AIBU to ask for money in postnup despite being a high earner?

[dillydally24]

I have been married for several years and am a full-time working mum of two (one toddler, one baby). My husband brought a lot of assets to the marriage (about £3m), the result of years of hard work. I brought assets too, but a fraction of that amount. Before marrying, I signed a prenup which left me with half the share of assets generated during our marriage. I am now asking to have that prenup replaced by a more generous postnup, as, if we were to divorce now, the settlement outlined in the prenup would leave me with assets of about £500k, of which about £300k would be my own savings. £500k is a lot, I know, but wouldn't be enough to buy a house in our local area where 4-bed houses cost £1.5m. I am asking for more, but my husband says I don't need it because my earnings have taken off since we married (I now make about £500k a year gross of tax) and I can afford to take out a big mortgage to make up the shortfall. AIBU to ask for more? I just want enough to buy a home for me and the kids without having to stress about a massive mortgage. He makes roughly the same amount of money a year as me.

Of course it's gaslighting. He entered the marriage with more capital than her and saw fit you a et up a pre- nup to ring fence that capital for himself. That's bad enough. Personally I would not marry a man who did that, But anyway ... now, five years on, he's been quite happy for her to have 2 children and take the mental load / salary impact that comes with that that (which will obviously play out for some years yet). However, he's got her on the back foot and wondering if she is BU to request a share in his ring fenced money! Wtf.

Mist husbands wouldn't have ring fenced it in the first place! This is the point.

Doesn’t gaslighting require lying about it though? Given that he was upfront as to what he wanted, and OP agreed (and she would have had her own lawyer advising her), it’s hardly indicative of nefariousness on his part. She had the option of refusing a prenup and not marrying him. She also had the option of revisiting the finances in a post nuptial before she agreed to have children.

Oh, and pre nups are increasingly common for those entering a marriage with substantial capital, oftentimes capital that has been passed down through blood lines. It’s not unusual at all for those in that position to want to protect that. It’s quite normal, in fact.

You are infantalising a competent businesswoman, & devaluing the experience of people who are actually gaslit by controlling partners.

OP presumably knew that having DC was part of the marriage 'deal', & that this would comprise a period of maternity leave, plus adjustment time.

If her DH then chose not to step up for parenting or housekeeping duties, that's a separate issue, & one which she could have tackled by either getting him to cop on, or outsourcing any childcare & drudgery that looked set to impede her career. Not by retroactively asking for an extra settlement.

She shouldn't have to "retrospectively ask for an extra settlement." She shouldn't need to ask for anything. They are married with kids!

As for this -

"OP presumably knew that having DC was part of the marriage 'deal', & that this would comprise a period of maternity leave, plus adjustment time."

Yes, this is inevitable when you have DC. Which is precisely why a father should not be ring fencing his own money and manipulating her into accepting that as normal. It's not normal!

The amount doesn't matter - it's the basic principle.

This is what OP says -

"I am asking for more, but my husband says I don't need it because my earnings have taken off since we married (I now make about £500k a year gross of tax) and I can afford to take out a big mortgage to make up the shortfall"

This man is a disgrace.

No wonder she's posting on here and worrying about her position if she were to divorce. The foundation of this marriage was insecure from the go.

Yes, this is inevitable when you have DC. Which is precisely why a father should not be ring fencing his own money and manipulating her into accepting that as normal. It's not normal!

OP is a high flying financier.
She had excellent legal & financial advice, & went into her pre-nup with her eyes open & her head screwed on as usual.
Nobody "manipulated" her into getting married, having DC ... or enjoying all the trappings of her H's wealth, including a handsome up-front statement that ALL assets accrued during the marriage will be awarded to her in the event of a divorce - ie no-fault, no negotiation, no legal sweat. That's half the extra salary/bonuses/pensions/saving/capital goods that her DH will earn - which is considerable.

If she'd been the higher earner, & had gone to her then fiance with a proposal to ringfence her existing £3m assets, MN would have advised her to go for it.

I also don't believe that a couple with this level of wealth wasn't able to outsource any part of their domestic lives that hindered their career goals.
It's hardly as if OP was a struggling SAHM whose DH financially abused her by preventing her from returning to work, by refusing to pay for childcare.

"She had excellent legal & financial advice"

Where does she state this? Or even that she took independent legal advice at all?

"including a handsome up-front statement that ALL assets accrued during the marriage will be awarded to her in the event of a divorce"

Are you reading the same thread? What she says is -

"Before marrying, I signed a prenup which left me with half the share of assets generated during our marriage"

ie - any assets he generated BEFORE the marriage are off-limits to her. Of any assets generated DURING the marriage she receives HALF.

Where she says “For those of you recommending I seek legal/financial advice, please be assured that I have done that.”

also, her husband would have made sure she had received excellent advice because without showing that BOTH sides have gone into a pre-nup with their eyes wide open, they can be challenged later on

this isn’t about the legality of the prenup, it’s about whether she can now move the goal posts with a post nup

"She had excellent legal & financial advice"

Where does she state this? Or even that she took independent legal advice at all?
In her posts at 19:39 & 19:56 on 18-05-22

"including a handsome up-front statement that ALL assets accrued during the marriage will be awarded to her in the event of a divorce"

Are you reading the same thread? What she says is -

"Before marrying, I signed a prenup which left me with half the share of assets generated during our marriage"

ie - any assets he generated BEFORE the marriage are off-limits to her. Of any assets generated DURING the marriage she receives HALF.
Yes. That's exactly what I said, Not sure why you are disputing it.

Yes you are. You agreed to and now want to change the terms.

£500k a year? Is this a satirical post?

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place op.

You could save more so in the event of a divorce you'd walk away with more, but so would your dh - 50% of everything you've saved.

If he won't sort out a postnup, then an alternative is to tell him you're divorcing him but not separating. That way you can walk away with the £500k, and then look to save, as you were, but would then keep 100% of the savings if you split.

Or would your dh be in agreement that you buy a house now, rent it out but he signs an agreement that he doesn't have a claim to it if you divorce. That way you could put all your savings into that house and you'd always have a Guaranteed house if you split?

People will always get so hung up on actual amounts of money, but it's the principle of the matter.

Imagine sitting down with your husband of five years, with whom you've brought two children into the world, and having to ASK him for financial equality in the marriage. And he essentially says, "no, anything I accrued before I married you is still MINE. You'll be ok we split. If you need more then a flat for you and the kids you can just take out a massive mortgage."

This is unbelievable.

The only time this would be acceptable is if he has children from a previous relationship and was ring fencing that money for them.

Also, £3 million is a lot of money, but it's not that much relative to a salary of £500k. Given that she also earns £500k, its three years' money. Most men would invest this to the benefit of their family.

My husband has made a lot more than that over the years and it never occurred to him that the money is "his." And I don't even work and have been a SAHM. His banking bonuses were what bought out first home 20 years ago. He never told me it was "his" house back then. If we divorced it would be 50/50, like the vast majority of people in that unfortunate scenario.

Imagine sitting down with your husband of five years, with whom you've brought two children into the world, and having to ASK him for financial equality in the marriage. And he essentially says, "no, anything I accrued before I married you is still MINE. You'll be ok we split. If you need more then a flat for you and the kids you can just take out a massive mortgage."

This is unbelievable.
It's very believable. Because it is true.
OP went over the contract with her lawyer & financial adviser ... & then she signed it.
Are you imagining she was under duress, held in a dungeon?

Except it is entirely normal for people with capital to want to protect it upon marriage, and becoming increasingly so. As it happens my husband and I didn’t have a prenup because we were roughly equal in regards to assets, but had I married someone with less I absolutely would have insisted on one. There’s no one rule as to whether finances are shared within a marriage or not, that’s something to be decided by the parties that comprise it.

OP would have had her own legal representation prior to signing the pre nup. She would have had every opportunity to negotiate what she wanted out of it, and she had every opportunity to not marry him in the first place if the terms were not to her liking. She wasn’t, and isn’t, an infant that can’t be held accountable for choices she made.

Okay, and?

You and your husband made your choices for your own relationship. Not everyone has to make the same choices, and not doing so doesn’t make them wrong. It just makes them different to you.

Well OP clearly feels it's "wrong" or she wouldn't be posting!

I know a lot of men who would have gone into marriages with that level of assets or more. Not one of them would have ring-fenced it for themselves. It's is most certainly not normal at all (unless, as I said, there are children from a previous relationship to factor in).

This is two £500k earners and he also had £3m beforehand. So what? He has children now.

It's hardly the likes of Elon Musk marrying a potential gold-digger, is it?

Except it was acceptable to her when she signed the thing in the first place. It was acceptable to her before conceiving children. No one forced her to sign, and presumably she actively chose to have said children.

Again, the fact that it’s unusual in your circles doesn’t mean anything. It’s absolutely normal, and acceptable, in others, whether you think the sums involved at worth it or not.

You just sound grabby.

Just because OP is a high earner herself, doesn't make her immune from manipulation. Nor mistakes. And children change everything.

You’re assuming she was manipulated though, with absolutely no evidence to support that. There’s evidence against it though, because again, she would absolutely have had legal advice in order to protect her own interests in the negotiations and drawing up of the pre nup. You’re infantilizing her in order to demonize him.

She may consider the choice she made to be a mistake, but that doesn’t mean he’s obliged to agree, or rectify it to her liking. If he doesn’t agree then she could of course divorce him and try to challenge the prenup, but there’s no guarantees that would result in a desirable outcome for her.

I would assume a solicitor with a specialism in the area would be a better bet than randoms on MN.

That type of man with that mentality won't change.

Frankly if my wife wanted to change the terms of a prenup after a short marriage i would assume she wanted out and wanted to screw me in the process.