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.

No. Quite the opposite, actually, I think it’s incredibly stupid for people to get married without thinking about any of this. Marriage is a legal contract. Weddings and romance are entirely optional. You wouldn’t sign any other contract without reading and considering the terms of it, would you? Or asking to amend parts you felt were unfavourable to you?

I haven’t made anything up. My point was if a woman gives up work, for most, it is a choice. Perhaps not clear on reread if you thought I meant the majority give up work- I meant those who do choose to. A minority will not have a choice if circumstances dictate.

they’re also recent figures. The women suffering from that choice now are in their 40’s and 50’s, grown children, so on marriage breakdown they have very little beyond half a house.

you’re still looking at 25% of women choose to give up work. plus you don’t include part time figures. What % of men give up work? I don’t have figures and cba but willing to bet it’s nowhere near 25%.

so I stand by my statements that it’s women who are screwed over if they make the choice to sahm or otherwise reduce their earning potential, men do not make the same choice, because they know they are better off working.

How is what you're describing, "quite the opposite" when you literally go on to explain how marriage is purely a legal contract, just like a paragon of charmlessness would?

I get the impression that there's some very poorly educated women on here who could only attack posters who are writing perfectly rational statements fundamentally the stuff that they're saying is just true. And for whatever reason that truth makes you respond foolishly, the women talking about, you should hold him Barry for love. It's probably because they have absolutely nothing else to offer. The women are arguing for this are functionally dependent on someone subsidising for them for the rest of their life. And definitely, if younger women are reading this thread and the no circumstances in trust. Your future to someone else that makes no sense if you are a younger woman and you're reading this, understand that marriage is a legal contract. Logically, if it is only feelings based you do not need to get married. That doesn't make the feelings real again. For younger women reading this thread, look at the woman who are saying Marry for love. Then, go back through my mum's net and look at what happens to those women. You get into a relationship for love. You get married with your eyes open. Don't be pathetic Don't be a walkover and don't be a passive participant in your own life. Older generations of women have made serious mistakes. You do not want to be a forty five year old woman who has not worked for ten to fifteen years.Who is about to get divorced as someone earlier has said?Unless you have married a millionaire who for some reason hasn't protected their assets at all.You will suffer a loss.

Your just picking now.
Its about a pre-nup.
I added an opinion like the rest move on.

I think you need to look at the state of that tortuous post, before you accuse of others of being "poorly educated"!

No, I don't you read a very long rambling post in detail to make a sarcastic comment? you are the definition of weak and I believe that young women need to be protected from women like you. Getting the wrong advice from an older woman is one of the most destructive events that can trigger poor outcomes for a younger woman. I am hoping mum's net is a place where women truly want the next generation of women to do better than them. You do not entrust your financial life to anyone. You are in a relationship because you love and respect your partner. NotbBecause you think they should owe you that doesn't work. Di not marry for money, it doesn't make sense.

Honestly, when I read this post, I feel that a lot of these women are predatory and their dishonest will be in A. Terrible situation have witnessed their friends in this terrible situation. And still say you should marry for love.You should definitely not enter into a contract for feelings.

Eh? Plus I'm mid 40s I'm not that bloody old! My job is on a par to my DH's, where did I state you should, "entrust your financial life" ? You have some pretzel logic there!

Your points are incoherent.

I am also mid 40I am definitely old now. I am very much old. My body hurts. I get angry for no reason. And I fight on forums, we are old.That's one thing that we can safely be together

Speak for yourself!

posts are perfectly coherent? If you are not able to engage with the content, don't try and gaslight.It's unbecoming. Again, public service announcement to young women. Make sure you are financially stable. Don't rely on someone else to provide you with stability when you go into a marriage. As a woman, you will have a period of physical vulnerability. If you decide to have children, it's imperative before you get married. You understand what your finance will look like. When you are in that specific position, you need to make sure your partner knows they will have to make pension contributions for you. They will have to make sure that you have enough money in your account each month. All of these are easy conversations. If the person you want to marry doesn't want to have these conversations, do not marry them. Read flag If you are in a relationship with a wealthy person and they ask for a preanup, and you yourself are not wealthy, that is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't mean anything about you. It doesn't mean anything about their love for you. They're just not stupid. It's a contract.

And finally be confident in yourself to negotiate an excellent prenup.What a lot of women have been trying to tell the original poster is actually a well negotiated.Prenup would leave you in a better position potentially than if you didn't sign one at all.

You’re forcing this man to marry you after two years. Maybe if you let him realise he loves you enough to propose and plan a proposal and not feel forced or threatened, he would be more romantic about things.

But you’ve made it clear you don’t trust him financially in the event of a break up if you have children and now feel sick because he’s expressed similar concerns about being able to trust you financially in the event of a break up with his business?

Just break up already, clearly neither of you actually want to be in the relationship, you’re there for convenience and transaction only

And I agree with the above the man sounds weak. This is going to sound a bit crazy, bearing on all my other posts, but seriously, if he's trying to kind of mentally get you into the frame of mind that suggests he wants to be less committed. But you are the one driving it that is a very normal trick that weak-willed men use to abdicate responsibility for their own choices. I just don't trust people like that. Especially not adults, because it's something a child does. I would say to the op on the other side of things.There are bad signs about this.You're not wrong.

But marriage shouldn't be a leap of faith, OP (and you're in for a world of trouble if you think it should); it's a financial contract. Which you yourself alluded to, when you told your other half you wanted the legal protection of marriage before you'd have children.

Your fiance is being very sensible. Over 40% of UK marriages end in divorce. If you can't honestly discuss finances and your future as adults now, you'll never be able to. If these sorts of conversations make you uncomfortable, you may not be as ready for marriage as you think you are.

We can be both charming and loving and engage in discussions and agreements about money. Nothing unromantic about a fair contract!

Mr Darcy paid a wodge of cash to the disgusting Mr Wickham, twice, for the sake of his sister and the sister of the woman he loved. Both times with legal type agreements. Then he shared Pemberley.

Cormoran Strike made Robin a partner in the detective agency.

fictional men are often better than real ones, but I did find one of this ilk, and married him! the other day he cheerfully informed me that due to his new job and insurance policy that came with it he was now worth more than before to me and the DC upon his death.

I don't think a pre-nup is the language of love but each to their own. Discussions of money in a marriage are not the same thing.

That there's a contract at all is totally unromantic!

Hmm. Maybe it's marriage that's unromantic! 🤔

There is so much wrong with this work of fiction that it’s difficult to know where to start. First off, why would Dave, the founder and owner of the business, commit to an equity restructuring which gave him only income and no capital? He would not. Even a private equity deal would not involve that

It wasn’t a PE deal . It was a deal within his family to protect him in the divorce.

Secondly, Dave would not get 50/50 of Aqua’s assets because assets are divided according to need (in the absence of a pre-nup) and she would need to house herself in suitable housing for her and the 2 kids

There WAS a pre nup, that’s the point of this thread. The assets WERE divided by need, they both got 50:50, which is the starting point in Uk divorce laws . Aquea was the bigger earner on paper AND she has savings and a pension, unlike poor Dave who had none ( that could be found ). She had enough earnings to buy a flat for her and their children - what’s not suitable about that ? Dave also needs accommodation for himself and his pregnant GF.

Thirdly, it’s unclear on what basis Debbie could receive £250k a year, unless that in fact reflected a combination of (a) her fair market salary and (b) the dividends payable pari passu to all other shareholders of her class of share.

Debbie is the only person who owns that class of shares. It’s 50k salary and 200k dividends .

With profits of £500k a year, it is highly unlikely that a single shareholder could receive half of the company profits, especially given that in the fantasy scenario where Dave has chosen to receive only income and give up his capital in the company he founded, he would be unlikely to be a director any more and would therefore have no role to play in determining what proportion of profits were paid as dividends and what proportion invested back into the company

Of course one shareholder can get half the profits , she owns half the company! This is a small family business , it’s not Listed company with institutional shareholders. There are many small companies where one person take ALL the profits .

Dave is still a director . His shares have full voting rights, just no right to capital.

Even if he were still a director, there would be at least one other director who would be unlikely to vote on a resolution to pay Debbie half the annual profits, since doing so would be in dereliction of his or her fiduciary duties to the company

Yes , there’s two other directors, his parents. They have happy to give Debbie half the profits, that’s the deal they made with their son. Debbie owns half the company. The company is doing fine , they can afford to pay out these dividends.

In addition, it would be unfairly prejudicial to other shareholders and could found a derivative claim by another shareholder or shareholders on behalf of the company

There are no other shareholders, it’s a small family business. There’s just Dave, Debbie and his parents . When his parents die, they will leave their shares to Dave, they can’t be held by anyone outside the family .

Of course it can and does happen. I’ve seen it . You don’t seem to undertand the potential for manipulating income in small family companies. .

Ask the CMS why so many directors of profitable companies suddenly earn £24,000 / year as soon as they are liable for child support. And why so many self employed tradesmen earn £9000/ year.

Well if you’d rather ignore facts and neglect your financial wellbeing in favour of the idea of romance that’s entirely up to you, but I’m not sure why anyone would take such a foolish approach. It’s not robotic or charmless, it’s sensible. You on the other hand sound like you’re away with the fairies.

I mean I actually don't take that as an insult, at least fairies are romantic!

My point was that if PE investors wouldn’t require that, then nor would his own family.

Perhaps you’re approaching this on the assumption that a restructure such as you propose would be reversible by the husband post-divorce. It wouldn’t be. Once equity capital is restructured, the new owners of each share class own those shares. Perhaps your hypothesis is that post-divorce, everyone would just agree to put the shares back how they were before? That would be evident from required filings with Companies House and it would therefore be evidence that this was a mechanism in place for the divorce. That would enable the OP to return to court with this evidence and have the financial order overturned.

You might write a good screenplay, but this is not a real life scenario.