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.

I know what a pre nup is for heavens sake! Everyone does.

It sets the precedent of keeping finances separate from the very beginning. He might choose to share his income, he might not. He might choose to help her with childcare, he might not. He might support her with pension top ups and money over her maternity leave, he might not. The Judge might uphold the pre nup in court even with young children or disability, she/he might not.

There are way too many unknowns in an arrangement like this. That is my point. She will be dependent on ‘goodwill’ rather than legal access to their marital income.

She has got to hope and pray she isn’t hit by a bus or her child is disabled or she might find herself in serious trouble if he turns out to be an arsehole.

As a woman, which can be a uniquely vulnerable position to be in if pregnant or with young babies, if she has any sense she will run a mile and protect herself.

That's it. MN has taught most of us that at least!

I know what a pre nup is for heavens sake! Everyone does.

It sets the precedent of keeping finances separate from the very beginning. He might choose to share his income, he might not. He might choose to help her with childcare, he might not. He might support her with pension top ups and money over her maternity leave, he might not. The Judge might uphold the pre nup in court even with young children or disability, she/he might not.

There are way too many unknowns in an arrangement like this. That is my point. She will be dependent on ‘goodwill’ rather than legal access to their marital income.

She has got to hope and pray she isn’t hit by a bus or her child is disabled or she might find herself in serious trouble if he turns out to be an arsehole.

As a woman, which can be a uniquely vulnerable position to be in if pregnant or with young babies, if she has any sense she will run a mile and protect herself.

That's it. MN has taught most of us that at least! Now stop being so bloody annoying.

I’ll say it again combative waffle with a side order of women are goddesses who sacrifice looks,pelvic floor,and take all the risks. Blah blah shuffle the play list

was my user name not a clue?
Coffee- daily . Grind, house blend
lipstick - daily, Chanel or Nars
Keys - lots of. Work, and personal. They jangle on a satisfying manner

I’m also not sure what you’re on about, finances are not completely seperate here, they have a joint account, and they don’t even have children yet. And all the drama about spending her life hoping she’s not hit by a bus. It’s ludicrous. All the man wants to do is protect his businsss in the event of divorce.

dial it down.

I don’t think it is for you to police anyone’s posts actually - so you should perhaps ‘dial it down’. Do you think a ‘joint account’ is going to help her if the shit hits the fan? No it won’t if it’s empty for heavens sake.

The men on here are out in force I see. Determined to put women down and insult them for looking out for each other. I think MN are finally going to do something about it at last. Good riddance.

yep, there’s no nice future in this proposed sham of a marriage. Think the op is worried about her biological clock as much as her finances and is prepared to n accept shit

I was always told not to get married while planning for it to break down. If he insists, I don’t think he is the man for you, and sorry to say this but I don’t think he loves you enough.

Marrying him for money ALONE, which means it definitely a factor for you. I don’t blame him 1 bit ! You’re making it sound like a business transaction and getting upset when he does the same.
‘Pot meet kettle ‘absolutely nails it !

I think she just doesn’t want to be left high and dry with tiny babies for decades, not unreasonable given the awfulness you see on here on a daily basis.

What household expenses? Are you paying rent on his house or just towards bills? You could negotiate a prenup where you dont pay anything towards his properties but you buy your own that he would not be entitled too in the event of a divorce but that of course relies on you working and not having children if you did the prenup would have you financially compensated for that

It's all very transactional and to be honest I wouldn't like it but if you love him and see your future with him you need to be clear in your wants needs and expectations

Not much to add that hasn’t been covered by @Glowingup.

and yes it’s the first one that comes up on Google etc, that’s why it’s case law because it’s referred to in future cases, it sets the precedent for future claims. It’s not the first time I’ve referenced this around the discussions of prenups and probably not the last.

Your description of a prenup is completely one sided, which they are not really designed to be. It doesn’t take into consideration children time married etc. all of which would be included in any decent prenup.

and I’d argue this guy is very close to being a millionaire, maybe not in the bank but business assets, I could easily see his business being worth in the millions . Why wouldn’t he want to protect that!

I tend to think pre nups are fairly sensible in this day and age. But they must be fair. If he’s proposing that after a significant length of marriage you would walk away with nothing then that is obviously ridiculous. If you want to marry him then agree to a fair and sensible one that specifies how finances and property would be dealt with, presumably with him keeping his business, which it sounds like he had already built up before you got together. I am guessing it will be his business that he is worried about and I can totally understand that. It’s all well and good talking about romance but the fact is nearly half of marriages end in divorce and many people end up royally screwed over in the process, wishing no doubt they’d they’d had a pre nup!

And yet, the vast majority of women are completely fucked over in divorce and break ups. In your circles, yes, these women profited financially, but they would have lost in other areas.

I actually think it would be irresponsible for the husband not to have a pre-nup in these circumstances. It would leave him at the mercy of the divorce courts in the event of divorce and potentially having to sell the business or co-owning it with his ex-wife, which would have a knock on effect on his employees, any co-owners and his own future earnings. Having no agreement in place would create scope for a very acrimonious divorce with fighting over valuation of the business, when / if it should be sold, what rights over it the ex-spouse should have etc. The ex-husband could also be left with taking only the business (which may be essentially illiquid) whilst the ex-wife takes the house and savings to balance out the value.

UK divorce law is quite unusual in generally giving an ex-spouse a share in assets acquired before marriage. Pre-nups give the ability to amend that principle, which is useful in non-standard situations such as where there is a business of significant value.

But the pre-nup should be fair to both parties and shouldn’t leave the OP with nothing. It could, for example, just ring fence the business and divide everything else equally. But it could even provide for the OP to have some share in the business in future but with non-voting shares e.g to reflect the increase in value of the business since marriage.

I really don’t see that carrying and giving birth to a couple of children creates a need / moral responsibility for the husband to hand over half of his pre-marital assets if you split up. However much I loved someone I wouldn’t marry (again, as I’m already divorced) because marriage is in law a financial contract where agree to merge finances such that you may need to give away an uncertain amount of assets in future to your ex, even if they have treated you badly. There’s no benefit to that for the party who is financially stronger.

Ah, you’re one of those who think anyone who disagrees with you is a man. Original. Can you explain, though - without the drama and hyperbole about brain injuries and homelessness - what your actual objection is to him wanting to protect his business and assets accrued before marriage, and before he even met the OP? What do you think is morally wrong with that? If a woman wanted a prenup for the same reasons, would you still object? Without knowing the terms of the prenup nobody here can speculate what his stance is on assets accrued within the marriage or what his approach to day-to-day finances would be (and a prenup has no bearing on the latter as many have said).

Exactly - absolutely spot on.

It really is very annoying that some seem to entirely dismiss the impact of pregnancy and raising children on earning capacity, pensions, savings and security. Unless they happen to be very high earners.

Pregnancy alone is often discriminated against, and more often than not women are left to carry the responsibility inside and outside of marriage for children throughout their lives. It’s depressing. No wonder the birth rate is dropping through the floor.

As someone who never wanted children, it absolutely blows my mind that some women want them so badly that they are only too willing to have them in the circumstances the poster you quoted describes!

Being childless does not excuse the men that do just disappear and leave the children high and dry. You might not care about babies or children, or pregnant women - along with the many men on here looking to insult us - but honestly even you must see that going into a marriage with a decision to have children without a serious and lasting provision for a home and financial support within the pre nuo is madness. Let’s see if op returns with an update on how her discussion goes in that regard.

I said I didn’t want children, not that I have no care for them, or pregnant women.

You say it’s madness to go into a marriage planning children without the OP getting financial provision sorted in a pre-nup. I think it’s madness to go into marriage and motherhood without making any of your own provision for supporting yourself and your children, and instead being financially dependent on a man.

None of this would be relevant if the OP was, and intended to continue to be, anywhere near financially equal to her fiancé - by her own means, not half of his.

Why SHOULD the mother have to stump up the financial provision alone when the child has two parents. It’s disgraceful that this hasn’t even occurred to you.

Men absolutely have to pay, be responsible, accountable, house and look after/raise their bloody children.

The incels really aren’t struggling for support in certain quarters these days clearly..

I don't blame him.
Its like no one married for love its marriage for money.
If i was to get married I'd do the same, as I don't want to lose half if not more of what I've earned, to someone that didn't help me get it in the first place.

But a lot of people seem to think that financial provision law on divorce or child support will protect women adequately. It won’t. Being married offers you more protection than not being married, but it really doesn’t insure you for life. Basically the only way you can ensure you are not fucked is to refuse to compromise your career. Do not go part time, do not become a SAHM because you WILL get fucked if you divorce. It’s sad but true. You may feel that being a SAHM is best for your kids but you have to put yourself first and avoid damaging your career.

Love, he doesn't want to marry you.

I'm sorry.

You've only been together two years.

You had pushback when you said no children without marriage.

Now he's more interested in his assets than the joy and privilege of the prospect of you becoming his wife.

He should be head first into it all, not negotiating and lawyering up and talking contracts.

It must all feel very chilly indeed.

I wouldnt.

I very clearly was not saying that she alone should support the children!

You are stating how vulnerable women can be to terrible men. I completely agree. Which is why it would be mad, and irresponsible, to get married and have children without any means of your own. Women are much more likely to end up in exactly the situation you are railing against if they can’t provide for themselves, and half the costs of their children, in the event of separation.

And what happens if your child is born or becomes disabled/ill/special needs? Do you think you can package them up, and send them back with a note saying this doesn’t fit into my career plan? I would rather not be fucked over in a divorce with their own father…and screwed over 🧐