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.

I think your post raises interesting questions, especially feminist ones. Many women come to realise that there is an unequal burden when it comes to raising a family that does not end with the end of pregnancy or indeed maternity leave.

You are in a relatively privileged position of having a substantial income that you are able to sustain even after having your children. I can see that you are looking to a potential future where all of the burden of raising your children would fall to you and join many women before you, who have faced this reality.

The reality of marriage and divorce in the UK, is that assets of the marriage are split in some way approximating 50/50 on divorce and thereafter, the non resident parent makes a relatively small contribution to the resident parent and they are free to pursue their career and life more freely than the resident parent.

By entering into a prenup, you and your partner have sought to separate your partner's 'considerable asset base' from the marriage, preventing any possibility that you might share in that wealth on divorce. Your current position is that you no longer thing that is fair, because you observe that you already take on an unequal burden of parenting responsibility and that you should be compensated for that sacrifice and effort above and beyond what you might get in a divorce settlement.

There was a reddit shared a few weeks ago where a woman requested that her partner pay her a multiple of his salary to compensate her for carrying their child. The reality is that the majority of women have greater adjustments to make to their lives as a result of choosing to have children than men do. Many of us do not truly understand the impact of that, until we have children and find that despite believing were are emancipated and in equal partnerships, this is not truly the case. I also believe that many men find themselves in a similar situation, from a different perspective, not truly understanding the changes that would come with becoming a father.

I haven't really heard what your argument for having the prenup set aside?
What is different now than at the beginning of your marriage, which I presume you entered into with the expectation of having children?

In what way do you see the arguments on this thread as being misogynistic? Is it not misogynistic to presume that you will take on the majority of the childcare and responsibility for housing the children... what if they were to spend 80% of their time with their father, taking advantage of his significant assets and 20% of their time with you in your adequate assets and significant income? They would still get the lifestyle they are used to with their father and you would have the lifestyle that your income affords you.

Are you right to demand a higher share of his pre marriage assets despite being in a position to have been able to maintain your income and being entitled to a 50% share of the assets of the marriage? Is that the question you really should be asking - should it instead be - how do we make our marriage more equal and how can I reassure myself and my children that my husband will give my children the life they deserve and support me as an equal partner?

school fees for a toddler and a baby?

OP, for what it's worth I agree with you. I just think a post-nup is a really bad idea because it risks you being in a worse position if your circumstances change.

You could think of some language to say that on a split, assets will be distributed to allow both parties to stay in the local area and provide a home for the children.

You shouldn't get a mortgage free house, but equally you shouldn't have to move areas unless there isn't enough money to go around. This isn't about you being grabby from my perspective, it's ensuring that the children are adequately housed in the event of a split.

Also for what it's worth, I'm not in the OP's league but I am the party in our marriage that has brought more assets to the marriage and earns significantly more. Were my husband and me to split I'd absolutely expect to be subsidising his housing in some way as otherwise he wouldn't be able to provide a proper home for the children. Obviously in the event of a split this is likely to piss me off, but objectively before we are in that contentious environment, he should get a big wedge of cash from me. If there is enough money to go around to allow the kids to have two proper homes in the local area, then that's what should happen.

Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I agree with much of what you have said and, what I don't reactively agree with, well, it's given me food for thought and I may come to agree with it in time.

Thank you.

In what way is she carrying an unequal burden of child raising? From the sounds of it she went back to her very well paid job sooner than most, is not a STAHM and uses childcare - no problem with any of that but the fact is she has not suffered a financial detriment. No affect on her career or potential earnings in the future by virtue of the fact she has children. So in my mind she is entitled to no more than she already gets. Going after his £3m in assets now is greedy

Just because I make lots of money does not mean I have suffered no detriment to my career as a result of having had children. I took 8 months out due to maternity leaves. This impacts the speed of progression, particularly as there is a loss of momentum before and after maternity leave. I estimate I could be earning up to £250k per annum more now had I not taken time out to have children. I will get there in the end, but it is wrong to say I've suffered no detriment. In addition, although I work full time, I bear a lot more of the emotional and mental load associated with raising a family. I am not saying my husband is a bad father - he isn't - but I do significantly more on that front. I am not complaining about this, but it is the reality and it has not been without cost to my physical and mental health.

There is a lot of seething jealousy on this thread OP. Ignore them.
You have a right to a comfortable home in the area your kids will go to school if doable from you & dh assets.
Xx

Thank you.

@breatheintheamazing They are the OP's own words..

"There's also the fact that I have contributed significantly more - both emotionally and in time spent - in creating and supporting our family at home. This has likely come at the cost of some career progression, but that's hard to prove."

And yes.. as the OP describes above.. 'the reality is that it has not been without cost to my physical and mental health'..... you are not alone in that realisation OP. .. you are seeking compensation for that.. I do understand you perspective.

It is a question that is not answered in the current structure of our society. Women bear an unequal burden as a result of becoming parents... not least the physical burden, therefore, should they be paid by their partners to bear children?

Have sent you a PM with a decent lawyer recommendation in London for postnup

If you had children after the marriage and after pre up was written that's a material fact that has changed. Courts expect that children are housed and if one partner had militiamen millions of pounds of assets including housing and the other not, court will ensure children are adequately housed and can set aside prenup. Prenups can be listened to in U.K. law but aren't binding like the are elsewhere.

If I were you I'd start saving if you think your marriage is at all Rocky. Yanbu to insist on prenup being rewritten now you have children but I suspect a court would set bulk of it aside. Because you since had children. Regardless of whether you factored that in or not at the start, it could have been naivety at actual cost of children and childcare.

Lol. It's not jealousy it's scepticism at the faux innocence.

The OP, by her own admission, has taken plentiful legal advice. And not once did the issue of what is reasonable or not come up in any of those discussions?

Pull the other one. I've seen The Split. I know family law isn't all sweetness and light but what is reasonable or not is absolutely the starting point of who gets what. She will have discussed reasonableness with her solicitor over and over.

So what is this thread for? If you can't see it for the stealth brag it is you're incredibly naive.

It’s not greedy to want to protect your own interests.

I do think it’s absolutely fair that you sit down and make an agreement that sets you both up well in the event of a divorce. I’m not sure whether I agree in regards to you being compensated for the impact pregnancy and maternity leave has had on your career progression. Presumably you also wanted children, rather than just having them for his benefit. You knew going into it that you would bear the burden of pregnancy, which is entirely the ‘fault’ of biology, not him. You also could have chosen to return to work earlier than you did. You could have shared parental leave. You’re an independent adult with agency, and actively made choices knowing they would be detrimental to your career in the short term, and ultimately you’re responsible for that.

I disagree with @whumpthereitis 's later points re
I’m not sure whether I agree in regards to you being compensated for the impact pregnancy and maternity leave has had on your career progression.

It takes two to make babies dad and mum - and it isn't up to the woman to bear all the burden of impact on career , childcare and neither should any mother be rushed back from maternity leave as flipping eck it takes such a physical toll on your body

None of which is predictable to the person before children, there's a level of naivety and hope over experience before you become a mother.

You’re right in that I assumed that all things went well with the births and she was physically able to return to work earlier and/or share parental leave. That may not have been the case of course, but if it wasn’t does that require compensation? It’s not like she bore the physical burden because the father chose not to, it’s because she had no other choice if she wanted to have biological children.

My point is that OP made choices knowing that having children was, rightly or wrongly, likely to impact her career. Not liking the alternative options doesn’t mean there was no choice.

I think there’s a lot of things you can’t foresee about having children…

I thought responsibility would be equally shared, however I am now the DC PA and tend to be the one organising meals, clothing, school, medical, play dates, activities etc etc etc perhaps this is what OP means, as well as obviously the toll of pregnancy/birth/feeding.

Incidentally I am also going for a postnup, not anticipating split but being practical to ensure mine and DC interests are protected and preserved.

YABU. You earn enough and shouldn’t have to keep on supporting you indefinitely. £500k is more that enough and, just because you don’t want a mortgage, doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have one. Most people do 🤷‍♀️

I understand reviewing your agreements. However, I have a question. Why should he have to give you MORE assets when you both make about the same? You acknowledge that his assets prior to the marriage were bigger than yours. You BOTH will have to get a home if there is a divorce. How could giving you MORE be fair to HIM? The purpose of a divorce isn't to give you the exact same standard of living you enjoyed during the marriage. You will likely have joint custody. His assets prior to the marriage will be his and you will get HALF of what was earned during the marriage. That is equitable. I think you are being problematic here and looking for him to support you AFTER a divorce in a way that he doesn't need to. Alimony is to help you get on your feet after a marriage. You are already on your feet. Keep saving your money and let him earn his money! It seems like you're saying "why have mine, when I can have yours AND mine". You seem greedy and if I were your husband, that's precisely how I would view your request given the circumstances.

My ex husband and I were high income earners. Our pre marriage assets were ring fenced (we both had houses and other assets). My earnings took a dip post marriage. When we divorced we both took a financial hit (splitting one pot between two ) but we also agreed a 60/40 deal in my favour. This reflected the non monetary contribution I made in the marriage (home etc) and that I earned less (a fair bit less ). We then bought homes with our shares, I was able to stay in the area in a 2 bed flat, he wanted a house so had to move.

Hi OP,

In order to assess reasonableness, it would be helpful to understand the legal position (as one party is likely to use this as a basis for their opposition/support depending on what it is):

• Pre nups are not automatically binding but are ‘persuasive’. Have you been advised how likely it is that your pre nup will be adhered to rather than a vague assertion by a lawyer that it is ‘more likely’? Your lawyer should be able to give you more definitive advice.

What has happened to the £3m he brought in? How has it been protected? Has he used it to buy the family home? If that is the case, will any increases in value to the family home be available to you? Is it owned jointly – if so, equally or in shares? Or has he simply kept the money to one side? Were you in a relationship (pre marriage) when this £3m was generated?
Why would you only be left with £500k (of which £300k is your own savings)? Why does he not have savings? You’ve both been married “several years” you both should be saving in excess of £100k a year (school fees/nursery etc for 2 kids can’t be more than £45k). Does he spend excessively and leave it to you to save?
Are expenses split 50/50? Has this always been the way even when your income was less? This may indicate how he will conduct himself if you split.
I agree it is unfair you bear the emotional and mental load. Is there any way to redress that? I imagine that would only get worse if you separated. I have little respect for men (or any partner) who don’t shoulder their fair share. I don’t think this makes him a great partner or father. If he’s not willing to step up, he needs to pay to outsource labour as much as he can (nanny, cleaner, taxis etc)
I think you need to work out if your issue is the current unfair balance (which should translate into a fairer balance of money) or whether you can comfortably house the kids. If it’s the latter, then it may be more palatable to him to approach it from this view and ask for an agreement that he will pay/contribute to comfortable housing until they’re finished their education.

Some people are suggesting because you are a high earner you can’t have been impacted by child rearing and an unfair distribution of tasks. I wish the courts would adopt a different approach – the partner who does most of the child rearing should be compensated for what she would have earned had she (usually) not had children rather than allow the other (usually man) to carry on with his career undisturbed.

People are being snippy because the post smacks of 'my diamond shoes are too tight'.

The OP is in anunusually asset rich situation and whilst it's being dressed up as an AIBU it has the hallmarks of a massive stealth boast.

Yes people have been a bit arsey but there are so many posts on here about actual struggles that it's hard for to properly engage with the OPs dilemma.

OP - given you are both wealthy in your own right a oostnup makes sense to protect your interests. I can't say what's fair because it depends on what you brought into the marriage and how finances have been arranged since. You may have vastly more earning potential than your husband despite his initial assets. I'm assuming given the age of your child you still have a long career ahead of you and are likely to earn a good deal more than you do at the moment. I'd make sure that's protected (pensions and earnings) before anything else.

Sorry just read your latest update. Eight months maternity leave has impacted your career by £220k??

🤨 I’d say you aren’t allowed to claim for salary increases lost unless you genuinely lost out on promotions etc.

as others have said you cannot think to have the same lifestyle if you were to separate. You could easily look at other options to keep a similar lifestyle.. buy a flat and do a nesting solution so the children can remain in a decent size house in an expensive area.

You forget that you will still be receiving some type of maintenance for caring for the children and if you were to split you can’t be expecting to have enough of his assets to cover all what if type future situations.

I don’t think it is fair or ethically right for you to ask for more from him. His disposable income and assets will change if you separate too because he may need to arrange childcare etc on his days.

Very stealthy brag and very unreasonable for trying to use biology as a way of getting more from a divorce. You’ll give women a bad name.. 🤨 Men should not always be treated as villains and automatically be the best way for women to make it through life because they are high earners. Women carry the babies and as previous posters have said you knew what you were signing up for when you chose to have children so cannot use that as a point scoring aspect in order to get more money especially when you have more money than most could ever dream off.

I think the ages of op and her husband are relevant as well. If she (as an extreme example) is 35 and he is 60 and they divorce next year (I do think op thinks divorce is a probable outcome), she may have mush more in future earning potential.

He may not be able to build back up to the £3m and she may have that potential, very easily, to do so.

I think if op was planning on living in this marriage for at least a few years, she would be more interested in getting a larger chunk of what they are accumulating now.

op says they haven’t been married long and also married several years. So I am guessing, they have been married about 3 years. In 6 years (ignoring any increases in income) They could, easily accumulate £3 million. if she is planing on being in this marriage for a long long time, his premarital assets would be a drop compared.

Though as the op is asking from a moral pov, I still maintain that she considers her £300k her own and is annoyed if she divorce now she will only gain an extra £200k, means that she views her money as hers and his money as shared. I think that is morally wrong. Expecting a chunk of his premarital assets when agreeing to not be, then considering money you acclimated during the marriage to be your own, is the bit that’s shocking to me.