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.

For what it's worth I wanted a prenup as my husband has more assets than me and I didn't want him to have my house which I worked really hard for. I'm from a working class background and my parents are divorced.

We didn't end up getting one and 12 years and 3 kids later, with no divorce on the horizon (unless he doesn't clear the garage up this weekend 😜) I still kind of wish we did. Our finances are TOTALLY separate. He earns more than me, I have more savings than him. It's about protecting what I see as mine before we got married (and what is his which is worth significantly more).

Unromantic but sensible.

Id want the prenup to state that it protects his current assets but anything accured from the date they move in is 50:50 until any point where they seperate.

Its ok if he wants to protect whats his, its not ok to take more than half of what is theirs

Why would they want to enter into a shared financial and legal commitment but eschew the shared financial and legal commitment part?

Why do they not just carry on as they are, this protects assets nicely? Being financially independent is a good thing for everyone.

Protecting his large deposit makes perfect sense and is quite a normal thing to do. Pre-nups before marriage are much less common in the UK. Your DD should be careful about what she signs up to if they intend to have children. It is normally women that lose out financially by taking maternity leave and often working part-time when the children are young. He shouldn't benefit from OP's DD's more precarious financial position due to pregnancy, childbirth and doing the majority of the childcare.

If you had a wealthy dd, would you encourage them to marry?

right now they are not married and buying as a couple so this 70/30 split seems fair, only if she is able to afford her 30% of mortgage, he is happy to get it changed if in the future he needs her to pay more than 30% and she saves the rest.

Id just advise that any pre-nup should reflect what happens if they have children, and he should understand they “obviously” she can’t become a SAHM or part time or do the bulk of any childcare after maternity leave, he needs to factor in having to do half of drop offs and pick ups from childcare and half of sick days in his career plans, the prenup means he gives up the luxury of a wife who prioritises his career over her own and does all the household and family work.

That he needs to factor that into his long term plans. That post-nups are also a thing, a variation of prenups both agree on when situations change, like if they both agree for her to give up work to support his career, he wouldn’t expect her to give up building her own pension fund if she wouldn’t have a claim on part of his on divorce just because he got an amazing job offer in another city etc.

Just drip in the reasons why women end up getting more of the money. But if they split up next year, unmarried no kids, then yes she shouldn’t get 50% of any equity in the house.

Protecting pre marital assets as childless newlyweds is one thing. Protecting future earnings as essentially “bagsy-ing” the house as theoretically many years married parents of dependent children is another.
The reason men “lose” the house so often is to maintain stability for the children in the family home with their existing primary caregiver. Inevitably that will be the dd in this case - the mother, the maternity leave taker, the significantly lower earner. As a young couple its not unreasonable to want to walk away with what you put if the mothers career is affected by pregnancy, maternity leave, part time work to facilitate childcare, and lack of career advancement as always needs to be the “go to” parent and the primary housekeeper to support the higher earner then the father is not playing with a straight bat if he wants to ringfence his future earnings too. It’s different for older couples and those with children from previous marriages but i would be pissed off by a man who wanted me to look after kids then use that against me in a divorce. If he wants to ringfence his assets and pays 70% of deposit plus 70% of costs going forward then he needs to contribute 50%of the effort of childcare, including subsidising his partners income on mat leave rather than expecting it to be something she will just do for free out of some sort of quaint, old fashioned idea that when you are married you are a team.

Postnup?

Absolutely. And prenups aren’t bad (per se).

but would you sign a rental agreement that protected your landlord (or even afforded him financial rights) but didn’t give you any kind of protection (or other benefits)?
Would you you commit yourself to pay the purchase price if you wouldn’t receive the item you’re actually paying for?

I certainly wouldn’t. Contracts are meant to benefit both parties. That ought to apply to pre-nups as well. But too often isn’t the case (unfortunately)…

One person wants to protect their assets. The other person is sooo in love, simply wants to get married and “understands his point of view”. And ends up signing a legal agreement that is primarily (or exclusively) intended to benefit one party.

This could easily turn into an abusive and controlling relationship. She would rely on him for gifts and to be able to go on holidays/activities etc. My cousin married someone like this. He is wealthy and convinced her to become a sahm. At first it was fine, then he resented her and asked her to get a job. She managed to find a part time job that fitted around school hours. He started making her pay for all her clothes and the childrens too. He would go on expensive holidays and activities without them. It was very painful to see. I would not want my children to ever be in a weaker financial position than their partners, because having children does make every woman vulnerable.

Then they should be sensible and take legal advice

I think your DD is unwise to marry or buy a house with financial pre-conditions. Like you I believe marriage is about sharing everything. And what happens once children are involved? I would also be put off by the boyfriend's view that men end up worse off after divorce - just look at the threads from separated and divorced women on MN. Not sure what you can do though, since DD is an adult making her own decisions.

It wouldn't bother me asking as her 30% is protected.

However, they need to change this upon having children as she should not and will not be able to give up her career or have extended time at home not working. Then she will be vulnerable.

Also pensions are something to consider. She needs to know to never give up work or sacrifice her earning potential for him/children.

Tigeresslearns

He works in a niche area in London - dd works in an area were promotion will be possible ( she is going for that) but is
less stable - is business led
and
she can not earn masses more than she does already- this is not widely possible in her industry.

He looks after his parents so i just assumed that he would look after dd as both would be family.

He uses the word ‘I ‘ can afford a house in .. whereas I would say ‘ we ‘ - but I recognise its been a huge struggle for him to get were he has . For example he lived at home during uni , he fought for his work experience, and is one of the few not privately educated in his work and is the only person from the north .

Money and infidelity?

Precisely.

No issue with prenups if drafted sensibly and fairly (eg making provision for children and the lower earner’s contribution to the home which enables the higher earner’s working patterns etc), but it isn’t a case of “just sign and it’s done” in the UK. Couples are generally advised to have them refreshed/updated as post-nups/provide a declaration every few years to demonstrate continued intent to abide by them and to reflect the changing reality of their position. The longer it’s in place without review and update, the more likely a court will be to take other factors into account too during divorce, at least that’s what we were advised.

The house purchase is separate and would be governed by a deed of trust pre-marriage and then his portion under the DoT would be accounted for in the prenup.

What confuses me is that he has also said that he is proud to look after his parents. He also sees it as a mans job to provide and would not expect her to work when children small .
re this aspect, she absolutely has to address this issue as her income / promotion/ any pt work would be affected as would her pension .

He is massively insured through work and plans to put that policy in dd s name .
( currently with his parents)

You're being unreasonable as it really has fuck all to do with you.

Personally I think any assets somebody has already acquired before the relationship is established should be ring fenced, but as that isn't the case then a legal order makes perfect sense.

Unless it has changed since my divorce 20 years ago, a prenup has no force in the UK. I had one from another country, it meant absolutely nothing (although my XH tried to say that it did as he would have benefitted, he was gunning for my NHS pension).

Please stay off the relationships board then. In the real world, it is predominantly women who take career breaks to be with children and their husbands reap the rewards. Even if the woman isn't consciously prioritising his career, it is the net result.

My DH and I married in an EU country that basically has built-in prenups. Anything you bring to the marriage remains yours even if you divorce, but anything gained during the marriage is shared.

That strikes me as the fairest option really.

That isn't true at all actually .

She can continue to work then

If in UK, look into how pre nups can be used as they are not legally binding. Also though I would be saying to her to get legal advice about the property purchase and ownership, as a minimum I would want to ensure she equally is on the deeds and her contribution is reflected.