To want a prenup?

[Deedee37]

I have assets (property) which I own together with my parents and siblings, and the flat we live in is mine. He doesn’t have any assets. Our income is similar. I asked him if we can do a prenup but he said that if I don’t trust him, I shouldn’t marry him.

But usually the higher earner is expected to put in more. Whenever we see a thread where the husband earns more but wants equal contribution from the OP we're told it's financial abuse. Usually the goal is for each partner to have the same disposable income.

but I wouldn’t really feel comfortable with giving him half of this flat because it’s been paid for 100% by me. And for family assets, these were established long before meeting him and I have obligations towards my family so I want to protect these

What belongs to your family, you can put a prenup in place for. It was there before you and should be there after you.

Whatever is yours, through your earnings and hard work, you don’t. Consider it matrimonial property. You work for both of you, make sacrifices for both of you and the family unit. Rich/poor, sickness/health etc.

He’s being totally reasonable and very fair. You’re being very cautious - that’s okay. There’s a middle ground here, given your new info.

There was a thread a while back where the husband was a much higher earner and had not only singlehandedly paid the mortage but had also supported OP whilst she studied.

She didn't want any part of his house upon divorcing but everyone on here was telling her to 'take what she could' as she was entitled to her marital assets.

And yet when a woman meets a man with more assets the reverse doesn't apply. Strange huh?

@DisquietintheRanks

And yet when a woman meets a man with more assets the reverse doesn't apply. Strange huh?

I've explained this upthread but it's completely different. A woman who has children typically sees her financial potential hugely diminished by childbearing and rearing and time that she spends either not working or downgrading work. Men very rarely find themselves in this position - they can put their feet to the floor and concentrate on earning money unhindered by the concerns of childcare etc (unless they are stay at home dads, of which there are a very small number).

Marriage is designed to protect women from losing out financially as a result of this.

People always parrot back that a man should be as entitled to his wife's assets as a woman should be to her husband's but unless they are a child-free couple and plan to remain child-free the man and the woman are not at parity.

Looking after children and the home is what really fucks women financially. This is what they are rightly compensated for through marriage. No such equivalent applies for men.

Why should an able bodied young man earning money be handed money he hasn't worked for as a result of a canny marriage? A woman who has children should have entitlement to this precisely because she is likely to spend several years unable to earn money. No man will find himself in this position.

If the OP's husband plans to stop working and look after children then I'll completely revise my view but I'd bet good money this isn't the case.

I've got 6 of btl properties in a limited company. It's best for tax too as you can deduct the mortgage interest and write it off against tax. Obviously the profit sits in the limited company and you can pay yourself dividends then you pay tax on those. I've got 4 other btl properties in my own name. Because I've had those for about 18 years they have gone up in value a lot and if I wanted to put them into limited company I'd have to sell them and pay more stamp duty and CGT too.

But why do so many women choose not to ever return to full time career jobs? I think there's more to the debate and for many it's a lifestyle choice.

I'd say that staying permanently part time once the kids are grown is a privilege, not oppression.

After 18 months of marriage? I very much doubt it.

@CaramacFiend
But usually the higher earner is expected to put in more. Whenever we see a thread where the husband earns more but wants equal contribution from the OP we're told it's financial abuse. Usually the goal is for each partner to have the same disposable income.

But they earn similar! She has been financially savvy in the past and has more assets now, either he hasn't or only started earning similar recently.

@Thepeopleversuswork as the OP has said nothing about children or future plans of that sort the truth is you haven't a clue. But parents sharing childcare is becoming more and more common, as is women outearning men and men therefore being the main care-givers. Society is changing fast.

Personally I don’t think you should get married if you don’t want to share assets.

I'm curious too @Deedee37

Knowing all this I honestly think that if it was you that he was after he should be the one suggesting that you protect your assets.

Protect your assets, I'm sure he would do the same if the asset roles were reversed.

Yes, he was a little surprised, as was his lawyer. They had lived together for a couple of years which was taken into account. He's absolutely been taken to the cleaners & has been very close to the edge over it.

@CaramacFiend

But why do so many women choose not to ever return to full time career jobs? I think there's more to the debate and for many it's a lifestyle choice.

For a variety of reasons: sometimes it's because they are out of the workplace so long with caring obligations their skills become obsolete, sometimes they have children with chronic conditions who require more or less full time care, sometimes they lose confidence in themselves, sometimes because it suits their family setup to have a traditional breadwinner/carer split. And more often than all of these factors is that a woman is working but her career trajectory and her earning power is chipped away at by the fact that the man's job automatically takes priority.

Some of these reasons are more financially legitimate than others. But in most cases the fact of having and looking after children damages their financial potential. This very very rarely applies to men. The number of men who stop working permanently to care for children.

This is why marriage is important for women. Not for romance or commitment or hearts and flowers.

Oh I see, I thought you meant the home you actually live in was in a company.

I guess that if OP were to do transfer her property that she resides in now, there would be stamp duty too, as it is classed as a sale.

I really did not think that company assets were protected in a divorce, if it is run as an ongoing business throughout the marriage.

He has said he will do a ceremony or just cohabitation.

He has not pressured her to marry.
He just said if he marries, then no prenup.

If I was OP, I would take this offer and speak no more if marriage.

Which part of 'until death do us part' is difficult to understand? If you cannot accept that, no marriage.

Very true.

If you look on many male-dominated forums, the same advice is given.

The children Sah parent, is a valid issue though.

I have 2 ds and a dd, all are getting substantial deposits, they will all get the same advice from me, make or female, then it is up to them if they lose half in that situation., they won’t be getting any more until inheritance. The ideal is to go for someone with similar assets in a couple, but that is hardly ever possible.

Agree with this.
I would take his advice and not marry him.

The commitment ceremony probably sounds like the best option as it meets everyone's needs.

I don't know the laws on civil partnerships but it might be worth looking into if that would be any diffenrt in terms of 'marital home'

@CaramacFiend re women not going back to work full time... it depends what they are doing with their days off. If it's Pilates and spa days then yes that's a privilege. If it's all of the house work, gardening, shopping, life admin, home admin, cooking, washing up, laundry etc then they are still 'working' but without pay or proportional pensions, and their spouse in full time work is definitely benefiting from having all of this done (I'd love a wife to do all this foe me!) so the wives should protect themselves if needed

Op re the commitment ceremony with no marriage - are you worried about what people will think?

How about if you phrase it to your DP like this. I hope we would stay married forever, but what if we get married and 3 years later it all goes wrong and we divorce. At that time we both have pretty much the same assets as now, apart from a bit of extra savings each. Who do you think should get which assets on divorce, and how would we achieve this?

He might see your point then - that him getting 50% of your pre-existing assets would not seem fair in that scenario.

Who cares what people think? That's honestly the least important consideration.

What matters here is that the OP protects herself by ringfencing her financial assets. By far the safest and easiest way to do this is just to not get married.

If she wants some sort of commitment ceremony which stops short of marriage then let her crack on with it - it's largely irrelevant but if she wants to do it its probably the safest way to achieve this.

This is the problem with our approach to marriage in general: people spend far too much time worrying about "ceremonies" and dresses and public declarations of love and all the other public trappings of a relationship and not enough time thinking about the legal and financial implications.

A couple can be married and committed or unmarried and committed and they shouldn't really give a rat's ass what Joe Public's view is of the state of their relationship. Marriage is financial protection, pure and simple. Very important if you need financial support, very unwise if you don't.