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 old are you ? As in do you have time for children if you split with this man

I do get the pre nup due to his business but I also thought these didn’t stand up in court

those who have money /property /business do need to protect their assets

maybe add in it that if he’s unfaithful you get x amount

@N0Tfunnyalso, you talk about Debbie having a preferential class of shares, and Dave having given up his right to capital but retaining right to income (i.e. from dividends) but you also say that Debbie is now the only shareholder. If Debbie were the only shareholder then (a) there would only be one class of share, and (b) Dave’s only right to “income” would be as an employee, because he wouldn’t own any shares.

Apart from the serious unlikelihood that anyone (man or woman) would sign over all their shares in the company they own to a new partner in the process of divorcing the previous wife they had never given any shares to, your example which involves family members investing their own money for “shares” but then the new gf is the only shareholder, is nonsense. No one throws money into someone else’s divorce so that their new gf can walk off with it.

I say this only to illustrate to anyone who may read this thread, that this bizarre proposed possible “outcome” is not a reason not to consider agreeing the terms of a prenup.

This thread is so informative serious no sarcasm I

You misread my post. I said Debbie is the only shareholder with that class of shares. I said clearly that there are 4 shareholders - Dave, Debbie and his parents .

Dave hasn’t “signed over” his shares , there has been an issue of new shares with changed rights assigned to each class.

Debbie isn’t his new partner, they have been having an affair for years. they are getting married as soon as the divorce goes through .

He didn’t give her the shares, that would potentially be a breach of the settlements rules. He gave her money ( which he borrowed on personal credit cards that Aquea paid off ) and Debbie invested in the business and got a different class of shares in return.

The fact that you think this is bizarre or unusual is troubling . I notice you ignore my point about Cms. There are ten of thousands of non resident parents ( nearly all fathers ) manipulating their income to avoid supporting their own children .

Divorce court are full of wealthy men hiding their assets.

You don’t seem to understand much about how share issues work. For any company to issue new shares to an “investor”, the investor has to actually invest money AND there has to be a resolution passed to issue those shares. Commonly, existing shareholders will not vote in favour of this resolution because it will dilute their own shareholding. Your hypothetical scenario is preposterous and would never happen.

But this isn’t a public or large proprietary company; Dave’s parents are the only other shareholders; they never liked his wife and they think Debbie is just lovely. Their golden boy can do no wrong so they’re happy to support the change to the share structure.

Hiding assets in the name of a new partner, a friend or a family member is common.

I’m familiar with the distinction between a listed company and a privately owned company. No shareholder - whether they are another shareholder’s parent or not - would voluntarily agree to have their shareholding diluted substantially in favour of another, just like they wouldn’t give away their house or any other valuable asset to a new girlfriend. It’s just a ridiculous hypothesis and would not happen.

I respect your opinion and am not suggesting you don’t know the difference between public and proprietary, but family law cases show that it does happen. I’m not in England, but in my jurisdiction there are clawback provisions in the relevant legislation to address such situations.

The courts in England and Wales have the powers to set aside any transaction intended to remove assets from the equation.

@prh47bridge when I was checking my facts, not being an expert, I found a case in my jurisdiction where the disposal of a house to another family member from 18 YEARS before the divorce was subject to clawback. There were additional factors of fraud etc, but aren’t there always 🤷🏻‍♀️