Fiancé asking for a prenup

[Aquea]

Fiancé and I have had a relatively short relationship. We’ve only been together for two years. I basically had to make it very clear that I would not be having children without being married. Just for legal protection. Got a bit of push back on that in the early days but I did say that marriage was a non negotiable for me and if that wasn’t for fiance then he and I should part ways.

Anyway, now we are engaged. Fiancé has asked I sign a prenup. Fiancé has his own successful business. We’re not talking a champagne lifestyle but he is comfortable enough and owns several assets. His business is fairly large - employs 35 people. But the margins are small and the overheads are massive.

I don’t have an issue in some regards as I’m certainly not marrying for the sake of money alone. I plan to carry on working FT.

But the actual concept is extremely cynical and unromantic. It’s really made me feel shit. Like I can’t be trusted. I’m kind of sick of indirectly having to convince fiancé that I am good person to marry.

We plan to have children.

it just feels like it’s one thing after another. Ie having to explain my reasoning for wanting to get married and now a prenup. The path to being engaged just seems already so negotiated.

That should read, 'solved' not "sold".

If I was in his shoes and I had a business and other assets and there was an imbalance with what my partner would be bringing to the table in term of their assets, then I would want to do the same and have a prenup.

It is just the sensible thing to do.

I would be more concerned that your partner was not keen to get married to you. That would be a red flag for me and I would reconsider the relationship because of that.

Try not to think of it as an insult. All a prenup is doing is simplifying the process slightly should you decide to split up at any point in the future. It gives a helpful starting point from which to negotiate as it sets out what each of you have at the start of your marriage. I think this is particularly important when 1 or both parties owns a business as this is where things can get extremely complicated and contentious at the divorce stage.

OK. Let's say a rich guy marries a broke waitress (other clichés apply). They have two kids and live happily ever after. For the next ten years anyway. Rich guy was smart and got broke waitresses to sign a pre nup. She gets nothing if they divorce. Sounds great.

Ten years later, two kids and holiday home in the Cotswolds, they get divorced.

"Ah ha"! Thinks rich guy, she signed this hear pre nup. She gets nothing!

What do you think happens in the family court?

Do.you think the court is going to order the waitresses to move out of the family home and back into the bedsit she had when they first met?

No.

Do you think rich guy will kick the mother of his children out of the family home when the kids turn 18?

Almost certainly not, the kids would take a very dim view of it and reality would kick in. Daddy making Mummy homeless isn't polite dinner conversation.

Pre nups very rarely stand up to any form of logical, real world family dynamics.

Now, if you were already a multi millionaire. Had vast resources, you might be able to protect the bulk of your pre wedding fortune. What's a few million when you've already got 50?

But for most people, they just don't have any benefit in the real world. There usually isn't sufficient assets to justify them, and the complications arising from sharing a life together make the application of the pre nup very difficult.

People need to stop quoting the Radmacker case (it's probably the first thing that A.I comes up with when they ask).

Bit of a tangent, but I do think the dating market gets horribly tangled and knotted when people equate 'successful business owner' with wealth and status, when what it more often means is someone who already has a fuckton of responsibilities to other people and very limited time to call their own 😆.

Surely it means someone who runs a business that makes more than it costs to run. Could be anything from a modest craft side hustle to Alan Sugar.

Well no because we have all been saying that prenups will be upheld unless it would be unfair to do so. Giving someone "nothing" would of course be unfair and that would not be upheld at all and no lawyer would advise anyone to try to negotiate a prenup on that basis. Ringfencing your pre-acquired assets that the other spouse has not and will not contribute to is nowhere near the same as trying to leave them destitute on divorce.
The fact that you can't spell Radmacher and seem to think it's unimportant shows how utterly little you know about family law. It's not the first AI thing that comes up but rather a seminal case that completely changed the legal position on prenuptial agreements. Any family lawyer knows exactly how important it is. The Law Commission has also recommended codifying the law on prenups in 2014 and the whole of financial remedies law is currently being debated for reform and that reform is likely to include statutory protection of prenups. You genuinely haven't got a clue what you're on about with your suggestion that people just sign documents that are highly likely to be followed in the even of divorce.
Prenups are particularly important in second and third marriages where people want to ring-fence assets to pass them on to children from the first relationships. They are not just for the ultra-wealthy, as the OP's scenario demonstrates.

Of course it will be you carrying your children if you decide to have them as I assume you have a womb and he doesn’t. I don’t really see a connection with that and a prenup? That being said if you do have children, in the event of divorce the welfare of the children will outweigh a prenup.

My dd will be asked to sign one if she gets engaged as her partner has substantial family assets. I think this is fair although I will have the best lawyer look at it.

Pre nups can be mutually beneficial for both parties. It’s not just a case of him keeping assets to himself.

they are also not legally binding in England, although a divorce judge may well choose to uphold the pre nup, depending on the situation.

DH and I have a pre nup as he has family money. He has a savings account that I can’t touch, I have £60k he can’t touch. We would split any property 50:50, he would cover the children’s school fees until they leave full time education, he would pay X amount per month per child in maintenance. And the amount I would be entitled to, increases every 5 years.
I agreed to that because to me, it makes sense. I shouldn’t be entitled to the same amount of his money if we’ve been married 5 years or 20 years.

Why do you assume he doesn’t want his children protected? Where is the basis for any assumption that he intends to deprive his children of what they are entitled to if their parents separate?

Have a prenup he is entitled to ask same as u but have it done with solicitors to cover kids, homes pensions as in every other marriage.

Why didn't you say exactly that to him? So odd...tell him how you feel, it really is that simple.

Get a solicitor to look at the prenup for you, make sure you are happy with it and that you and any future children are taken care of, and add any provisions you want in the event of a divorce then see if you and your DP can both agree on it, if you can't the weddings off and relationship's done. At least you will have found out before you were married and had children that you have different expectations in life.

They ARE however taken into account and not disregarded. They are still worth having to show intent.

Family court will ignore the assets he acquired before the marriage and the rest will be sorted as it is with anyone, through the CMS system/courts. She may well be granted the house until the youngest is 18 and then it will be sold. She may not receive money from the sale if it was acquired before their marriage. She may be entitled to some of the money if the house has increased in price over the years. May.

Depends how old you are. If you're young, I'd run. His money will probably always be more important than you.

@DeftTaupeLeaderno competent family solicitor would draft a pre nup which entitled the wife to nothing, precisely because it wouldn’t be enforceable. As for Radmacher, Supreme Court decisions have to be followed. That’s why properly negotiated pre nups are enforceable.

Nobody said they are entitled to nothing. They just arent entitled to assets accrued before the marriage. They may be entitled to a portion of assets that have grown or been purchased during the marriage.

Just because you can't get half of everything your ex husband has ever owned, it doesn't mean you've been left with nothing!

I learnt after two marriages that romance means nothing. You should only go into a contract, which is what this is, with a business head on.
Your future happiness and the happiness of your children depends on it.

What a ridiculous notion. My DH and I agreed a prenup. It’s now long spent (20 + years and 2 kids. Gifting half of everything on marriage is a fools game. I would want my DD’s to do the same.

Many of them don't seem to struggle much morally either!

The prenup can and should include provisions taking into account your ‘extraordinary contribution’of giving birth. It should also include provision taking into account any detrimental effect to your earnings/earning potential due to childbirth and time off for parenting.

This. You’d be advised to protect your business if it were yours. You’d advise your children to do this too if they were getting married. It’s his business, he built it, before you were married and probably before you met.

His time isn’t ticking away here, if you split now, he’ll still get married to someone else and have kids and get his prenup. Wealthy guys don’t stay single for long. I am not saying you should marry him if you dislike him, but I would not drop him over the prenup, a prenup is standard nowadays for a wealth disparity.

The example you gave in your post had the wife getting nothing. I was responding to that.

A pre-nup doesn’t automatically mean one party isn’t entitled to anything the other accrued before the marriage. That would be the usual position as it’s common sense, but the parties can agree whatever division of assets they agree on, provided that it doesn’t leave one in hardship on divorce.

The prenup would be less valid if OP did not have her own solicitor. It is a premise of a watertight prenup.