Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder if anyone would agree to a pre-nuptial contract?

45 replies

EdgarAllInPink · 21/10/2010 13:25

Hardly the last word in romance is it? Your intended asks you to sign a pre-nuptial agreement to safeguard their interests in the event of divorce. Or vice versa?

Do you think it really helps a womans interests if her Ex-H signs a prenup with a second wife in order to safeguard his DCs from his first marriage? Or are existing safeguards eg Will, prev divorce agreement sufficient? - or vice versa of course - Women sometimes are the ones paying support to ex-partners.

Do you think that, in actual fact, it shows that your intended doesn't trust you, and doesn't really believe it is forever? Surely if you trust them enough to marry them, you trust them not to destroy you in a divorce?

news article here

OP posts:
Original poster
EdgarAllInPink · 21/10/2010 13:25

I expect there will be ladies out there shaking their heads ruefully at that last sentence...

OP posts:
pommedeterre · 21/10/2010 13:27

I would get right royally pissed off with dh if he asked me to sign one and would refuse to marry him on principle.

Original poster
EdgarAllInPink · 21/10/2010 13:32

So what do you think?

My take on this: If it is necessary to protect the interests of exisitng children, then I would see it in a better light than someone trying to get rid of that part of marriage which is about 'what's mine is yours'.

My BIL thought my DH should have signed one to protect a moderate inheritance (which was then the deposit on the house we lived in, with DD1) I think he was Very Wrong, and, what is more, ignoring the fact that by taking a lower paid job to fit around caring for the kids, i was making a financial sacrifics to support the marriage (not one i resent at all) and having genuinely thrown in my lot with DH, it was not wrong of me to expect the same in return.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 21/10/2010 13:39

Since when was marriage all about romance? :) That bit about 'all my worldly goods I thee endow' makes it a very hard-nosed business deal and it often gets forgotten in the party-planning and dress fittings. First time around few couples are bringing big assets to a marriage but second time around there can be big stuff like expensive properties to consider. Of course everyone hopes it's forever but the statistics don't bear that out.

Nothing to do with trust. Everything to do with being pragmatic. Not for everyone but a good thing that it exists for those who want it.

5DollarShake · 21/10/2010 13:42

In theory I agree with you, but in practice, people get 'destroyed in a divorce' all the time.

I guess if you have assets worth protecting, then you have to be realistic.

That's not to say that I wouldn't be mightily miffed if presented with one! Just that it's sticking your head in the sand to think that nasty divorces don't go on. I mean, presumably those couples were madly in love at one point, or they'd never have got married...?

mistletoekisses · 21/10/2010 13:42

I would have done. DH and married quite quickly after meeting. Whilst not wealthy, he certainly had more than me materially and I actually bought the subject up with him.
He flat out refused to consider one and to this day I think he is a better person than me. If the situation was reversed, I would have asked for one tbh.

I think these days it is naive to think someone wouldnt take you to the cleaners, when things go wrong, they can go very wrong.

corygal · 21/10/2010 13:46

Strikes me that most of the rich should already have protection in place, via trusts for the estate, the shares, even the furniture, so in theory a pre-nup might be overkill for people with a lot to lose.

The only prenup I'd have a problem with is the one handed to me by a partner who wasn't that well off - I'd be rather put off by the meanness. Which is unfair, because he'd need it more than a rich person, but it would still rankle. And mean with money = mean with love for a lot of people.

blackwell · 21/10/2010 13:48

I would if it was fair.

potplant · 21/10/2010 13:48

I would have liked to have specified that the loan DH took out before we got married for the stupido bike he has barely sat on was nothing to do with me!

I thought in this case the agreement was to protect the fortune built up by her family. It wasn't money she earnt IYSWIM. And they were married a relatively short time? (I could be wrong, I haven't read to much about it)

RockBat · 21/10/2010 13:49

Depends what you mean by prenup. If it was a clear division of the spoils, relating to possible/existing children etc then ok. It sort of makes sense to do that when you don't hate each other. But if it was to protect the money that he has squirrelled away and doesn't want you to get your hands on then he could get to feckery.

EvilAllenPoe · 21/10/2010 13:51

Do you think that a pre-nup is likely to disadvantage women more often than men? I mean, if man with a house marries a woman, they then have kdis yada yada - and then at the point of a divorce he wants to retain full ownership - surely that would actually be unfair - as the woman could have (theoretically) been buying her own house had she not been living there?

hat said, i suppose in the event of me being left with house & 3DCs, if i remarried, i'd make it absolutely clear the house was staying mine...but i would be doing that in order to safeguard my childrens home.....for myself i'd be less risk-averse (pprobably) - - purely hypothetical.

EvilAllenPoe · 21/10/2010 13:57

"The only prenup I'd have a problem with is the one handed to me by a partner who wasn't that well off - I'd be rather put off by the meanness."

that was part of my objection to BILs suggestion! it just wasn't that huge an amount of money, and would have been essentially treating me as a pauper (which i wasn't, i very definitely was bringing lots into the marriage even if it didn't take the form of a wad of cash)

..some cultures insist upon all loans being paid off prior to marriage. I can see the sense in that, as it means it can be a new start with a clean sheet.

Chil1234 · 21/10/2010 14:01

@EvilAllenPoe Part of the ruling on the German heiress is that the contract has to be fair and everyone has to be in agreement and in full knowledge of the implications for it to be upheld in the future. An agreement phrased as 'I keep the lot and you get nowt', even if someone signed it, just wouldn't stand that test.

Vallhalloween · 21/10/2010 14:05

I'd have no issues with the suggestion of a pre-nuptial contract and think it's niave to take the "he/she wouldn't do that to me" approach.

If I were to ever marry the man in my life, although I can't for one moment imagine him suggesting either marriage or a pre-nuptial agreement, I would happily sign one to protect his daughter's interests. He has considerably more money than me, plus property, shares and soforth. It's not mine and never would be, I didn't earn it nor was it inherited from my family so why should I have any sort of claim on it?

EldonAve · 21/10/2010 14:10

I would have been happy to have one

ccpccp · 21/10/2010 14:13

"Surely if you trust them enough to marry them, you trust them not to destroy you in a divorce?"

Err - no. Marriages break down all the time, and when the divorce lawyers get involved the knives are out no matter how much hope there was on the wedding day.

Pre-nup recognition is long overdue in this country IMO. Anyone snaring a partner with assets worth protecting will soon regard the pre-nup discussion as par the course.

Pre-nups wont affect wealth generated during marriage so it shouldnt be an issue for most people.

grottielottie · 21/10/2010 14:17

I think the problem come because people think that getting married is purely about romantic love. For me marriage is about so much more that being a contract between two people that gives security, and the idea of a joint purpose. Marriage is a leap of faith I guess but I think that once you marry everything you bring to the marriage becomes the property of the couple (rather than the individual).

If money is so important perhaps the decision is to stay unmarried in the knowledge that what you own is yours, all yours forever more, rather than to legistate for when it doesn't work out.

NordicPrincess · 21/10/2010 14:19

i wouldnt marry someone who wanted me to sign a prenup

GetOrfMoiLand · 21/10/2010 14:21

I would sign one, no problem, both to protect my assets and his.

I see no moral issue with it at all.

racmac · 21/10/2010 14:24

Lets face it how many marriages end in divorce - its sensible to protect yourself especially if you are wealthy.

For the pre nup to stand - both parties have to declare everything and take independent legal advice

I think its very sensible - at least you know you are being married for love and not because they think they are going to get their hands on your money at some point.

Lets face it its not going to apply to most of us unless we have anything worth worrying about

mayorquimby · 21/10/2010 14:25

I have no idea why rich successful people don't do this. It's beyond me.
If I was in the position of Wayne Rooney et al. then I'd definitely have one.

grottielottie · 21/10/2010 14:28

"at least you know you are being married for love and not because they think they are going to get their hands on your money at some point."

Surely if this even crosses your mind you should not be getting married, people don't need to be married anymore for social reasons like in the past, no one bats an eyelid if you only live together.

Remotew · 21/10/2010 14:31

Must admit if I got married again and my husband hadn't managed to create some of his own wealth, e.g equity in a house, then I would want an agreement that, if he runs off with another woman or something then, he's not taking any of my money with him. Reckon my DD deserves it more than him.

If we acumulated wealth whilst together then that's totally different, of course, it's 50/50.

fedupofnamechanging · 21/10/2010 14:35

Imagine you got divorced and you let your ex keep the house because your children were living there. Your ex remarries, then dies and the house that you paid for, which was supposed to be for your children is now in the hands of your Exs new spouse.

I think if you have nothing when you get married and build assets together, then no need for a pre nup. But if you have DCs, it is your duty as a parent to put their needs first and that means protecting them financially.

Chil1234 · 21/10/2010 14:38

"Surely if this even crosses your mind you should not be getting married, people don't need to be married anymore for social reasons like in the past, no one bats an eyelid if you only live together."

Unfortunately, cohabiting partners do not enjoy anything like the same asset rights as married couples. So it's quite common for women to be left totally high and dry when a cohabiting relationship breaks down. They would be better protected with a fair prenuptial agreement than they would be if they stayed simply as 'partner'.