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.

I don’t blame him to be honest. It’s the sensible thing to do. No, it’s not romantic but realistic.

What's the point of marriage for either party (not just this one)?

Can't see any benefit if the divorce/separation does not confer any rights to either party to the marriage. Children have protection with maintenance and access.

I have a partner for over 20 years now. We each own our own homes, and paddle our own canoes. No kids either. No worries.

Ah, last time I checked, getting pregnant wasn't unfair. There's currently no other way of giving birth and AFAIK man can't do it.

Being unmarried and buying a property together, it's sensible to spell out who contributes what. However, the whole prenup becomes odd once they decide to become a unit (which is how I personally understand marriage). I'd tell her not to consider having children until he's ready to consider their relationship as a unit. If they do want to have kids, she should make sure that very clear provisions are written into the contract so that her non-monetary contributions and the potential limitations on her career are reflected. At the very least, he must commit to financial support during their marriage so that she can access childcare and suitable opportunities to catch up with him financially.

I think a UK prenup cannot be significantly disadvantaging. It has to be fair to provide something for the lesser party.

This. If this is the confidence he has in me and the relationship, I'd be out of there.

The problem with this approach to marriage is every decision/action in marriage has to be considered in light of the prenup and asset division and how it would affect you. If you agree to take on an extra household chore if the other party is under load at work. When to take a holiday if it might impact your work disproportionately. Whether to move your take up a promotion if it means the other party has to change jobs. Whether to do extra school runs if the other person has exams to change to a more lucrative career if it means you miss a chance to network with people from work. These decisions must all be considered in a selfish light, not what is best as a family.

I think it’s becoming more common these days. I would do the same if marrying someone who contributed significantly less (well in fact, I just wouldn’t get married). Most marriages end in divorce these days so he is just trying to protect himself. Now that woman work and we have more equality in the workplace, there shouldn’t be a need for them to sponge off men.

Prenups aren't legally binding but since Radmacher courts pay A LOT of attention to them. Very unwise to sign one thinking, this won't be legally binding so who cares ...

42% of marriages end in divorce and that number is actually dropping. So not most.

It annoys me that men moan after divorce that they lost so much. Excuse me? You had kids raised, house looked after, dinners cooked.
Men complaining about that are just loosers that never apprwciated women in the first place, thats why they are divorced.

That is probably fine when they are cohabiting with no children - you get out what you put in. BUT if children come along this changes , particularly if your DD isn’t working. Just make sure she accesses good advice

Tbf I wouldn't have wanted to marry someone who throws themselves into things without careful consideration. Or someone so easily offended they couldn't see the value in a pragmatic approach to assets and finances, instead making it all about their fragile ego.

I wouldn't listen too much to those saying a pre nup isn't worth the paper its written on - they have no official legal status but they are a factor to be taken ito consideration in a divorce and tbh if it was a short marriage with no children I would expect a judge to stick to it. The big issue for your DD is what happens if they have children and I would recommend that the 70:30 pre nup applies only until that happens and that after that it applies to accommodate the children and reflect the hit to your DDs career/pension/savings etc that this is likely to impact. Maybe also specify that all childcare and cleaning expenses etc are bourne pro rata to income and specify that if there was a divorce childcare should be split by income and not by who has the children each day - would mean your DD was less disadvantaged in trying to care for the DC and work.

instead making it all about their fragile ego

instead of all about you and your assets?

Why should a man be a 'provider'? It's not the 1950s.

Absolutely. He should be the one to get pregnant…

I wouldn't get married at all if I was him. I think protecting pre marriage assets is fair but once you're married any future assets / increase in value should be shared. As kids usually mean financial disadvantage to the mum. Prenups are not legally binding here.

It’s not a legally binding document and tbh if the alternative is that he won’t marry her, she will be in a better off position if they do split after having had kids.

It would be a big no from me. I would happily pay for a solicitor to advise her so that she can have that conversation with him.

If he comes from a deprived background and they’ve been together since uni, the life they’ve built has been together. He’s not coming in with the family country pile or a 30 year career he’s built before they met. The life they have now is the life they built. I’d expect an equitable sharing of that if the relationship was to end one day.

Circumstances can change hugely over the years. When Dh and I got married, we also met in uni, I earned more than him and had more promising employment prospects (more education, more prestigious sort of career). Then Dh quit his job and started a business. 10 years later, that business has well over £1mil a year turnover and he out earns me by 3-4x. We bought a house. I put in probably 60% of the deposit, but Dh pays probably 2/3 of the mortgage. We own it as joint tenants (50/50).

In a long marriage when you met young, started with nothing, and built a life together, it’s 50/50. Because you can never anticipate how life may change over 10-20 years. I have cancer and have had to leave work for now (Dh pays 100% of everything and has for the past year). An £85k a year salary is never guaranteed. Nor is being able to cover a certain percentage of household costs. Yes, a pre-nup can be amended with everyone’s consent, fine. But it really doesn’t capture the long term nature of marriage as a team effort where everyone’s needs should be equitably met. I wouldn’t be happy about her marrying a man so short sighted to the realities of life and so unempathetic.

We had one. It was very rudimentary and allowed us to marry without worrying At that point (he on paper was much wealthier and I was perfectly happily solvent). Older couple
with different assets wanting to get on with life lol

However as life went on and individual circumstances changed within the marriage it turned out to be a horrible and inappropriate force against being a unit imo. We recorded with the solicitor that it was no longer required once we had kids and other financial challenges as earning and ability to work ‘see sawed’ between us for health and other ‘fate’ type reasons, bad decisions etc.

A pre nup is counter to the ‘in sickness and in health’ part of marriage as well as the ‘all that I have I share with you part’ and the lack of this team attitude breeds resentment. I suspect the fact that they are not a legally binding document reflects this, our government systems, benefits and taxation etc treat a married couple as a unit and divorce does too also inheritance tax.

There is an argument to protecting prior wealth but once joined or at least once there is the intention for a pregnancy (where vulnerability increases for the women and plans become what ever fate has in store) then imo it should be set aside (other than the prior wealth potentially) earnings and expenses should be pooled, life approached as a team. You simply can not have one person feeling they have less need to be on the team. I’m not a lawyer lol

Agree with the previous two posters.
I'd say he's just not ready to get married, full stop.

I think he is sensible.

Way too many people waltz into marriage without considering financial implications.

I think its perfectly reasonable to each protect assets that you enter a marriage with. Going forward after marriage assets can be shared but should marriage fail each personal should ge ttheor original assets then division after assets obtained during the marriage

Myself and dh have written agreements that I wont touch his inheritance and he wont touch mine. I put this in place as he will get a much larger inheritance than me and he wouldnt dream of protecting his own assets.

We also have wills in place detailing if o e of us dies and remarried that proportions of assets are for the children we share. Specially as dh wouldnt think about this if I died as he is too trusting.

My initial thoughts were don’t get involved, your DD is an adult. Giving it more thought I think the op is right to be concerned and trying to advise her DD.

I don’t think she should marry this man or buy property with him or live with him. He is not a keeper. If they have children which it sounds like they do plan to (or he does) she will be hugely disadvantaged financially as the op is aware.

My DH came from a very poor background (was on the streets in his teens) and after a lot of hard work, (working on building sites during the day and a bouncer at night) he got an accounting qualification. When we met and married he was earning £50k (over 20 years ago). I had an office job and when I got pregnant I stopped work.

** This is the important bit, when I stopped work he set up a SIPP in my name (self invested pension plan) and contributed a chunk of money into it every single September, every single year for 25 years. That’s what a good husband does if he can afford it. Not hoard his assets. That’s a proper marriage.

Your DD sounds young, it’s all sounds so un romantic. I think she should dump him and his pre nup and his percentages.

That's obviously not what I meant. I just hope most women aren't judging men by their ability to 'provide', in the same way as I'd hope most men don't choose a partner for their domestic skills or their ability to provide offspring.