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?

While I would imagine that in the event of a split during cohabitation any agreement (s) would be binding, I think that upon marriage the agreement would be null and void? If so, then he can pee about with cohabitation agreements as much as he likes but it means nowt if the pair of you marry.

Don't even think pre-nups have any weight in the UK.

Would like to be corrected if wrong, then again, if you are NOT marrying, I have to say that a cohabitation agreement is a bloody good idea.
Cohabitation has no legal standing OTHER than what is explicitly set out on paper.

So, if you are NOT going to marry, then I'm afraid that I cannot slag the guy off because it may be YOU that loses out if there is no cohabitation agreement in event of split. If cohabiting and a sahm, then I am afraid we can talk about 'justice' as much as we like. Fact is, cohabitation is not seen as being of any financial worth in itself- it just isn't and nor, frankly, should it be. Want rights, get married is my stance.

But I think he is talking utter bullshit about pre-nups in the UK. The principle of marriage is that two people become a financial unit with the other. Everything is shared - I mean is this basic fact escaping your dp or something?!- so I am afraid his pre-nup idea is bs anyway.
Marriage is not just about romance and nice cake, it's a legally binding agreement- this is why all wills made by couple prior to marriage are rendered null and void upon marriage! Your dp is being a bit of a numbskull about this!

"He changed his mind very shortly afterwards (still cowering, IRRC)and embraced the JA approach to married finances..

OP I hope this gets sorted. You have been given great advice and perspectives here. Good luck.

The principle of marriage is that two people become a financial unit with the other

Really?

"All my worldly goods I thee endow."
Anyone notice William and Kate trying not to smirk at that bit?

Or was it "for richer, for poorer?"

TobyLerone, yes, really. When a couple marry, their assets are considered to be joint assets and liabilities. It's just the way it is.
After all, the couple are making a public and legal declaration to be a financial unit. I hope the is not for me as such- I am only repeating the status quo as regards marriage in the UK.

The was because I wasn't sure whether that was your opinion or a fact.

I'm not sure I like or agree with the 'financial unit' malarkey. But I guess I'm in the minority.

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

because he is protecting his families money from his own child, in effect?

His child which isn't even born yet? If his family are wealthy, they will doubtless set up some kind of trust fund for the child when it's born. I hardly think the child will suffer because its father wants to have a prenup.

No pre-nup can ever protect a father's assets and income from his own child - because the child hasn't been a party to it, the OP's foetus is unlikely to scribble an X on the paper.
It can only (sometimes) protect assets brought to the marriage by one party from the other, adult, consenting, party on separation.

a pre-nup is very sensible, as is provision for child
there is a lot of sentimental chuff around marriage and love conquers all as if mere act of discussing money is vulgar. given you say he has a large family estate,no wonder they want to protect that asset

the other parallel issues are childcare and you giving up work for mat leave. when do you intend to return to work?

have you both discussed planned childcare and/or nanny.dont wait to let this creep up,discuss childcare now. tbh nursery is the easy bit,if you have the money nursery open 50weeks year.allowing you to work minimal disruption. when school age gallops up (and it will come around quickly) you need to consider how you manage this,and school holidays,in-service days etc.

really do discuss childcare and expectations,preferences now and if you need a nursery after mat leave start look now

all childcare expenditure needs be split equally
we have separate individual accounts, joint account for kids expenditure
when pg i did a spreadsheet of stuff needed,cost - and we split equally. dont let it start off that as mum all child needs are automatically your issue

The trouble with splitting expenditure equally is that it's not fair if one earns less than the other. And it certainly doesn't cater for when one is on maternity leave, even allowing a bit for child benefit.
I'm always a bit when I hear on here about women who have no income, but whose only money is child benefit and they're trying to eke that out to cope whilst their Hs "keep" their own earnings. Astounding.

Fairest thing once you become a family, if you are not going to go fully down the joint a/c route, is to agree a similar amount of individual money after all general/family expenses.

For example, person 1 earns £1000pcm and person 2 earns £2000pcm.
Joint costs are £2500 (incl mortgage, bills, food, childcare, petrol etc, etc.). So £500 leftover. Therefore person 1 pays £750 into ja and keeps £250 'spending/leisure money' and person 2 pays £1750, again with £250 leftover individually.

imo pay mortgage and childcare proportionately to salary.
equally split bills
and maintain individual accounts,both paid salary into
dont need allowance system if you both work.after all whats left in individual account is clear whom it belongs to

but as for your shared child yes,when pg split costs of pram ,clothes etc
nursery etc split proportionate to wages
if you are sahm and want nursery or nanny he pays

I think I'd find it hard for one of us to have a significantly higher "pocket money" allowance than the other, due to income.
Although having said that, we allocate set amounts into our own personal accounts each month, which is our own private dosh and we don't need to account for it to the other. As it happens, I get twice more than DH, but that was his choice, as he reckons I waste need more than him for girlie hair and makeup stuff.

when you're thrashing out prenup,discuss nursery/childcare arrangements
school fees etc (if applicable)

Er, TobyLerone, doesn't matter whether you agree with it or like it, in addition to being about a committed relationship, yes, being married is a form of legal partnership where assets and liabilities are in the shared ownership of the marriage.

YANBU. It's all in very bad taste because you are pregnant.

He clearly undervalues your "contribution" - perhaps he should have paid a surrogate to carry his child.

If he really needs a prenup, it should be just the one line:

"In the event of divorce, the country pile goes straight to the child(ren)".

pre-nup to surrogate.thats a mighty leap
i agree with him they should both get a pre-nup and discuss all finances and childcare costs and schooling now.

I don't wish to offend here but the whole pre-nup thing when we are talking about a couple who are going to be married in the UK (?) seems a bit pointless to me- as far as I can see, we are a long way off pre-nups being taken seriously in this country. Just because a pre-nup may no longer necessarily be UNenforceable does not mean to say that all pre-nups will be actually enforceable IYSWIM.
Marriages change, people change, none of us can predict future and I don't think that pre-nups will automatically taken as the basis for what happens in a divorce, anyway.

I agree that -whether a person likes it or not- marriage is a mutual joining of financial assets.

It is his family's responsibility to protect their assets. He has chosen to enter into a relationship with you and to commit to creating a child with you. If his family don't want to allow his child or his child's mother to share in his good fortune they should make sure he will not inherit.

He should not be separating his finances from yours once you are married and raising a family together.

Tbh I feel concerned for you because I think he is mean-spirited and you are not a match for his convoluted thinking.

I would run a mile from him, however pregnant I was.

not pointless at all.recent case pre-nup was taken into consideration
and they arent married so a pre-nup is v prudent
and tbh more couples should be explicit and clearly talk about finances,and expectation

Yes, I know that there was a case where the pre-nup was taken into consideration, but just because the pre-nup was allowed in that particular case does not mean to say that it will be allowed in every case.
Marriages are not static, things change and what may seem a reasonable pre-nup at beginning of marriage may seem unreasonable 25 years on.

If they aren't married then I think a cohabitation agreement would be the order of the day. Obviously, 'pre-nup' only applies to marriage. But, then, just as a will made prior to marriage is nullified by marriage, any cohabitation agreements would be made null and void upon marriage.

Although I do agree that couples should talk clearly about finances and expectation. Can't argue with that.

unmarried is co-hab arrangement,just we all talking about prenup