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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'.

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

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.

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.

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.