Dd s boyfriend wants a pre nup .

[Velveteenrabbitt]

dd had been with her bf since uni - he has several investments and earns 85 k plus massive bonuses and his earnings will increase. She earns 32k

They are buying a house together and she is investing 30% of deposit , he 70% . Has he has more money.
They told me y day that he wants a pre nup when they get married.
I must admit I was very shocked as I assumed marriage to be a ‘ we situation’ and everything is shared as in the good and the bad - and why would money be the only thing not shared ?

I spoke to him about it as he told me that his mates just dont get it . He says that its because he has seen some married men lose their home And end up in rented if the couple split up and the man ends up worse off mostly, he wants to make sure that If anything happened its not like that .
The mortgage but also it will be not what i assumed in that it will be - joint ownership - but that he gives 70% contributions to deposit and mortgage payments, and she gives 30 % and that will be reflected too .

We are giving dd part of her deposit. The solicitor says that this is classed as a gift and is paid when the mortgage commences.

dd says that initially she was upset and insulted , but now she understands what he means she is ok with it .

I understand that she will need a solicitor for her part of the pre nup.?
I remain anxious about this - it does not feel normal ?

How can i address this with sensitivity with dd without isolating her from us ?

Ive said to him it needs to be fair and in the marriage would be uneasy if dd had to buy cheap clothes for eg and him with more income had much more spending money.. he said that - what people don't see is he does treat her - and he is generous- but again thats in his control .

He comes from quite a deprived background and I think part of this may be anxiety as he has worked very very hard .

I don't want to interfere , dd adult, but also our dd.I am aware we may need to tread carefully here am looking for balanced support and i want to stay measured about this and calm etc.

He might not have thought about adding issues of children, if his career is going to be full on, can he do half of all childcare or will he be expecting his wife to go part time give up work, or at least to take on the bulk so as a couple his career is prioritised?

OP says he expects her to stay at home to look after the children.

If she is prepared to sign his pre nup, she needs to have all issues like mat leave, costs, childcare, her pension and protections layed out.

He's the sort that would be to busy in his important job to do ANY childcare, expect her to do it, while earning, compromising her career etc.

He clearly doesn't really love her.
He sounds like damaged goods to me.
I wouldn't want her marrying him.

If she wants to marry him, she needs to force the hard conversation about children and childcare.

He'd probably pay the morgage and let her pay food and kids costs, beggaring her in the process.

She clearly doesn't really know him.
Shd has no business buying any house or getting married to him.

I wouldn't be sponsoring any house under such a poor deal for her.

This

So he earns the money, protects it and his assets, while she is his skivvy aupair.

Is she very young, vulnerable, naive or a bit dim not to realise that he clearly has given great thought in how to maximise his position, career and assets, screwing her over in the process.

i am of an age where my friends’ kids are all getting married. Where there’s considerable wealth coming from only one side it’s usually put into trust.. no need for prenups.

In your DD’s case as others have said, what seems fair to me is for him to ringfence anything he has prior to the marriage.
What he earns (and you earn) during the marriage should be equally split. If he does well it’s bloody well half your DD’s too, he should be lavishing her ans his wife f he can afford to and that’s that! If he’s not happy with that he shouldn’t be getting married. Even someone with equal earning power to him would take a hit salery wise after having children.

In that case, most sensible thing is to not marry at all as it’s not just financial hit you take when a marriage results in divorce, there are other kind of sufferings and long term impact too. Why even get married, just live together, if decide to have kids, keep a balance sheet of who spends how much, otherwise it won’t be fair on female partner for carrying the child, giving birth, taking maternity leave and take more caring responsibilities. That would be sensible as well ell as fair.

This sounds rather sad to me. I have seen so many men leave their ex-wives (earning low pay because they prioritised child-rearing over career) and their children struggling while the men have plenty of money.

I can see the point of trying to insure against problems that might hit you eg illness, injury, unemployment or other mishaps. But a prenup is insuring against action by your spouse-to-be. A strange thing for someone to do to the person they supposedly love and trust with their life.

But this is not considerable wealth it’s a deposit on a house the is still expecting her to foot part of the mortgage and deposit. The more I think about this the more stupid it sounds

Because they’re clearly not entering marriage with the understanding that all resources will be pooled. There’s a significant amount of ground between ‘all’ and ‘nothing’.

I agree with this. For a marriage to work, both sides need to be mentally / emotionally committed and have a positive outlook. Of course it’s sensible in practical way to secure your assets. But being too practical is not good for marriage too because it is not a practical relationship and those who keep a balance sheet, end up getting divorced. My suggestion to person asking for prenup is to not even get married if you are so concerned about your current partner financially taking advantage in future, don’t even bother.

Prenup is to secure your financial assets, what about other investments you put in a marriage - your time, emotions, support. There are no guarantees in a marriage or even a romantic or any relationship, and if you want guarantee don’t even bother with that relationship.

If this man has a major sickness in future, should his wife walk away because the time, efforts and energy she would be putting in will not guarantee that they will not have a divorce in future? Where is prenup for that?

I agree with this. Let's say a nanny's hourly rate is 25 pounds per hour. I'm just spitballing here but bear with me. If a woman's hourly rate is, say, 30 pounds per hour, with a possible rise to, say, 45 pounds per hour (if she were not burdened by doing the majority of the childcare) then, if she is relegated (by her husband) to part-time nanny, even if she were to be assigned "nanny wages" by him, she is STILL losing money compared to her pre-kid status. She is ALSO losing pension credits that she would otherwise be earning, AND she is losing her financial contribution to the house, which is relevant if her % ownership of the house depends on her paying a visible part of the mortgage.

Meanwhile, the man, who does NOT have to participate in childcare, is having his salary increase because he is unencumbered by childcare. He is still earning pension credits, he's building his professional network, he's building his curriculum vitae. From his viewpoint, a contract where he "has to" pay her and equivalent of a nanny wage is still a contract where he wins and she loses, because he is being allowed to benefit from her labor, and to curtail her career progression (this increasing his relative power in the relationship), but he's also being allowed to rationalize it as if he's treating her equitably.

Of course it's better than a financially abusive man who thinks that when you are on maternity leave you somehow owe him money for the gift to you that he claims you are getting when you are graciously allowed to provide him with free 24/7 childcare at your own expense.

But it's still unfair to the woman.

The way, IMO, for a woman to be compensated fairly for her childcare provision is for her time doing childcare to be calculated at her expected rate of pay were she not doing childcare, PLUS pension contributions, PLUS a quid-pro-quo for her lost networking/CV-building opportunities, PLUS a multiplier to reflect the fact that the longer she does this the more difficult it will be for her to get back into the workforce.

Or, they could just share the income equally, which would be simpler.

I think it's fair if he puts in 70 percent of deposit and is going to pay 70 percent of mortgage and bills that if they split up with no DC that he gets his 70 percent back. If they have DC I think he should pay her pension contribution if she is on mat leave. She needs to insist on continuing to work full time after any DC are born and make him do 50/50 childcare with her. If she does more then 50 percent sh should get increased in share of property.

Yes, the perfect time to discuss between the two of them.

I could never be with someone that discussed this kind of thing with their parents

If the prenup reflects just the deposit, I wouldn't be too bothered, as it's only fair he might get his larger share back if they divorce after a year.

What would concern me is a possible controlling dynamic on his part further down the line, for example when/if DD takes time off work to raise kids, her salary goes down, and his goes up after promotion.

Will your DD have any say in family finances, or will she just be a passenger. Would he think of it as "my money"?

Then don't get married then because that's exactly what you risk by getting married.

@TrendynamePre nups are very standard on second marriages where there can be a lot of money involved. In the case here, it’s really an agreement about what’s going into the deposit so it’s a very limited pre nup. He just wants his % back.

The recent Standish v Standish case changes the landscape on what non matrimonial assets look like (what each person has before marriage) but the house will be a matrimonial asset as he’s not owned it for years before marriage. What he could ring fence is wealth he has acquired prior to the marriage. It’s not unusual to protect a very uneven deposit for a house either. After marriage, wealth accrued after that date is in the matrimonial pot so pensions, cars, property etc. Children alter the landscape too.

Any woman earning less than dh can agree to a pre nup but when dc arrive it’s not going to count. A short marriage and no dc, it will.

It’s purely an agreement about money. It’s no reflection of love and caring for each other or dc. Women go into marriage with substantial funds too! They also might want to ring fence that wealth.

Why? Because they may be given advice that makes them realise what a bad deal it is you are trying to drag them into? Much better to be with someone who never seeks advice from anyone other than you?

and marriage is not solely about money - how can it be
otherwise it would be called a business
i wonder what his parents are like? I mean are they just nice decent people??
that would tell me more about him / or a person

he is full of himself - sees his worth only in money
I'd dump him

If they're both working full time I think that's fair. I'd be urging them both to think about:

What happens if earnings change for either of them in the future? What if she wins the lottery and he gets burnt out and loses his job?

What they both bring to the relationship that isn't purely financial. Make sure that he doesn't expect that he gets the final say in decisions because he earns more, or he does less house chores because he earns more, if they both do the same hours. As that isn't a partnership.

Most importantly how things will change if they have children. If she is the primary carer, and they split, does he really want the big house while her and the children rent a flat? What if they have a child with a disability or some other situation where they can't get childcare and she has to give up work. Is it fair that she has to give up her financial stability as well?

I wouldn't have any objection to things not being 5050 if there are two adults that can control their earning power etc. But it's not fair for one person to expect the other to support their career, make sacrifices etc and still walk away with pretty much everything if their marriage broke up. In these circumstances she could be increasing her own financial vulnerability and it would put me off having kids with him

I just feel like the OP now has a tainted view of her daughter's partner.

Get advice definitely but maybe off someone not so invested and close to the situation.

It sounds like they'd be better off not getting married to be honest!

Or you can marry and choose not to totally merge finances and assets 🤷🏻‍♀️

Declaration of trust

I can’t answer that, as I think there are more important things in life than money. But others are free to feel differently and take steps to protect their assets; if marriage isn’t for them, so be it.

@HedwigEliza A lower earning woman is always better off being married if she got dc and there’s a divorce. Not being married means no split of marital assets so a woman without anything gets nothing. It’s still beneficial to be married for most women. Yes they should continue to work and no, DH should not do 50:50. He will then demand that in terms of cars of dc and it leads to arguing over dc. It’s better for women to keep working and do more for dc. This keeps them and dc in a stronger position and not be bullied to give up dc to the higher earner in a divorce.

It is hypothetical, but i wonder what would happen if the young woman in this scenario simply refused to sign a pre-nup, and said something like 'either you want to marry me expecting it to last our whole lives and we share all our assets because we are partners/a family or there is no point continuing with the relationship.' The reaction of the man could be very telling.