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.

How does it sound like that when she’s already said they split everything and have just their own disposable incomes. He’s simply said he wants to protect his business in the event of divorce, so he doesn’t basically have to sell it. I genuinely can’t see what’s wrong with that, and it’s so grabby to say she needs to see his business accounts so she can keep track. And illogical as his accounts will be publicly available as he will be a limited company, as he’s 35 staff,

she also says she’s “not marrying for money alone” as opposed to what most of us would say, which is simply not marrying for money,

So why do you need to be married?
That gives you a legal right to his assets unless he protects them.
What assets are you bringing to the table?

Well, aren’t you proposing the terms of a pre-nup? Financial matters are one of the main reasons marriages fail.

Marriage is a contract. It always has been. When a married couple separates, it invariably turns out that they never really meant what they said at their wedding about sharing and bestowing earthly goods. Much better to have the conversation now about expectations.

If events subsequent to the marriage result in what was agreed in the pre-nup to be manifestly unfair (eg the brain injury you mention), the court has discretion not to give effect to the relevant unfair provisions of the pre-nup. That addresses that question.

There is a lot of “what about disability/a disastrous injury?” on this thread and no one seems able to absorb fact that a pre-nup deals with what happens assuming that both parties are of broadly the same physical and mental capacities they had at the time the pre-nup was entered into. Which is why raising a future serious change in circumstances as a reason not to enter into a pre-nup doesn’t work.

I have to disagree with the first part of your post while agreeing with the final sentence. No one gets married expecting to get divorced, or hopefully, very few. Just like no one gets into their car to set off on a journey and thinks “I’m going to have a catastrophic accident on this journey”. But nevertheless both events occur, very regularly. I got married and was the wealthier party at the time and had contributed more to the deposit on our house by a considerable amount. During the marriage that balance tipped the other way, and then my ex had an affair and left. And wanted to squeeze as much as possible out of me in the divorce as well, even though by that time I earned 1/3 of her income. I had had the baby she wanted, but didn’t want to have to take maternity leave, so even though I already had kids and she didn’t, I agreed to have the baby. Then I had the mat leave (she didn’t want to take any SPL because her career was progressing), I did all the nursery pick ups and sick days once I went back to work, and finally our child is nearly at school and getting easier and then my ex left. Then we had to spend a year in a legal wrangle because despite me contributing about 30% more into our house, then having had a baby and the associated mat leave, raised that baby practically single handed for 4 years while also working for most of them, and supported her career by doing so, enabling her to dramatically increase her income, she thought 50/50 down the line was fair.

It would have been much easier to have agreed we both took out what we put in at the start, split everything accrued during the marriage 50/50, with provision for any children to be made as at the time of separation.

You don’t agree on finances before you’ve married or had kids. It won’t get better once those things have happened. You either need to communicate better now, or find someone else with whom you can communicate better.

If the unforeseen happens, you'd have to cross your fingers and HOPE that it wouldn't be upheld. But it would depend on the judge. There's no guarantee that it wouldn't be upheld. I think the anything-can-happen argument is an important one.

Why on earth would she hope it wasn’t upheld and she can take half his business??

Click on the "Show quote history" link and read the discussion that we're having. We're talking about special circumstances. And neither of us mentioned taking half his business. Not sure where you got that from.

Context is everything. It's important to read what's there before commenting.

Im aware its 42% which i rounded up to roughly 50%.

The divorce rate has only dropped because fewer marriages are taking place. - Or so I read recently.

That is incorrect. If circumstances subsequent to the pre-nup render enforcing it unfair, or if it doesn’t meet the wife’s needs, a judge can’t enforce it. Something like life changing injury or disability would certainly fall into that camp.

Have a read of this recent court judgment where the court exercised this discretion in favour of the wife on the basis of her needs (and those of her children). She wasn’t disabled but the agreement failed to provide fairly for her circumstances so she got more than she would have done under the agreement: financialremediesjournal.com/ah-v-bh-2024-ewfc-125/

I would presume it depends on the law not the Judge?

This is the example of delusional thinking that is on mum's net.And it's terrifying at no point, did he say, or she say that he was not going to do anything for his children. In addition, it sounds like he will be fully supporting his family. You keep on talking about how childbirth really drastically damages. A woman actually in the 21st century. It's not the same as it was before. It does change it, but maternal mortality is not as high as it was. So it's a stupid argument, and it's a scary one, because these same women from my experience are the first to insist their children have prenups. I just think that there's a difference in the two people and the social difference is too great. She shouldnt consider marrying someone on an unequal financial basis. because that's the only way they can have equality in the way that she's describing. It's almost like a form of narcissism.You value the input of the woman more highly than the man in any way you completely invalidate any sacrifice or effort.He has to put in and supporting his family.And the only thing that seems to be valuable is the woman'.What normal rational human would want to be in a relationship with someone So entitled. You're not sacrificing yourself by having children.Your husband doesn't owe you for the rest of your life because you have had children.I don't know where this mindset comes from

I don't know if youve had your own personal bad experience.But the op has never said any of the things that you are saying, or you don't understand what arenap is.You should stop commenting.People make spelling mistakes because mum's net is not their life just rushing through threads and commenting.Don't be pathetic

I really haven’t had a bad experience at all, but I have raised my dc and know how expensive and how much responsibility is involved. To be further compromised by a half hearted, transactional marriage, with no financial provision is irresponsible/very risky in my view. Why do you think there has been an overwhelming response of run for the hills?

Don’t police my posts.

I can say whatever I like, within reason and my advice to op as an experienced mother is do not enter a marriage and parenting with a man that is not fully committed, and doesn’t value you enough to offer true security.

Right?You are basically saying that unless he commits to her in the way she wants.He is not a good person.You do not seem to have any knowledge of the world or how people who have assets try and protect them.Your inference that he is a bad person who doesn't want.Kids is just dishonesty.It seems pathological, she hasn't said any of these things you've literally made up a very horrible story and are continuing it.So you're talking about the effects of childbearing.She has not had children yet.Technically speaking, he could say, why does she not have as much as him?They're both adults.They could be roughly the same age.Why is she coming into the marriage with less assets?What you're saying is terrifying, and it actually would leave a woman in a terrible position because if you're encouraging them to marry for love for a feeling, rather than actually understanding what it takes.It usually ends badly independent.I hate stupidity

My ex wanted us to get married but refused the idea of a prenup due to him thinking it was unromantic/if I was planning a divorce to not to bother etc. My argument that was I putting a half a million pound deposit down and I’d hate the idea of my childhood home being used against me. I dodged a bullet with him, maybe I knew deep down he wasn’t ‘the one’ or he knew that I’d eventually have enough of his bullshit. When I did dump him he cried leaving the house that he was a man in his thirties having to move back to his childhood bedroom without a pot to piss in… he never paid me rent/board, I said to him for him living here rent free he could save to get his own house to rent out. Oh boy did I see his true colours and know I dodged a bullet.

Billet dodged! This is why you need pre-nups!

My last post was to sharp im definitely not calling you stupid. Sorry the market is CRAZY in pre open.

So when a man wants a prenup it is transactional so if the man turned around and said I give you all my money now and in the future would that be transactional?

its funny how things work on here depending on who is who

The markets might well be busy, but it’s worthwhile exploring why this is such a trigger for you.

To call someone pathological and stupid for suggesting op protects herself fully seems extreme to me.

I can’t add much more, it’s OP’s decision and it sounds like she has serious doubts to me. There are many men out there that will sweep her off her feet, and offer full security so I guess it’s a decision for her to make. The thread has certainly made the risks clear.

Glad you responded with fire. I like a women who spits back. Im in the wrong and I apologies. Can I ask you something a bit left plenty of times on here you and others have said other posters are men. Those post feel quiet similar to mine but you dont think im a bloke is it just my username or do I come across a bit soft random question please answer :)

The vulnerability and financial impact of pregnancy or multiple pregnancies on women, and having children is what changes the context around pre nups.

If they were simply getting married and not having children the pre nup wouldn’t matter.

but why is it then less romantic and 'gives me the ick' or cold and calculating or a big red flag when a man brings up a money and or a prenup? if women are not responsible enough to fund themselves if they split

the more I am on here the more it seems women are being treated like children with no repsonsibilitiy for their choices, they dont have to have so many children it is a choice

I'm married and a SAHM ...I have full access to all money and all bank accounts.
But that wasn't the plan
We had 3 under 3 so I could get back to work asap and be done .
But two now have disabilities,were not in school for years at a time ,can not be left alone at home or alone together,due to violence
Totally unexpected..not what I planned for my life either .
A prenup in this situation would of been very unfair
So I say ,don't marry anyone who isn't sharing what they have equally,incase you end up in a situation like mine

Use the prenup to your advantage.
You’re not just going in deciding who gets what should you divorce, use it to set out the financial terms of the marriage.
Who pays for what, will there be a joint pot with each spouse receiving an amount that is theirs to do whatever they want.
Will a cleaner/gardener be paid for?
Negotiate the terms of post-pregnancy.
If you’re a SAHM, ensure money is paid into a pension.

If you return to work, he pays at least 50% childcare costs & maybe more if there is a huge disparity between your incomes.
What his financial responsibilities towards your children are should you divorce.
You could specify that if your marriage lasts beyond a certain point or with the birth of each child, you receive a % of the business.
1 in 2 marriages end in divorce. A pre-nup can help protect you during the marriage if you have children.
I know they’re not legally binding in the UK but should it come to divorce, a properly laid out pre-nup with the family finances detailed will help a judge decide the post-divorce financial order.
Marriage isn’t all hearts & flowers, it is a legally binding contract & a pre-nup could work things in your favour, both during & after marriage.