to want a....

[spoonfulofgoodness]

Prenuptial agreement. My partner and I own property. We live in the house I own and he has a house he rents out. We're getting married in January. We're both good with money and both stand to inherit money as well. He's happy to have a prenup but isn't willing to pay for it. So I guess my question is AIBU unreasonable to want one and AIBU to expect that he contributes to half the costs if it's protecting him too?

Yes.

If you need 'protecting' from each other then you shouldn't be getting married.

It really depends. What do you feel needs protecting? You don't have to pool assets, I suppose, but if you are getting married and perhaps one day thinking of having a family, then it would be unusual to not see everything as pooled.

I think, especially as you seem to be on a fairly equal footing, it is very sad to be considering a pre-nup. Part of getting married is surely throwing it all in one pot? I am fairly certain they are not legally binding in the UK either.

(and I speak as someone who married someone far wealthier - I did suggest it to him but he said absolutely no way)

What would the terms of your pre-nup be?

Pre-nups are largely invalid in the UK.

www.terry.co.uk/pre-nuptial.html

Pretty simple. That in the event of a divorce we split and our assets are kept separate. I don't see it as sad as much as I see it as prudent. I love him and I want to spend the rest of my life with him but you really don't know what's round the corner. I'm very much a realist.

I also live in Scotland and the link by a PP refers to England

I think it would be sensible OP.

Are you in the UK? They're not legally binding in the UK. It's very much an American thing.

Scrap my comment. It's different in Scotland.

Yeah in Scotland and it's available through solicitors. If they offer it as a service is really not enforceable?

solictors will draw them up in england too, but they are still invalid

they can be used in divorce as evidence of intent but not binding

If you want it then I think you should pay for it tbh.

Are you planning on having children together?

You want it you pay for it. Frankly if I were him I wouldn't be marrying you. I can see the point if there are for example SDC to protect but otherwise why bother getting married if you don't mean the vows?

Can I just ask you something? You live together in your property and he rents out his own? What does he do with the rent - do you share it?

Pre-nuptial agreements can be enforceable in England & Wales (apologies to the OP who is in Scotland). This link posted by thebunnyofdoom is way out of date.

If you look at the reference to a case called Radmacher v Gradation in the margin of that web page you'll see they refer to a case that may make the advice given rather meaningless. That case reached the supreme court in 2010. It said that the court would uphold PNAs unless it can be shown to be demonstrably unfair to one or other of the parties.

This is a link to a recent case in which the PNA most certainly affected the outcome.

It's sensible, do it. Tbh as you said you never know what's around the corner. Not too long ago an OP was unemployed living with her husband who owned the house and wouldn't put her on the deeds amongst a host of other things. I'm sure she once felt her vows were forever too yet she was posting because she'd found herself up shit creek without a paddle.

I agree with posters saying if you want it you should be the one to pay for it.

I think going into marriage planning for what happens if you divorce is a bit sad. We have a fully joint account, fully joint savings (except Isa's where you can't) and my name isn't even on the house deeds (bought before we married while I was a student and considered to be a risk by the morgage company so we'd have had a worse deal). I'm a realist too-we really meant our vows so it's til death do us part for us.

YANBU for wanting one, but YABU for expecting him to pay for it if he's not that bothered. You can't force someone to fork out for something just because you think it's for 'their own good'.

Marriage is a teeny bit pointless if you'll only do it with a contract that nullifies the one you're about to enter.

There's more to marriage than sharing assets though - nullifying one aspect of a contract doesn't render the rest pointless.

YANBU at all, everyone should have one if it's legally binding where they are/or as others have said, for intent purposes. We've all been through breakups, things get nasty, people can get vindictive during a split and things can get messed up, it's just life. It's sensible. Getting a pre nup doesn't mean you shouldn't be getting married or don't trust each other or anything. You should pay for it though if you're the one who wants it.

Actually, seeing how you are both entering the marriage with assets, I can understand why you might want that all clarified. So no, YANBU.

It's being practical - it's not enormously different from posters telling women to get married to protect themselves should the worst case scenario occur.

Nothing wrong with a prenup, nothing wrong with wanting one, expecting him to pay when he doesn't is unreasonable, so just pay and go for it.

You should also probably ensure you put things in it relating to children and how that might vary things.