To think it's weird to sign a prenup in these circumstances

[DotStripe]

My friend got married recently and his new wife has pretty well off parents. Obviously I don't know how much they're worth but they have a successful business and a nice house and at a guess I'd value the house and business at £10-15 million. One day his wife and her sister will expect to inherit this.

I know it's none of my business and I don't have all the details but my friend mentioned he signed a pre-nup and I just thought that seemed really strange. They're both young, first marriage, no children. Is this a normal thing fairly wealthy people do?!

Seems very sensible to me. It will be taken account of if they divorce. I'd advise him to have it reviewed in the future if their joint circumstances change.

In the UK they aren’t binding so it’s a bit pointless really. its my understanding that they MAY hold some weight if the marriage is very short but once it’s been a few years, kids etc. they’re not worth the paper they’re written on.

Why do people bother getting married if they want a legal contract to nullify the legal contract that is the marriage? Why not just stay as partners? I don’t get it.

This 👆

Things change and they may well find themselves divorcing in 5/10/30 years. Why should he walk away with half of her parents' wealth? Why should he be entitled to money that has nothing to do with him, that he has not earned, and is coming from people who don't want him to have it?

Why do people bother getting married if they want a legal contract to nullify the legal contract that is the marriage? Why not just stay as partners? I don’t get it.

Marriage no longer looks like it did 50 years ago and it's a pretty obsolete model in a society where women have to work, men get to leave when it suits them etc. People want the security and romance and acknowledgment of their relationship while also ensuring it doesn't fuck them over. The solution isn't for people to take it or leave it but to amend the (archaic) legal arrangement to suit them.

How does getting married entitle him to half the parents wealth?

@Pix56 Parents die. She inherits everything. They divorce. He gets 50% of family assets. But if the majority of their assets are actually money from her inheritance, he'd be walking away with her parents' money essentially. She needs to ensure she ring fences that money.

A good prenup should suit both parties. For example, in the case of infidelity the offending party will provide alimony or something. It shouldn't be something that one party pulls together and the other signs with no input.

I do think they're worth it when huge levels of wealth are involved. Pointless for the average Jack and Jane getting hitched.

He would be entitled to her wealth then, not her parents. Just like she would be entitled to half his assets. No need to ring-fence anything.

For your average couple, no point - but in that scenario I can see why. As PP said, they're not legally binding, and don't have much weight in a longer term marriage.

they can be legally binding.
certainly worth trying with that level of potential inheritance.

Interesting. My partner has wealthy parents but a prenup was never even hinted at.

@Pix56 hahahaha you really think someone should be able to walk away with half of £10 million of their in-laws' money? That's family money. Her family. Not his.

But it's not money they have built up together. Why should he get it?

I understand this attitude for older couples maybe on their second marriage with children and an already established life. But both of them are young and about to embark on their life together. It seems odd to me to start off on this very un-level playing field. Like if they were to move so she (or both of them) could work for the family business wouldn't that be both him and her working to build their assets up together. Idk. It just seems a bit have your cake and eat it from her/her families end.

Some dire advice on this thread.

If done properly they can be as good as binding.

If they had no pre-nup he wouldn't necessarily get half of what she inherits.

A pre-nup that says someone would get less if they are responsible for the breakup of the marriage would not be followed, at least insofar as the penalty for adultery is concerned. No lawyer worth their salt would advise otherwise.

No, I don't see that. Her parents could die and he could have an affair and she would have to give him some of the inheritance.

He needs to also protect himself and not act as if the inheritance is there.

So he needs to build up his career and pension and joint savings (as shoud she) and not hope it will all be fine with the expectation of a future inheritance.

I think it's fairly normal when one side of the family have money as it's the wife's inheritance

In the UK they aren’t binding so it’s a bit pointless really. its my understanding that they MAY hold some weight if the marriage is very short but once it’s been a few years, kids etc. they’re not worth the paper they’re written

They aren't legally binding but are not pointless

Nope I don't see it like that at all. He has no moral right to money he has not helped build up. If the marriage fails, fair enough to have half of what they earned together. But to have a claim at her inheritance would be immoral.

Marriages end all the time. Women have to work and earn their own money. Men do too and they don't need to stick around, pay maintenance etc like they used to. Your idea of marriage is no longer relevant in 2023. The law as it is now doesn't protect people. So people are entitled to try and set the terms of their relationship to protect themselves if the worst happens.

I think pre-nups are becoming more common now.

My partner and I have an agreement about how we’d deal with our house, purchased well after we got together, if we split because I’m not on the mortgage (long story). When we’ve been dealing with solicitors to sort it they always say “and we can sort your pre-nup when you’re ready to get married”.

We don’t need a pre-nup, neither of us are wealthy so it’s an unnecessary expense for a small amount of money. But there must be demand if the solicitors keep raising it for the unwashed like us!

As others have said, it’ll be considered by the courts but it’s not legally binding. I guess when you’re talking about potentially splitting millions and the money is brought into the relationship by one person only (eg. inheritance) it can be worth paying to have your peacetime position considered. Divorces can be pretty nasty and lots of people behave in ways you’d never expect.

Sounds like exactly the circumstances when a prenup would be perfect.

Especially if he has no plans to give up work to care for children etc.

Exactly.

Marriage was created in an era when women largely couldn’t work so it’s an insurance for them while they are having, nursing and rearing children.

It’s not designed to allow able bodied, working men to swipe half the money their spouse’s parents have built through virtue of the fact they are in a relationship.

Youre totally right about marriage not being fit for purpose any more. It’s such a blunt instrument. think every couple ought to have a bespoke prenup.

This is totally normal for wealthy families - I'm a lawyer and advise all my clients to ensure their kids get pre-nups, and also post-nups if they didn't do pre-nups. If all parties are properly advised with full disclosure then they're very compelling as to the intentions of the parties - not completely binding, but absolutely better than nothing when trying to protect family wealth.

This situation sounds exactly the circumstances when I'd be recommending a pre-nup.

I think it’s pretty sensible, and the benefits far outweigh the downsides

For all those saying ‘oh they aren’t legally binding’, that is now out of date, since the landmark Radmacher v Granatino case a while ago.

So a properly advised pre-nup (ie both parties getting legal advice before signing to fully understand the implications) is now virtually impossible to overturn