To want to get married while protecting my assets?

[iuy]

My fiance earns much more than me and has a much bigger pension. However I have more assets - combination of inherited assets and profit on my first house.

I have a child whose father is not at all involved. So if anything happens with my fiance its just me and DC again, and I don't earn much. Being able to have a small mortgage is what kept us comfortable - if I lost half of my capital, this would not be the case.

Of course I don't expect to get divorced (who does) and don't expect my fiance to take anything [i know he didn't from his much higher earning ex wife in an amicable divorce]. But i want to feel secure for peace of mind.

My fiance is happy with getting a pre-nup, and we have a deed of trust on our house. But from what I understand, pre nups don't stand in English courts.

I want to have a happy ending with a wedding and security of a marriage. But I also want to know that me and my child won't lose out if it all goes wrong. Am not sure what to do.

Yes, might start thinking about that if legal advice isn't too reassuring.

Remember as well you may not have the wills sorted (unless you made them with marriage in mind) as marriage can overrule a will as well. Seek some legal advice though

Lawyer here. Please take legal advice to ensure that you and your dc are protected.

Meh. It's nothing about love and everything to do with the financial commitment. It's a contract and many of those friends you're watching get married will be regretting it in a decade or less. Trust me, sit back and watch knowing you've protected yourself and your child.

Trust.

Look my partner and I won't get married for this and other reasons that are financial for several more years.

It is a social construct issue, you feel like it's the natural next step when in fact it's just compliance.

Just live together for a few more years see how that works out but also remember if you are married and you sell your property etc there are massive tax issues.

If my partner and I were married we would lose 400k when he sells his house.

Pre nups aren't legally binding BUT if you follow the rules they are highly persuasive to a court in the event of future divorce.

Another vote for not getting married.

I don't know how your family and friends will take being invited to a 'for show not wedding' event though. There was a thread about someone doing that sort of thing on here recently and most people thought it was an odd and even deceitful thing to do (presumably because people feel obliged to give a gift even when asked not to).

The other consideration would be whether inheritance tax would be relevant - friends of ours recently got married after nearly 30 years together because it would eliminate the IHT liability. She wasn't actually bothered about protecting her assets and they did it so her DP wouldn't have to take out a mortgage to pay the IHT bill to keep their home if she died before he did.

Go and see a solicitor. I'm getting married next year and we are writing everything up in a pre nup and also getting wills updated. We aren't going to have any children together which makes the above much simpler.

In what country, and what circumstances?
Genuinely interested to understand when this would arise if UK based.

I think expecting friends, relatives and partners to buy new clothes, travel across the country, pay got posh hotels, buy a present and find child care for a nothing ceremony is a little egocentric.

You could say the same for any wedding. People are free to say no and not buy a present! Does anyone actually care if it’s legal or not? You get the same event either way

I think it is capital gains tax basically I assume at the moment they both own their own home and if they got married they would have to nominate one hiuse as being the primary residence hence capital gains tax that is paid when you sell a second plus home would come into effect.

@Chasingsquirrels

Because if you are married and have two houses ( in the same jurisdiction) you pay capital gains tax on any increase in value of a property which is not your main residence. married couple can have one main residence, two single people can have one each ( although you are supposed to be resident in your main property, that is on the electoral role, use it for financial products etc) .

I had a deed of trust. It counted for nothing in my divorce. I was told a judge can still decide how they wish.

Yanbu. As a previously single parent with assets you need to protect everything for the sake of your child.

If I had a desire for a wedding then this is the route I would take. I wouldn’t touch a legally binding marriage with a bargepole if I was in your position.

All of this.

Tiswa
Allthegoodnamesarechosen

Thank you.
I was making the assumption (and I know I shouldn't make assumptions) that most people considering marrying would be living together already.
In which case one of the houses is not actually the principle residence of the owner and they shouldn't be claiming PPR on the sale anyway.
If they each have their own house, and live separately, then yes marrying would remove the ability to each claim PPR on the relevant house.

£400k tax also implies a big gain in value whilst not actually resident in the property (as PPR would apply to the proportion where it was the main residence).

I don't understand why you are getting married. It's just a financial contract. If you don't want joint finances then there's no point.

@MidnightMeltdown

There are lots of reasons - partly cultural. to many people its much more than a financial contract, but yes that seems to be the reality of the law in this country

As soon as you get legally married, everything becomes a joint asset.

And in the event of divorce, the starting position for division of assets is 50/50 with a max of 60/40 if you have minors.

Are you happy to lose 40% of your assets (which includes, savings, pensions)?

Protect your son by not getting married and have a blessing or something.

@VestPantsandSocks

Seems completely nuts that a court would do that to a relatively low-earning single mother with sole responsibility for a child. But yes if thats the case then can't get married.

The courts position is that there should be an equal split of assets.

They do not take into account who paid what, who earned more, its 50/50 of what is in the pot.

@VestPantsandSocks

Yes of course I know about 50/50 split, its why we would want a pre-nup. Unfortunately they don't seem to be that strong, is why would get legal advice, and if can't be protected then wouldn't get married. Which I think is a shame because marriage means a lot to me.