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.

The money your husband earned before the marriage is ring fenced . All seems fair to me.

^This. Stop being so greedy.

Exactly. He shouldn't be entitled to it both ways. If he gets to ring-fence his assets prior to the marriage, the OP should be able to protect her savings during the marriage, UNLESS he is substantially contributing to her being able to work and build them up (through childcare etc.).

Presently she gets nothing of his pre-marriage, but he gets 50% of what she saves during the marriage. If that's more than he saves, then that's an unfair situation. Because he has ring-fenced assets, but she can't ring-fence any of the assets which she is building up.

I agree with this.

Depends where your morals sit at the end of the day the 3M that he bought to the table were nothing to do with you . Why do you think you are entitled to a slice of it.

Op saying she would live in a flat if she didn’t have kids, so he is responsible for housing them is ridiculous.

Dc stay with father then

Doesn’t sound like op wants that.

but unless he never sees his kids (and even then), post divorce he would also be responsible for providing housing for them. For when they stay with him AND by paying CMS

Not read all the thread but if you are in UK on divorce you would surely get 50% of all assets as this the normal procedure and difficult to avoid in all circumstances.

He managed to make/save £3m I would be surprised if he was spending money like water now after the marriage

He probably has his own savings, even op says there is +£200k ( x 2 as she would get half ) and her savings.

I'm still confused though, how the main expenses are child care and school fees for 2 dc (a baby and a toddler)

No, 50% is the starting point, not the end point

He may want them to live with him and op pays him maintenance - as op can't buy a house with her 500k savings and 500k salary.

He may want more than 50% in which case op pays him maintenance

He may want 50-50 so no one pays

It is not a question of prenup or postnup and whether they work or not but a matter of negotiation within the couple, and yes you have to get on with it.
Having a child changes the scenario and it is usually impossible to provide for children in a prenup because you do not have any idea of the commitment and costs you are going to bear ( unless you have one from previous relationship) and how you are going to divide that. Generally, women are worst off in the deal.
So, make your list and have your chat.
A piece of advice: the negotiation must focus on the children and not on you, how worst off you are, because, baby, he does not care now ( ie his love is enough to compensate this). He will be more sensitive to the well being of the kids and you have to be crystal clear about the future costs.
Basically, make sure that those 500K do not need to be spent wholly on the kids education.

And yes, it is a first world problem and you are lucky and I am sure you count your blessings every day.

Ad blocking this thread,

Rude fuckers on this thread, if you find OP's existence so distasteful just walk on; no need for unpleasant comments. You know people of this income level exist, even if you've never met one; you make yourselves look so foolish jumping on her just for asking for advice. It's undignified.

I'm not as wealthy, but have taken advice from an Independent Financial Advisor and asset management company.
If you are both high earners and with good assets, why don't you do some serious financial planning, especially with a view to the children's futures?

You are unreasonable. You brought less into the marriage and from what you said, you earn the same as him him now (contradictory to the title). What makes you think you are entitled to more?

Gosh what a dilemma. Must be a worry.

Maybe I’m a daft old romantic, but I find it weird and quite depressing that you seem more interested in making sure your nest is feathered in a potential future divorce than you are invested in your actual marriage.

Prenups and postnups hold little weight in an English court. Your DH is entitled to ringfence pre marital assets, although this is less meaningful in very long marriages. If you live in a home he owned pre marriage, it ‘might’ be considered marital property and thrown in the pot. What’s important is what happened with income and assets during your marriage. The starting point is 50%. You may find it difficult to argue for more given that you have a very high salary. The court is interested in dependents (children of course but also the wife or husband depending on their personal income) not being disadvantaged and being able to establish themselves after marriage. You cannot be considered dependent on your husband, you earn too much, therefore 50% is a reasonable place to get to. Where you may win is in child support if you were to be main childcarer and resident parent.

Did your prenup not refer to what happened in the event of having children? It should have. I would say it is but unusual to ring-fence was brought in to the marriage. If you now have children and you are earning £500k suggesting you would have significant assets I can't see how you would end up With so little

Agree. The whole read the room comment is cringe.

OP mentions she works in finance - if a significant % of income is bonus then mortgage lenders may not consider all of the 500k as "income" for mortgage affordability/borrowing purposes and once tax, school fees etc are deducted.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a post nup, but would advise instead to use current income to build up the marital assets as security in the event of divorce. (E.g. purchase a buy to let property on the agreement that you would keep it in the event of divorce).

But surely she assumed when she signed the prenup that they would have kids and knew the implications and how it might impact her career, and still she agreed to sign it.

i don’t think she should be entitled to anything he had before.

I think it’s simply a case of sitting down and deciding if it’s fair that they both contribute 50/50 now. This way she would be able to save more and feel more secure about her future.

Often repeated on here but simply not true. Prenups have carried weight in the courts since the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher v Granatino in 2010. Provided there is full financial disclosure, both partners take independent legal advice and neither signs under duress, the courts will follow the prenup in the divorce settlement unless it would be clearly unfair to do so in the circumstances at the time, e.g. there are children and the prenup has failed to make adequate provision for them. The same is true for a postnuptial agreement.

Same in Scottish law.

How romantic.

Are you in the UK? Pre-nups aren’t valid here.