To be slightly upset & insulted with DP's request for a cohabiting & pre-nuptial agreement?

[jammydoger]

I'm not too sure how I feel about this so just wanted to get an external view point to this.

DP and I have been together for 4 years now, cohabiting for 18 months. I'm currently 23+4 pregnant with our first, also house hunting which has pushed us to sort out our finances, will's and the rest.

So yesterday he requested that we should direct our solicitor to draft up both a cohabiting agreement and pre-nup while were at it (were planing to get married next year). The main concern at this stage is the house purchase whilst I'll be putting up 50k he's contributing 100k to the deposit.

Now I don't have an issue with a pre-nup per se but it raises certain questions on how he views our relationship. Obviously he wants to protect himself which is fair enough but its got my back up a little that he sees me as a threat to his wealth.

The idea of entering a marriage with a contract that deals with what happens in the event of the marriage failing seems to question our commitment to each other. Or AIBVU?

I think YABU. It's not nice to think of the possibility of your relationship ending, but the fact is that nobody knows what will happen in the future. Drawing up this sort of agreement is the only sensible thing to do.

My boyfriend and I don't live together yet, but we're planning to in the fairly near future and will likely get married at some point, too. I have a (mortgaged) house with a fairly high amount of equity. He earns almost 3 times what I do. We both want things set out legally via some kind of cohabitation agreement/prenup so that everything is clear. Having been through a divorce, I know that the only thing which has caused ongoing issues and bitterness has been the financial side. I would never enter into another cohabitation situation without knowing where we both stand. I wouldn't want anything back that I didn't put in in the first place.

As is often said on Mumsnet: "He is telling you who he is, believe him".

You have my sympathy, it all sounds messy already.

He basically expects you to pay for yourself, a bit like a flatmate. The domestic responsibilities are yours which is why you are ending up paying the extra domestic expenses of a cleaner and things for the baby.

I'm assuming that he'll expect you to return to work after ML so that you'll be self-funding so to speak and that the childcare costs will be your responsibility too.

I have a degree of sympathy for him if there is a valuable trust involved but at the same time you are making a huge commitment in having a child with him.

This all makes for a low-risk investment on his part and a much higher one on yours which puts you in a weak position.

I think badly of him, not for trying to clarify expectations in the case of a marriage failing, but for springing this on you when you're already committed and vulnerable by being pregnant.

I think that he's making it quite clear what you are getting and agree with Morloth.

Do you think he realises that if you're married, and a sahm.

If you split up he could end up with 20% of the house when the child is 18?

'I mean I really don't have a mine/his mentality. We live together, have a child together and share expenses. I'm not about to start holding him to every penny spent.'

It doesn't sound like he sees things the same way.

What Morloth said.

Hmm, see I'm sure some people do think like this, in terms of "what if we split up" and "we need to protect ourselves" and so on.
But for me, part of what I value most about DH and me is that we have total trust on money/possessions and what's his is mine and vice versa. No issue. From day one, he probably had a bit more disposable cash than I did, although my house was worth more than his flat. He paid off my credit card bill straightaway as he hates the idea of paying interest. Since his parents died and we (note: we ) inherited a substantial sum, it all went into my name, without a blink. BECAUSE WE TRUST EACH OTHER. He knows that I would never run off with it, and I feel the same way. He is a decent, fair-minded person, who shows integrity in his dealings with everyone he meets and is therefore unlikely to do differently to me, the mother of his children. That's why I married him, and I wouldn't last a minute with anyone who didn't operate the same way.
I really hope this doesn't sound smug, but I just don't get how you can get married if you can't genuinely look at the whole character of the person you're with and know whether they are trustworthy people. Look at how they treat others. That's usually a sign.

People change...

Core beliefs and character traits? I disagree.

part of what I value most about DH and me is that we have total trust on money/possessions and what's his is mine and vice versa

Yep, this is all fine and dandy. Until it isn't.

My ex-husband is a decent, fair-minded person too. We were in love once. Now he's convinced I'm after his pension (I've told him in front of 3 different solicitors that I don't want it at all because it's not mine) and has had his family calling me a golddigger in the street. This was after him telling all of our mutual friends and his entire family that I'd had an affair (I did nothing of the sort and he knows that).

It's all good while you're in love. It's fairer, simpler and more sensible to protect yourselves for the possibility that one day you might not be.

I actually suggested a pre-nup to my dh before we married as we live in the house he bought. He wasn't bothered but went to a solicitor on my insistence to be told he would be wasting his money as they are currently not worth the paper they are written on.

I also wrote a post just now and then deleted it because I thought it sounded smug albeit is true. DH and I always put all that we have into the joint family pot. At times this has been larger and smaller amounts with also greater/ lesser and different contributions from each of us. However, we both give what we have for our family unit.

In the past I did go out with someone who was constantly checking that I was 'paying my way'. When I look back I realise with hindsight that I did far more than that and that he was fundamentally tight. There was future property inheritance in that case too. We split up and went our separate ways and now I'm glad. This probably doesn't help you much in your situation though, does it? I think that's why I can see how vulnerable you are.

Just one extra thing - remember that do you love this man - enough to marry him and and have this baby, and presumably he loves you too. He is not the enemy. Men are capable of total fuckwittage and quite capable of opening their mouths without thinking for a second about what they're actually saying*. Mnet can be very quick to the 'damn him and leave him' responses, but you know it's a good idea to first sit down over dinner and ask him to talk through what concerns he has that have led to this bring brought up now. When it's talked through you may find you easily find a middle ground that deals with both your concerns. If not, feel free to revert to 'damn him and leave him'

*I'm just thinking of a MONUMENTAL row I had with DH when newly pregnant about how our money would work during my pregnancy and maternity leave. He said his earnings would still be his and I'd be paid an 'allowance' from him equiv to the ML package my former, v stingy, employers had offered. The balance of his significant income would still be his to spend as he saw fit. We'd split bills between us. Things were somewhat incendiary in the HDTHT household whilst I explained the flaws in this proposal to him. He changed his mind very shortly afterwards (still cowering, IRRC)and embraced the JA approach to married finances..

Even if the pre-nup isn't legally binding if it is entered mutually (without co-ersion) surely it has to be considered should the worst happen and not just dismissed??

You buy insurance when you go on holiday - it isn't to say that you expect to be injured/hurt but you are covered if you are. I think of pre-nups in the same way.

Before entering into any contract the whole financial side has to be discussed and expectations voiced. Love conquers all - but it doesn't pay the bills !

To me, the issue of having a prenup is separate to the issue of whether your DP is being mean or not. And the more important issue is the meanness. I think warning bells are flashing with your DP because...

1 - if his family's major assets are already in trust, then putting a prenup in place for his personal stuff, regardless of what it says, is slightly over-protective. If he's protecting his assets in a way that's not even binding before he's even scooped the pool with the big family win, then I dread to think what he'll be like once he's got the big payout.

2 - He seems to be viewing you not as an equal partner, but as a sort of childcare machine. To be run as cheaply as possible. As people have pointed out, money meanness often means emotional meanness too. Needs sorting out.

1. Interesting that you, not him, have raised the cost of bringing up his child/ren. As the father, partic from a wealthy family, this should be his first job and concern. Not yours. See above for how his family looked after him, for instance.

1. DP needs to see the error of his ways, and it looks like that will be your job.

As others have said, listen to what he's telling you.
"his opinion is I have less stake on the house (when we buy one) because a) I'll be on leave for the best part of a year so not contributing and b) because I will only be putting in 50k towards it."
He hasn't said anything about the OP being protected. He wants to protect himself. And his own family's money.
thefatishistory I too had a mean ex. He earned a fortune, yet was always totting up what he'd paid for, and what I owed him for the (expensive) food/wine he'd bought. Made a big fanfare once of "taking me away for a break," paid for by him as I was broke. I didn't particularly want or need a break, certainly didn't ask for one. He said we'd pay our own way for food on trip - and proceeded to book us into 5* restaurants and ordered ridiculous wine etc... When I raised an eyebrow, I was "being ungrateful" after all he'd done to give me a treat! Controlling twat.
Was such a relief to get together with now-DH soon after I saw sense and dumped him.

Why shouldn't he protect himself and his family's money?

I mean, fair enough, it does sound like his attitude needs looking at, and the day-to-day running of the household expenses will need to fall to him if the OP is not earning money, but I agree with him that what originally goes into the house should remain 'theirs'.

Pretty sure that if it were the OP who was putting £100k into a house and her partner was giving £50k and baulking at a prenup, she'd be being told to protect herself sharpish.

Actually, I can kind of see the issue with the family money. BUT, the bottom line is that he wants to put in place some protection in case she turns out to be a gold-digger. And I'd be having second thoughts about anyone who could even wonder that about me.

I feel really sad for you OP. Really wrong of him to spring this on you when you are living together and pregnant. Suggests a total lack of honesty and transparency in the relationship. He has waited until he effectively has you over a barrel, because you are already committed.

You say that you are contributing to his mortgage (but the flat is in his name alone), so you are paying towards this £100,000 that will form the basis of his deposit as well as your own deposit.

I think he sounds mean and is only protecting his own interests rather than yours as well. His attitude does not sound at all loving or protective of you.

I can understand protecting his assets to a degree and can accept that it is a logical thing to do if you've had relationships go badly wrong before, esp if you already have DC whose future you need to protect, but everything he suggests seems designed to protect only him and not you at all.

Get a really good solicitor to go through it with a fine tooth comb and get clauses built in to cover what happens if he wants out, to protect you financially if your career suffers because you've been raising the children of the marriage. I would not accept owning less than 50% of my marital home. Get the solicitor to build in pension protection and safeguards in case he dies.

If he really wants this, then don't let him have it all on his terms. You have to make sure that you and yours are looked after, because this man is clearly not interested in your best interests.

Takes the shine off the romance though.

I'd be having second thoughts about anyone who was happy for me to pay for all the food, laundry, cleaning and baby equipment costs, whether or not I earned more or less than I did. It would make me really, really anxious if I were about to go on ML and that was the status quo.

These are not nice things to have to think about, but much easier to do now while you are on good terms, than if you have a nasty break up. Pre- nups do not have much standing in law. There was a landmark ruling some time ago in the case of a divorce, where the woman had been a SAHM, and for the first time her contribution to supporting her husband's career was reflected in her pay out. Don't sign a pre-nup till you're happy with it, and I would get some independent legal advice before you do.

jammydodger How are you feeling? Do you think that DP is making a misjudgment, perhaps encouraged by his family, or is he always going to hold you to account and insist that you have a lower standard of living than he does because the money come from his family. Do you want to live like that?

I am not a professional in this field, but I doubt a pre-nup signed whilst you are pregnant would be valid as you don't have much choice. I also understand that most prenups make very generous allowances for the wives (and include for example a certain large amount of money pee child/ per year of marriage). They do not take the view that as a woman has taken ML she has not "contributed as much". Quite the contrary.

Also, I agree with the others. What you will be giving up is not so much your current salary as a lifetime's career and opportunities (if he is rich enough and of the background where he would rather you don't work which is normally the territory with family trust funds).

Sigh, it sounds a bit sad tbh that he is taking the attitude he does. It cannot be a good sign that already you pay for more (eg FOOD) even though you earn less, he has a family trust fund and you are having his baby!!!

Your alternative is to refuse to marry him and to demand expensive gifts (diamond rings, sapphire necklaces, a penthouse flat) as would a mistress.

Better safe than in a horrible legal battle in 10 years time..

I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with setting it out in writing legally - I split up with someone who I co-owned a property with and sorting out the finances was horrible ( I remember a meeting descending into arguing about ownership of towels) - I trusted this person wholeheartedly - and still do really - but when you split up there is no longer an "us" to think of - he was also hurt and wanted to use every means to hurt me- and his family/friends were worried that he would lose out..

when i buy a property with my current partner I will either buy it in my name only or have clear legal docs in place (last time my lawyers actually got the property split wrong)

That said I do think his attitude's off re the childcare and he's not factored that in at all.

I have slightly mixed feelings about this to be honest- my DP looks after DS 3 days a week and I would be interested in knowing how this would be factored in if we split up - I earn a lot more than he does/did- but this was due to other things rather than childcare - and I pay for everything now and give him additional cash..

Oh yes, I'd forgotten to mention the current breakdown of expenses! So, you earn 25% less than him, but split the mortgage 50/50 AND pay for all the food, cleaning/laundry and baby stuff??? I don't expect that him paying for the odd meal out here and there would in any way approach that. How does he justify that?