What do you think about post nup/ or pre nup ?

[nubbie]

Do you think they're just horrible or do you understand why someone may want to protect their wealth / family of origin's wealth ?

I know they don't necessarily stand up in courts in England, but if you were getting married or already married, would you object if your partner wanted one ? If your partner's family was quite wealthy for example and wanted to protect some of the wealth given/ or to be given to their son or daughter ?

I'm not talking about wealth that either partner actually earns during the marriage. I mean inheritance and gifts from parents.

Genuinely interested, because I can't make my mind up if it's OK or not.

I think it's absolutely okay if both parties want to do one and are happy to sign one. I see them in a similar way to insurance - you get them in place incase of the worst outcome (e.g car insurance and an accident) and just hope you don't need to use it.

Both parties are happy. But one side of in laws are not so happy and think it's pretty disgusting.

I absolutely think that any couple in a relationship where 1 person will give up work to look after children need to undergo some form of workshop and sign an agreement.

@nubbie

Both parties are happy. But one side of in laws are not so happy and think it's pretty disgusting.

Is that the less well off side?

@nubbie

Both parties are happy. But one side of in laws are not so happy and think it's pretty disgusting.

So? Tell them to keep their nose out, do they also have opinions on your sex life or how you parent etc?! Also you shouldn't be discussing this sort of thing with in laws IMO, it's private.

It’s fine. I don’t see why anyone should lose assets they earned or had before the marriage.

It's very normal here.

I am not planning on getting married again, but if I were, I would not think twice about it.

We have two, with accrual or without. So assets at time of marriage remain yours, but those you obtain during the marriage would be split if you divorce. Without accrual, what is yours remains yours and vice versa. Spouse has no claim on these.

I’m torn tbh. In many ways it’s just sensible, but in others it’s a bit cold. But maybe cold is sensible?

It depends on the situation- if the one with less wealth going in then becomes a SAHP and looks after everyone etc., I’d think it was a bit rum if they got held to a prenup on divorce. Especially if it was the other, wealthier partner who wanted the divorce.

In cases with no children in particular, or for a very short marriage, it might make sense!

But it’s no ones business but the couple - and the courts!
Long story short - I think it’s right that it’s advisory to the courts and not binding.

Depends. We have one and both families had a say in it. However we both work in our own families business and a divorce could destroy either.

@nubbie

Both parties are happy. But one side of in laws are not so happy and think it's pretty disgusting.

If both parties are happy, that is all there is to it.

In laws, I'm sure, have opinions about many many things (some of which they're happy about, some of which they aren't!), none of which should override the opinions of the couple.

I'm probably wrong but , in UK , a pre nup isn't automatically legally binding.

I think they are a good idea and in fact, I think they should be used more, particularly when you read some of the stories here on MN, when (normally the woman) has given up her career to raise her family and then the relationship breaks down.

A prenup could not only cover the assets that both families bring to the relationship, but also various scenarios eg one parent being a SAHP, long term illness of the spouse/dependents, potential inheritances.

I read that when Katie Holmes split with Tom cruise, the divorce wax finalised quickly because they had such a strong prenup. I know Tom in particular is extremely wealthy, but, but I'm sure the quick, clean break was better for everyone.