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.

This is true and something to consider. If he chooses to divorce her after DC a family court may decide the child needs to remain in the area they currently reside. Could she afford that after divorce with 30% or would she need to leave the child with Dad?

I think that it could be fair (before children only) if all expenses are paid in the ratio of earnings.

So if he earns in the ratio 4:1 what she earns, and owns a 4:1 share of the house, he should also pay 4:1 of the bills.

the domestic work and organising should be split 50/50, not according to who earns what .

You should point out that structural inequality is also playing a role here: one of the reason that she earns less than him is because girls are still encouraged into 'softer' careers. There is also still a massive gender pay gap within the same role.

If he can't acknowledge that I'd say that was a red flag.

Once she has children it should be the case that they are both left with the same amount of fun money and free time after all the bills/savings are taken out.

If he continues with this idea of his earnings/share of the house vs hers after they have children - well, that is a massive red flag.

Why are you assuming he'll automatically be abusive?

I believe that in a divorce the pooled assets earned during marriage are shared between the couple depending on circumstances. So similar to the UK where the law takes into account if someone was a stay-at-home parent or whatever.

The difference is that assets from before the marriage aren't included in the pool to be divided.

I'm the higher earner in my marriage. If we divorced I would have to share any savings made during marriage with my DH. The reasoning being that we were a team when that was earned and each spouse played their part (e.g one looks after the kids, the other works).

But any property or money I had from before the marriage remains fully mine.

So in your example it doesn't matter that the DH had a business before marriage. It's what he's got after getting married that counts.

Once they have children pre-nups become totally invalid in the UK.

If the OP were the parent of the higher earner, I would think the same.
They don't really need to get married do they at this stage? What will it bring?

I don’t think prenups mean anything in England unless you are located elsewhere.

Im trying to think what my thoughts are, as I have two boys and I would want them to protect themselves financially. I suppose I would be asking what the point of marriage was in this situation? Who is pushing for the marriage? What benefits are they expecting from it if not an equal playing field of shared assets and security? If ever there was a case for pre-marital counselling i would say this was it.

My partners ex was given money for a house deposit and this was ring fenced when they purchased a house together so when they split up she got that exact same money back again. My instinct was this scenario might work better for your daughter and her boyfriend instead of marriage.

I didn't know that @Ponoka7 thank you

A divorce court will still divide stuff based on needs of both parties. They won't care about any prenup. Solicitors will make you one though. They'd make you a sandcastle if you asked and charge you a grand.

However, given he's rich, he will be hiring shit hot solicitors who will be able to make things that aren't fair sound it.

So she's screwed either way, and since he obviously does not trust her with his life, he isn't going to think twice about turning her over once they're done. He'd likely get the kids too if he wanted.

Sounds like he wants her to make all the career sacrifices without access to equal marital assets. Fair would be each protecting their initial investments prior to marriage then marital assets are shared equally. Would he not expect her to work, or would he do so little parenting that she would not have equal opportunity to pursue a career after children?

He sees it as a ‘mans job’ to provide. What happens to the children and their home if they divorce? And what does he see as a ‘woman's job’? As it sounds like he sees than as in the home, beneath him, and financially dependent on him.

You can build in automatic review cause or plan in the prenup what happens when children are born. Just need to plan it in advance. I op the man securely protects his assets.

Because they are not even engaged and he is telling people what a mans job is…

This, how can he be committed and in love with her if he is feeling some doubts like this already ? Red flag...

This, people, regardless of sex should protect their money, I wish I had more when I could have,

He should protect his deposit, as should she.

It was a request, not an order.

And she’ll be further disadvantaged financially by looking after the children.

You realise the end of that sentence is, from his wife and kids.

I think there is a difference between protecting assets in their current situation and if children are on the cards. That is where she should take some advice. It is one thing to protect as a cohabiting couple but things change.

The sorts of conversations for them to be having are about the hypotheticals of children, part-time work, distribution of labour within the household, spare money and joint goals. Also what happens if he can’t work or loses his higher earning job? How do they split things like furniture or building work in the household.

I kind of get it but I think there should be some clause to even it out if they have children. It’s all very transactional at the moment with the finances but when they come to have children she will take the burden and sacrifice. 100% of the pregnancy and the toll that takes on the body; 100% of labour and the potential risk that has on the body; probably the majority of newborn care; impact to her salary, long term career prospects and pension from mat leave. This is where I think it’s unfair as marriage is give and take and what she will eventually give is far more and of immeasurable value to their family unit.

I have seen so many posts where the man encouraged the wife to be a 24/7 maid, nanny, cleaner, caterer for 10-odd years.

When she began to get a bit of a rest from some of those duties the man begins berating her to get another job out of the home.

So the lady never, ever gets a rest.

Barefoot and pregnant.

Please read up on the UKSC ruling.

while I understand his desire to keep the house in the event of a split, that leaves your daughter at risk of having to leave.

She needs to consider what will be put in place in regards to her having to leave after a split if they have children. It might be a better idea for him to buy it outright and own it. She can then either save funds for her own house or buy a cheaper property and rent it out.

As PPs have mentioned, how will she be protected if she gives up work to raise their children? Her career and pensions will take a hit. Will he still expect her to contribute 30% towards the mortgage?

He is completely right to have a discussion about protecting his money but it needs to be part of a much bigger discussion that ensures they are both protected.

I am supportive of something legal to protect both assets. I am much older in my mid 40s. Met DP few years ago. We both have good jobs, but he earns much more than me. Both been stung before. It’s not the most sexiest chat but needed. If anything shows if financial compatibility is there.

We are buying a house together which means selling both of ours. I have £200k the deposit and him £50k. I want to protect my money if worst happens. He also has a massive pension and mine not so great. He wants to protect that. He we will pay 60% towards mortgage and me 40%.

we have to do a contract to recognise our contributions and split them accordingly if worst happens. Also had to update our wills to state who ever dies first keeps the house - not our next of kin. He has a son when DP dies he will inherit his savings and pension and anything of value, not the house. My niece will get my assets except the house. We have been told marriage may negate this, but need to investigate if a will can cover the above to protect his son.

we are generous to each other. But needed to be sensible. People say we are treating it as a business transaction but we are nog, just an important chat before we financial tie together.

He also sees it as a mans job to provide and would not expect her to work when children small

He wants her unemployed doing all his childcare and housework, but also wants to lock her out of his earnings, that are facilitated by her unpaid labour? How will she pay her 30% when she’s not working? How will she get her promotions? How will she build up her pension (it will obviously make more sense financially to pay into his pension as a higher rate tax payer).
I wouldn’t have kids with him. I would buy a house in the 70:30 split with the knowledge that I’d walk away with 30% (But in the knowledge that he’ll offer to buy her out at under the going rate and sabotage any other potential buyers so I might want to write that in somewhere). As a cohabiter it would mean I could live in a nicer house than I could otherwise afford and have the company (I’m assuming she likes him!) and I’d still be building equity and I could get on board - but I wouldn’t get married and as for putting myself and my babies at risk - not a snowballs chance.

Pre-nups are enforceable in the UK - see Radmacher v Granatino, but they don’t have to be enforced if they are deemed to be unfair.

He basically wants a modern Co-habiting arrangement where you can take out what you put in, combined with a traditional marriage where the wife sacrifices her career for the husbands higher earnings. It’s a good deal, unless you happen to be the wife.

Ex-wife.