing” the house as theoretically many years married parents of dependent children is another.
The reason men “lose” the house so often is to maintain stability for the children in the family home with their existing primary caregiver. Inevitably that will be the dd in this case - the mother, the maternity leave taker, the significantly lower earner. As a young couple its not unreasonable to want to walk away with what you put if the mothers career is affected by pregnancy, maternity leave, part time work to facilitate childcare, and lack of career advancement as always needs to be the “go to” parent and the primary housekeeper to support the higher earner then the father is not playing with a straight bat if he wants to ringfence his future earnings too. It’s different for older couples and those with children from previous marriages but i would be pissed off by a man who wanted me to look after kids then use that against me in a divorce. If he wants to ringfence his assets and pays 70% of deposit plus 70% of costs going forward then he needs to contribute 50%of the effort of childcare, including subsidising his partners income on mat leave rather than expecting it to be something she will just do for free out of some sort of quaint, old fashioned idea that when you are married you are a team.

right now they are not married and buying as a couple so this 70/30 split seems fair, only if she is able to afford her 30% of mortgage, he is happy to get it changed if in the future he needs her to pay more than 30% and she saves the rest.

Id just advise that any pre-nup should reflect what happens if they have children, and he should understand they “obviously” she can’t become a SAHM or part time or do the bulk of any childcare after maternity leave, he needs to factor in having to do half of drop offs and pick ups from childcare and half of sick days in his career plans, the prenup means he gives up the luxury of a wife who prioritises his career over her own and does all the household and family work.

That he needs to factor that into his long term plans. That post-nups are also a thing, a variation of prenups both agree on when situations change, like if they both agree for her to give up work to support his career, he wouldn’t expect her to give up building her own pension fund if she wouldn’t have a claim on part of his on divorce just because he got an amazing job offer in another city etc.

Just drip in the reasons why women end up getting more of the money. But if they split up next year, unmarried no kids, then yes she shouldn’t get 50% of any equity in the house.

If you had a wealthy dd, would you encourage them to marry?

Protecting his large deposit makes perfect sense and is quite a normal thing to do. Pre-nups before marriage are much less common in the UK. Your DD should be careful about what she signs up to if they intend to have children. It is normally women that lose out financially by taking maternity leave and often working part-time when the children are young. He shouldn't benefit from OP's DD's more precarious financial position due to pregnancy, childbirth and doing the majority of the childcare.

Why would they want to enter into a shared financial and legal commitment but eschew the shared financial and legal commitment part?

Why do they not just carry on as they are, this protects assets nicely? Being financially independent is a good thing for everyone.

Id want the prenup to state that it protects his current assets but anything accured from the date they move in is 50:50 until any point where they seperate.

Its ok if he wants to protect whats his, its not ok to take more than half of what is theirs

For what it's worth I wanted a prenup as my husband has more assets than me and I didn't want him to have my house which I worked really hard for. I'm from a working class background and my parents are divorced.

We didn't end up getting one and 12 years and 3 kids later, with no divorce on the horizon (unless he doesn't clear the garage up this weekend 😜) I still kind of wish we did. Our finances are TOTALLY separate. He earns more than me, I have more savings than him. It's about protecting what I see as mine before we got married (and what is his which is worth significantly more).

Unromantic but sensible.

100% this. said much more clearly and succinctly than I said it earlier.

It's fine. But she must ALSO be protected, and her contributions recognised. As must any future children.

Yes, because she would’ve made foolish decisions. Nobody has to prioritise their husbands career or take on the lion’s share of the childcare. Any sensible woman would insist it’s equally shared. Protect yourself first and foremost, that goes for women too.

These are excellent questions.

If the mother in law to be is already making a thread about him.
His money what he owns etc it dont sound like its going to last.
If i was him id be running.

All the people saying well done him - would you be saying that to a woman who after 20 years of marriage has a husband walk out on her. After she has held back in her career so he could prioritize his, looked after the home, raised the kids etc? Well done him, he protected himself and she is only going to get 30% and have to start again in her 40s/50s (the peak age for divorce). He, as the higher earner, will walk away in comfort, while she lives in penury.

This. I haven’ read the full thread yet, so apologies to any others also reiterating the point about children.

I largely feel that between able bodied adults, financial arrangements are simply a question of mutual preference. The only issue would be that your DD not feel pressured or coerced. If finances are separate and especially if there is a prenup, she also needs private savings.

But I am continually shocked by the number of MumsNetters who are funding their DC with limited contributions from DH. Sometimes this seems to leave them barely able to clothe themselves, while ‘D’H has plenty of money for expensive cars, hobbies, etc.

No! Your DC are a joint undertaking and deserve the mutual financial support of their parents. A decent standard of living for all family members comes before indulgences.

He probably won't.

Im with him in this. If he is putting in most of the money its fair he takes that back at the end. What your daughter should do is protect herself in it. If she is to give up time at work then that should be compensated for

If you were giving your Dd money that meant she paid 70% of the deposit and she out earned her DH to be I would be strongly advising that they buy the house as Tenants In Common with a Deed protecting her deposit as a % .

This is simple to do.

A third of marriages end in divorce. Until (and if) your Dd compromises her own earnings, savings and pension for childbearing why shouldn’t her Dp protect his assets? Marriage is a legal and financial contract and contracts are the back pocket protection for when things go wrong.

I hope that your DD’s partner is not expecting to own 70% of the whole of the property if she is paying 50% of the mortgage for the mortgaged part of the value?

Op, I think the bf is being very sensible.

I have a ds and he will have a lot of property. I’ve already advised him not to get married. Either that or I will put my properties in a company. Especially if the dgf is the poorer of the pair.

It’s not romantic it’s sensible and as MN love to say marriage is a financial contract.

incidentally my dh lost his house in a divorce and would hate for that to happen to ds.

I can kinda see it both ways and if its done in the best interests then i dont see it as a bad thing tbh.

The guy is bringing a whole lot more to the START of this marriage and i dont think he is being anything other than honest and protecting what he has already BEFORE the start of the marriage.

However, i also believe that getting married is a partnership and from that point onwards all income is equally theirs to share. Its just how i have always lived. It stops financial inequality and manipulation.

Im not sure how this can be translated into a prenup but i dont think the man is necessarily doing anything wrong. But i also believe that once they get into the marriage then he gives up any right to what is his and hers, its theirs.

Maybe i put more value on what it means to be married.

It is not just about finances though is it? Will she be expected to take on more of the housework and domestic load because he has a better paying job? How will that impact on her energy to improve her financial position?

Yes when people bleat on about this is what equality means they always neglect to mention the motherhood penalty.

op, you daughter should also discuss at length what happens if they have a child. Every single element of it. Finance, pension, less opportunity to earn more due to parenting responsibilities. Will it all be equal? Or will he expect her to do it all as she earns less?

What are the main reasons divorce happens? Make a plan to avoid them?

I know someone that got married and said if they divorced she would take him for everything the pre nup was just words and ment nothing.
She got a divorce and nothing else she was not happy.
I think hes sensible tbvh smart man.

If i was to get married or any of my children i would want them to protect themselves.
Why lose half of everything in a divorce when the person didn't help get it in the first place.

Where I’m from pre-nups can (and are) legally binding (as long as the necessary legal limits re content, the procedural legalities etc. are all properly observed). So this is my perspective on this:

A contract should benefit both (or all) parties involved.

Party A therefore should not agree to a contract that only protects Party B. That is non-sensical, completely one-sided and not a particularly auspicious start to a marriage (imo).

Which is why your DD needs her own attorney (absolutely not joint representation or simply being advised by her fiancé’s attorney). She and her fiancé (who decided to emphasise the economic aspects of marriage) ought to compare this to a joint venture agreement. They’re merging their assets and financial futures and both need to be protected.

If it was the other way round I’m sure you would say your DD was being sensible?

I have no issue and I’ve said the same to my DH, we are saving to help gift our child a house deposit (25-50k), I would want that protected if they brought a joint house for sure.

They could instead own the house as tenants in common instead of joint tenants. But in that case she'd be wise to never contribute more than 30% of costs at any time regardless of what she earns in the future.

I started off as the lower earner at 26, DH is five years older than me. But in the private sector as a lawyer quickly surpassed DH in the public sector as a civil servant. We are joint tenants and have no pre-nup.