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?

erm, but surely that's exactly what it would do (if it was effective), that is, children do not have an automatic right to the cash of a living parent, in the event of divorce only whatever child maintenance is decided..if their mother receives less for herself, they are affected by that.
Really, its what this intention says about his view of his responsibilities as a father than the actual legal effect which is concerning.
he wants to protect his family inheritance from...his new family?

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.

Er, Blu, I don't recall saying that it mattered whether I liked or agreed with it. I was just voicing my opinion. My opinion is that I don't like the idea of anyone else supporting me financially, and I would do anything I could to keep that from being the case.

TobyLerone, you said:" "The principle of marriage is that two people become a financial unit with the other

Really? hmm
The hmm 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." "

Which seems to imply that you dispute the legal basis of marriage, not that you would [ersonally avoid being financially supported!

But if that's what you meant, fair enough - I have never wnated to be financially supported either - and am not married.

Just because it's the 'legal basis' of marriage doesn't mean I have to go along with what it tends to mean for most women, ie that they get to pool their (usually) smaller income with their husband's (usually) larger one and nobody questions it.

But again, I don't recall saying that my opinion 'mattered'. I just disagree with the principle of the financial unit stuff.

I agree with you TobyLerone, in that how you conduct your finances in a relationship is up to you, but, nevertheless, in a divorce situation, the judge make decisions as divisions as assets as he or she sees fit. There is little choice and a married couple have to go along with it.

People complain about this, but I am afraid I believe that they are wrong to do so. In my opinion, when people marry they are explicitly inviting the law into their relationship and have to expect the law to involve itself and pass judgements if things go wrong.

People who wish to avoid this should not get married, this is why the OP's dp sounds a bit daft to me. Want to escape complexity of dividing spoils of a failed relationship? Don't get married is my advice to him.

So I am afraid that if a person is married and not 'just' cohabiting, they have given away their right to decide exactly gets what when marriage fails.

Pre-nups don't have to be fraught. Try to remain practical and sensible; keep emotion out of it.

We entered into a pre-nup prior to marriage when I was pg. We had lots of discussion until we ended up with (what we believe to be) a fair outcome. Our agreement says:

• All his assets, which he earned prior to our relationship, are in a family trust
• He and I are trustees of the family trust; he needs my written approval for changes to the Trust Agreement and for taking drawings from the trust
• Our children are the beneficiaries of the trust
• On ceasing co-habitation (ie separation) I am no longer a Trustee but the assets in the Trust are frozen until such time as the split of assets is agreeed
• On divorce we each take out what we brought in plus half of any increase in the value of our joint assets, but in any event I get no less than half the market value of the family home. (At the time of marriage, he had paid for about half the value of the family home. We agreed that he would 'put this on the line' because we agreed that in marriage you have to have some skin in the game, i.e. a financial downpayment helps demonstrate your commitment to the other)
• If he dies, I become Trustee of the Trust alongside his father
• His will says it all goes to me; My will says it all goes to him

That said, our lawyers' fees were quite expensive so you'd probably want to make sure that the assets in question were more than 50 grand.

I think it is the unequal distribution of power that the OP finds herself in here that is my issue with this situation.

She is already paying towards his mortgage, pulling her own weight, taking care of baby expenses and preparing to give up her income to raise their child, it seems a cheek for him to then imply she is a gold digger.

Perhaps a prenup is a good idea with someone who is like this with money, after all it doesn't have to go all his way.

We discussed money carefully before getting married, but if I didn't trust DH enough to take his word for it, I simply wouldn't have married him. I was not in a vulnerable position like the OP though.

If both people want a prenup, then no worries, but I think it is a pretty good indicator of fundamental differences in the approach to marriage and child rearing etc if you find yourself in disagreement over it, and that would worry me more than the actual document.

I think cohabitation agreements are a good idea; a very good idea as there is no rights legal responsibilities attached to it (other than those agreements that the couples themselves explicitly make such as joint ownership of a property) etc. I am also not one of the people who believe in rights for cohabitees; fgs, that is what MARRIAGE is for. Also, I want people to have the choice to leave live-in relationship easily -ridiculous to suggest that two people automatically owe each other something because they've cohabited for a while.

But prenups go against the whole ethos of marriage: i.e. the couple make a public and legal agreement to see through life's trials and tribulations together. I am not religious nor particularly sentimental (in fact, I dislike weddings) but even I see that it is supposed to be a joint event to undertake a sort of 'adventure' of life. By their very nature, they are predicting what is ahead when the couple have not lived that life yet! .

Frankly, I wonder exactly why people with pre-nups marry in first place, it really must be for religious reasons or, at the lower end of the scale, a nice cake and frock.

To be honest, I feel that jammydoger is being used as a concubine here. That is, as an incubator for an heir. Reading between the lines, any marriage will involve an emotionally distant relationship, and I AM speculating wildly here and going on gut instinct, a relationship that is not based on the traditional middle class lines of trust, honesty and sharing.
I do NOT mean that in a derogatory sense, btw!
Perhaps he is of the class of person who conducts their marriages differently, (to be subtle) Ithink that the op should consider this.

jammydodger - having read back throug the thread I now see that your DP is the beneficiary of a trust.

I have a number of trusts for my DSs and this is a very complex area of law. Be warned. Your DP very likely does not own the trust assets an dmaybe never will. They are actually most probably owned by the trustees. He is likely only entitled to any of the assets and income at the trustees discretion.

The £100k money he is proposing to buy the house with may be coming from the trust and indeed the trust may actually own the portion of the the house which is not yours. In other words in a divorce settlement he could claim he has no assets or income as he only gets it at the discretion of the trustees and that the trust owns 'his' portion of the house.

I have seen one case where a couple lived in a massive country house. When they got divorced the woman found that in practice they had only been living there as tenants of a trust and her husband actually owned nothing. She was given notice to leave the house by the trustees and was made homeless.

You need a lot of technical legal advice.

Incidentally, now I know more of the facts, I would just like to emphasise that this it is quite normal in circumstances like this for people such as trustees to take legal advice and put in place measures to protect trust assets as it is their fiduciary duty to do so.

As long as you get similar independent advice, the full circumstances are known to both sides and both sides are happy that their legal and financial position is protected in the event the marriage does not work out tere is nothing to worry about. Everyone of course hopes that a divorce does not happen and taking legal advice now should not been seen as a sign of bad faith either by you or your DP.

I think all people getting married or having children should have these sorts of discussions. Even if it does not come down to signifcant sums of money.

but that's not what was said was it MB - the Dh here didn't say 'lets get good financial advice to understand how this trust business could affect your/our rights'? did he?
although if that is the case yes it is a good idea...but that's not what seems to be going on in this one. the 'you will be on mat leave so you don't deserve to own as much of the house' comment seems pretty indicative that there is an attitude problem rather than a legal one motivating this.

The way I see it, everyone who enters into a legal marriage is effectively signing a form of pre-nuptual agreement. The marriage contract provides for what happens should the marriage fail, but it's a "one size fits all" provision - and we all know that one size rarely does fit all.

There are some benefits to a pre-nuptual agreement, for example, if the marriage ends, you save yourself and your children the trauma of a messy divorce. When my parents divorced, emotions got the better of them, and they were not able to make rational fair decisions even though they (like most people who get married) never believed for a minute they would ever divorce, and even if they did, they trusted each other to be sensible and fair. Oops!

With regard to becoming 'one financial unit' - I entirely disagree. There is no single right answer for everyone. For us, we each hold seperate bank accounts and pay into a joint account, and whoever is the higher earner does get higher spending money. I think that's fair, since we've each made individual career and education decisions that got us in that position.

However when it comes to children, it's right for the mother to insist on some form of 'compensation' for lost wages etc. In our case, all my pregnancy related costs (maternity clothes, lunches, pre-natal pilates classes etc) come from the joint account. And if I had signed a pre nup I would have ensured that any loss of wages due to maternity leave / delayed career progression were accounted for.

But I would not expect to receive 50% of everything he has earned. Just some help towards what I have actually lost/sacrificed. Some might argue that I am effectively supporting his career while I am at home, but actually, that assumes I am doing something for him which I am not - because as it so happens, in our particular relationship, we share child rearing and home responsibilities equally, and so really, it's just the maternity leave that screws me over. And you can account for that in a good pre nup.

The 100k is from the sale of a property and not from a trust, the OP specifically states this in this thread.

It seems to be two seperate issues - firstly the co-habitation agreement and secondly the pre-nup. Leaving aside the pre-nup for the time being, the co-habitation agreement he wants seems inclined towards him and not much use for the OP.

The OP is contributing 50k to the house purchase which is hardly a small amount and more than many people contribute. True, the husband is contributing double and earns more, but when you take into account the loss in earnings the OP will suffer in having and caring for his child, it probably pretty much evens out. So I would questioning why he wants anything other than a 50:50 split on the proceeds of any house. And also what is exactly in it for the OP if she is only to get 25%. A far more cost saving solution would be simply to specify ownership distribution on the title deeds when the house is purchased. The OP could argue that she would be better spending her 50k on a deposit for a house in her own name and being able to benefit from 100% of any rise in value.

Furthermore, if they are soon to be married, what is the point of a co-habitation agreement and will any pre-nup simply reiterate its terms?

And why is he bringing it up now, when the OP is pregnant and facing maternity leave? It seems rather mercenary. If his inheritance is tied up in a family trust, then the OP is never going to have any claim on the capital anyway, so it seems that his long term future is aleady adequately protected. To seek further protection against any possible claims by his future wife does seem OTT.

FabbyChic - the property being sold may belong to a trust and as a beneficiary of a trust the trustees have given him the right to live in it but not ownership. In other words, the £100k is just being redeployed by the trust to buy a new property with the OP and he wil still not have any right or entitelment to the capital.

This may not be the case but is quite common to find trustees beng unwilling to give young adults large amounts of capital from a trust but stil allow them to benefit from the trust income or use of its assets such as a house to live in.

IMO it boils down to the father of your child and your partner saying he doesn't trust either you or the relationship to work - not much of a basis for a loving long-term relationship is it?

no,this prenup is not an admission relationship will fail.it is good financial planning.imo all co-habitees should get one where property and chidren are involved

this notion that its vulgar or unromantic to discuss money is v silly

people might as well discuss finances and plan when things cordial,as sure as shit won be cordial if they split acrimoniously without a pre-nup.and no im not saying the op and dp will split.i am saying people should plan and acknowledge finances

I agree people should discuss and plan finances, of course. That's why I made sure I was on the deeds on our first flat even though the mortgage was in (then DP's name) because I was pregnant. My mother then died leaving me enough money to make a 30% contribution to the purchase of our new home. After two children, I insisted that marriage was a better deal for me financially as the stay at home main child carer - as it was clear to both of us that my contribution to the home was in part responsible for my (now dh) being able to flourish professionally.

So I agree that finances should enter in to a couple's plans - but not that they should be split anything other than 50:50 when there are children involved. Anything else smacks of using one's partner as breeding stock to me.

Nah, I couldn't be shagged with this. You need to make sure everything is joint between you. You're going to be the one whose career takes a hit when you have the baby.

This is why I would not get pregnant by someone without being married to them. I might be OK with the country pile being sectioned off (in case we get divorced, and I get remarried, meaning that my new husband would get some of it). But our house? OUR money? That's joint, equal, 50/50 and anyone who doesn't get that can jog on.