Jennifer Aniston is ‘smart’ for having a pre-nup...

[DucksOnThePond]

Her pre-nup is supposedly iron clad protecting her Friends fortune and the house etc, because she made it before he turned up/bought it with her own money and yet on here if there is a split everyone seems to jump to the conclusion that any money should be split 50/50 and anything else is just ‘tight’ with no look to circumstances that might surround the situation. Plus, many of the same women who say this always seem to want to have separate finances during the marriage ....Declaring an interest, I am a woman with a pre nup having made money from a business before my DP came on the scene protecting certain assets, but everything since is joint 100%.... So should the pre nup be disregarded or is it different cos I am a woman and he is a man. I get that kids need to be provided for by both sides but just an arbitery ‘you are married, it’s now a joint asset’ is a bit crude no...

[IWannaSeeHowItEnds]

I also don't agree that cohabiting should grant you any legal rights. If you want those rights then get married. Financial commitments should be actively chosen, not something a person can just acquire.

[StatelessPrincess]

It is outrageous that a 2nd partner can currently inherit (or take in divorce) wealth that came from a person's first spouse and was supposed to benefit their dc This. I agree with you op. I have a prenup, what's mine is mine and what's his is his. I don't like the British way of asset division.

[Beetlejizz]

Situations like yours are the main reason i have my doubts about the fairness of cohabitation law reform guinefort. You're at least able to take the decision to avoid the legal implications of marriage, without needing to forego having a partner at all.

[IWannaSeeHowItEnds]

I agree that you should be able to protect the assets you brought to the marriage and ringfence money/assets acquired from a first marriage, for the benefit of children from that first marriage.
It is outrageous that a 2nd partner can currently inherit (or take in divorce) wealth that came from a person's first spouse and was supposed to benefit their dc

[MyLovelyHorseAndNewNameNow]

Oh bollocks, OP. You see no such thing on Mumsnet 'on so many threads', like 'take him to the cleaners' - not least because a lot of MNers are in second relationships themselves, have children, have step children, and aren't cunts.

It's already been explained to you about the law in Scotland and England & Wales, and the US.

And it's 'arbitrary'.

[Beetlejizz]

Where are these threads where posters are being urged to take STBXDH to the cleaners, including assets acquired prior to the marriage? Are the facts more similar to Jen and Justin or to the more typical MN scenario I described upthread?

[NSEA]

Oh, I see. You mean in terms of what people had before. I sort of see your point, though how can this be truely calculated when most people join their assets. Sell houses and invest in others etc.

[NSEA]

Isn’t this because the assumption is that the woman sacrifices more in a marriage though. In terms of career etc. Obviously not in the above case as no kids, but I think that often its the solicitor fighting for what the wife is legally entitled to. It’s not really a faux feminist issue.

[worridmum]

pre nups are only normally used if it provide a fair settlement for both parties.

Eg one member has a fortune of 10 million invested for money and house no other assists partner moves in to this invested house they are married for a decent amount of time say 10 years. No court in the land (of England and Wales ) will allow one party of a marriage 100% of the assists and the other walk away with nothing.

Or if the marriage assists are near equal aka say again that the pre nup protects 10 million worth of assists and the other assists equally nearly 10 million the court my say the pre nup is vaild but they lose ALL recourse to the marriage assists so both parties leave with roughly equal assists.

[DucksOnThePond]

Not talking about anything after the wedding happened - that is earned ‘jointly’ no matter who the pay cheque was made out to. My point is about things brought to the marriage that had nothing to do with the other side. I just see so many threads where the responses regarding a breakup seem to be unanimously take them to the clearer’s and I just think it’s crass and I wonder if the same thoughts would be had if the boot was on the other foot

[GuinefortGrey]

I would welcome prenups becoming proper law here in the U.K.

I received a very large sum in life insurance 10 years ago when my DH died suddenly, leaving me with 3 tiny children. The money is theirs and I have (and will continue to) invest it and use it to give them as wonderful a childhood and secure start in life as I can without their beloved dad.

I have a new long term partner now and have had another child and would very much like to marry again. However, I will not feel safe to do so until I can be certain that a prenup would hold. I don't believe in fairy tales or the happy ever after and would need to be 100% certain that mine and my children's' money from their father would remain mine/theirs should the new marriage not go the distance.

My DP is well catered for in my will should I die before him (and not married to him) and all my DC will receive an equal inheritance.

My solicitor tells me that correctly done, and in view of my particular circumstances, a court would likely uphold a prenup. DP would need to have received his own independent legal advice prior to signing in order to ensure that he is fully aware of what he is agreeing to/future implications. It is all very complicated, expensive and even by following procedure to the letter still cannot be guaranteed 100% watertight.

As soon as prenups become properly legal I will be straight down to the registry office to book our wedding, but until then it's not a risk I'm willing to take.

[Beetlejizz]

Yeah the length is another thing that's not typical of divorce discussions on here. They were only married 2 years, whereas the divorce threads are often about marriages that lasted much longer.

There just aren't that many threads on here about splits where the couple were only married a short time, had no children and neither party compromised their earning potential and/or took on significant caring responsibilities. Much less where people are suggesting that the lower earner in the brief union should automatically be entitled to at least half. In fact I'm struggling to think of any- though do link me if I'm wrong.

[ExFury]

I think a pre-nup is fair enough when it comes to a short marriage. I think it marriages that don't last more than 5 years everyone should just go back to where they were in the beginning. After that, or when kids come into it, then they shoudln't override the law.

[StepAwayFromGoogle]

Completely agree that it's a different kettle of fish if one partner has given up a career to bring up children. No, they won't be contributing monetarily but they are actually doing the most important job in the family. To say that 10 or 20 years down the line they should be left with nothing, because they didn't work, is pretty offensive IMO.

[VladmirsPoutine]

Some women actively seek out wealthy or solvent men. Others find themselves still up shit creek even if they married and had children with bob from down the road with £5 to his name following divorce.

I'm not sure what to make of it to be honest.

I know I wouldn't want to divvy up my assets if I were getting divorced (I'm not married), but still.

[Beetlejizz]

My point is more that there still seems to be a massive focus on getting everything you can, without regard for anything else and no matter what the situation which to me seems a little crass considering there can be (though obviously not always) be other nuances and that it’s contradictory to the fact that as women we should be equal and therefore not just take the piss cos we are suddenly ‘the women’ coming out of a marriage..

You're referring to discussion of separation on divorce on here. When there are almost always children involved, when the parent posting for advice has typically taken a hit to their earning potential at least due to childbearing (because on average we do) and quite often due to caring for children too. None of this is true with Ms Aniston and her husband.

So of course you're going to see a massive difference. Because you're not comparing like with like, even before getting into the very different legal positions in the US and UK. It isn't so much apples and oranges as apples and venetian blinds.

[VladmirsPoutine]

I'm divided on this. My favourite aunt who is worth a fortune never married and if she were would seek to have such an iron clad prenup that both she and him would leave with what they came in with. Failing that, I doubt she'd have a relationship with a man worth less than her iyswim.

For the most part a lot of women do get shafted. Having abandoned their potential (career) to raise children then find themselves up shit creek when divorce is on the horizon. Let alone the mental and emotional fall out it tends to cause.

I'm really on the fence.

[NotWeavingButDarning]

I'm curious about this as I have assets I would certainly want protected for my DC should I marry.

What decides whether a prenup is valid? If I were to have one drawn up in the US and marry there, would it hold up even if I lived in the UK?

[Whatshallidonowpeople]

They are not legally binding in this country, the courts might take them into consideration but they might not.

[itsmeimcathyivecomehome]

I'm sick of all the papers saying, "pssst jen - brad's single too!"

Why? Why would a gorgeous woman like that want to get back with an ex who (apparently - he certainly didn't let the sheets get cold!) cheated on her, said hurtful things about their marriage to the press, and now looks like an older sleazier version of himself?!

[itsmeimcathyivecomehome]

I have friends who are family lawyers and they think prenups are where the UK will end up - but we're not quite there yet!

[Iseesheep]

I think what we all read on MN shows a very one sided story. We usually see the wife being advised to take the husband to the cleaners or read of her being shafted by the husband financially. Believe me, both men and women tend to go for every penny they can get when a marriage breaks down. Very few are amicable where there's a decent amount of money involved.

In my (past) experience the husband's are usually the most devious when it comes to hiding wealth though. I've seen some shocking tricks!

[BrendasUmbrella]

there just seems to be an arbitury thought process that we, as women, should just automatically have rights to the cash whatever the circumstances which I find disturbing and rather contradictory to us being able to do what we want, how we want, be equal to men etc etc

Yet you say you have a pre nup. (And without being married?) If you want to give half of what you own over to your DP, go ahead...

[SometimesMaybe]

Just to say, pre nups are valid in Scotland.

Pre nups are sensible in some situations - e.g. mega wealth, inherited wealth, second marriage and children from a first. As long as they don’t result in eg a SAHP being shafted after a long marriage then they are ok by me.

(I don’t have one as neither of us had a pot to piss in when we got wed!)

[phoenixtherabbit]

Nope I think she is smart. If she was a man i would think the same.

Pre nups should be legally binding imo.

Wouldn't matter to me right now as me and dp were equally as skint when we met