DH has reneged on post nup he had promised (pre marriage) he would enter into to protect family inheritance

[mamato3rascals]

Before we got married c 8 years ago, I had said to my DH (financè at the time) that I’d want a pre nup to protect a significant family business, and other inherited assets, that would likely be passed down to me. The value of the inheritance will be significant and so with my sensible hat on I am keen to protect that in any way I can.

For a number of reasons that prenup wasn’t entered into before we married, but he discussed with my Dad and gave him his word (and he did likewise with me) that he’d enter into it in future before any interest passed to me as part of the family’s estate planning. This has been looming a while but we are now at the time where this needs sorting. I have tried and tried to speak to my DH but he is always busy (though I am the main breadwinner, by some way…), explains his fear that I’ll take the family house off him (the post nup leaves the entire family home to him exclusively - valued at £900k and minimal mortgage) and leaves me with a small property rental and ensures that any interest in the family’s wealth remains my asset).

He is so apprehensive about entering into it that he called my dad outright a couple of weeks ago and asked him what he was expecting my DH to do. This is something I’m driving because (a) we are in a bad place and have been for a few years and (b) I can’t bury my head any more and need this sorted. My father was cross at the phone call as he was caught off guard, and on reflection why such reluctance now to discuss with Dad - when he left it years ago on the basis he’d sign something.

He won’t discuss it with me, when I go into his office at night to ask whether he will engage with me on it he tells me to get out, he is exhausted and doesn’t have time to talk about it let alone look for a solicitor that will advise him on it (I’ll pay all of those fees) and ends up putting noise cancelling headphones on with music blaring until I go out. If I stay there he says that he will lock his office door so he is left in peace.

I am at my wits end and had always said to myself that I can put up with his treatment at home (the above being an example) but am so concerned that this is the final nail in the coffin of my marriage (3 young DC under 7, one of which is extremely anxious and constantly worried so I don’t know what a separation would do to her).

If I were to bring our divorce papers I am almost certain he would start to engage - but what concerns me is these post nups are only valid for 5 years and need to be kept under review every 5 years. If he won’t engage now then god help me in 5 years’ time again.

Please be kind as I am worried sick but appreciate any advice. I’ve even considered initiating a divorce for purely financial separation whilst continuing to live long term under the same roof - I am willing to give the marriage everything I have got but the financial worry I am carrying is killing me. I think he expects that he will fail to engage and it will all go away because I’ll get bored of chasing him but fundamentally this is such a U turn from what he promised me before we got married that I am not sure I could ever get over it.

Every time someone has marriage issues, someone always says the man is having an affair. 🙄🙄 Because presumably all these husbands are irresistible 🤷‍♀️

Ok, I'm amazed you didn't sort this before marriage but now... this seems like the best plan.

If OP is in England then it wouldn’t make any difference legally

Not clear what you’re implying but it depends. Yes Inheritance is classed as a non-matrimonial asset in the UK but if it’s mingled with matrimonial assets or there a dependent it’s less clear. Divorce is the cleanest option to protect the inheritance and he sounds like he deserves it.

What a stupid statement. I'm male, my female partner out-earns me, and I couldn't be happier as it means more money to add to our combined wealth.

Your marriage is already dead, I was in his shoes I would go for divorce and aim for more than 50% of everything and definitely not be pressured into signing anything

Thankfully I don’t see him getting more than 50%. But why would you even aim for that
if you were him?

They both work and he earns less and doesn’t do childcare/housework. Clearly the wife in this situation has brought more to the marriage.

Based on this it’s likely she will have equal if not majority custody of the kids.

Does that sound fair to you for a man like that to work away with more than 50%?

He sounds quite shit but if he has a grain of decency left he will at least not try and grab over half of everything from his wife.

That’s great and there are many men like you, but also tbf there are many men who do react badly to it.

why do you think that, divorce settlement starts at 50/50 and the laws are to protect the financial weaker partner ( clearly him ) , he should be easily able to make a case for a an absolute minimum of 50/50 of the assets and a chunk of her pension, if he wants kids weekends he will need a home suitable etc

and it’s not grabbing over half of everything from his wife - it’s he is entitled to in law, she is able to make up losses from her higher earnings

As you are discovering, his word is not legally binding, you were silly to act like it was. Your father will need to set up some sort of trust and needs to discuss this with his financial advisor because your H probably was never going to sign anything anyway.

I can not believe you accepted his word.

I’m talking about pre- and post-nups not being binding.

50/50 is not over half. You said you hope he aims for over half.

My point was it is unethical for a man who has contributed so little in a marriage to go for over half. Even if it’s legal it’s still unethical.

50/50 isn’t having kids at weekends btw, it is having them 50% of the time which should include some weekdays.

But in his case - someone who doesn’t do childcare/housework - shouldn’t suddenly be wanting the kids for half the time. And if he does - clearly it’s just for his own financial purposes.

Only someone with his kind of morals would endorse and celebrate a man of his sort going for over half.

Anyway, it looks like Op - if she has any sense - will divorce before the inheritance. So at least he won’t be getting his hands on that and that’s the main thing she’s worried about.

She needs to stop letting him use the kids as a weapon as that ultimately harms the kids for life - and crack on with it regardless.

@mamato3rascals have you made any progress?

Haven’t read all the replies, apologies if I’m repeating. The bottom line is you don’t have a prenup….you both need to see a solicitor for advice…you need to divorce now as the inheritance hasn’t happened.

i know you’re struggling to get him to see a solicitor but you can start the ball rolling by seeing yours. Your solicitors can work out agreements that won’t touch if affect your future assets (but that might cost you, by as far as I’m aware you’re happy with him having a 990k house etc)

Yeah I know they can’t turn the clock back and what’s done is done and all of that, but I don’t understand it why they relied on his word.

And I also am curious to know when the marriage got so bad because they’ve got young kids.

Correction : I’ve just realised you didn’t say he wants the kids 50/50. You said he might want them weekends. Still, I don’t know if r what sounds like a mediocre father will even want them on weekends. Maybe EOW.

If he genuinely wants to take over half in these circumstances given how little he has contributed and the fact she will be the main custodial parent legal or not - it’s a poor show. Still unethical and further proof of his shit character.

I'd be arguing an estoppel: you only agreed to marry on the basis of his agreement re the inheritance etc.. You relief on his promise to your detriment.

Why is it unethical?
women are always told exactly the same on this forum, go for more than 50% of the assets and a chuck of the pension especially if they in the weaker financial position , as this man is - he might not have his kids 50/50 but even if at weekends he needs to be able to have enough room for suitable accommodation and sleeping arrangements, so yes he should go for at least 50% of the martial assets as a minimum ( as any half decent solicitor would advise him as well )
any short term losses the OP has she will be able to recover via her extra earning income , that just fair and balanced in law and life

I think that’s a misapprehension. They are not binding like a contract but since the 2010 House of Lords ruling courts will generally uphold them if fair and freely entered into. Now that might be an issue here if the threat of divorce is used as a lever… overall this husband has really done wrong and it’s going to be messy. Pro legal advice def needed.

Normally, the split of assets is 50/50 but if the wife has been disadvanted financially throughout the marriage due to taking maternity leave and/or going part-time to juggle work with care for the children, that may be taken into consideration when deciding the split of the assets.

OP has said:

'He doesn’t do any housework nor childcare. Refuses to take time off for the kids during school holidays so I get by with help from my parents and I take 1-2 days per week off during summer holidays to save on constant childcare and clubs - he refuses to take one of those days and tells me to put them in clubs (which I pay for given higher £). He doesn’t do the housework - I have a cleaner.'

He hasn't been held back career-wise due to becoming a father as OP still does all the wife-work and care for the children, despite OP having a more responsible job and being the higher earner.

His contributions to family life, both financial and as a father and husband are pitiful. It would be a travesty if he was awarded more in the divorce settlement than OP.

"Reacting badly" is probably an overstatement, but saying "They will go all out to sabotage her and take her money from her" is absurd.

What evidence do you have for this, beyond "it once happened to a friend"?

You need to divorce him, potential future inheritance will be disregarded
stupid him, you were willing to give him the full house value, in FFS proceedings he will be awarded a percentage of current assets

Why would it be a travesty?
this is exactly what happens now, divorce laws are set up to ensure the financial weaker person is protected ( commonly the woman as women often end up with 70/30 or 60/40 splits as they have given up work etc )
but in this case the woman outerns the man ( double I think is said ) and probably has better pension provisions

you might not like it - but he should get the larger portion of the settlement as he is the financially weaker person

and this will probably continue as well - it’s now not uncommon for wives to out-earn their husbands - so if those marriages end it will he the men who should be 60/40 or 70/30 split especially if child care goes 50/50
divorce settlements are not gendered

Why marry someone if you think the marriage won't survive and why have children. Your dh be stupid to sign it now. I thought pre nups weren't legal in the UK.

Because most marriages don’t survive. That’s just a fact.

And yes, pre and post nups aren’t binding, they are just an indication of wishes

Exactly this. As I’ve said multiple times on here in my responses it’s the fact he’s brought so little to the marriage - plus he will probably not have the kids for half let alone the majority of the time after a split.

Some people are so stuck on making the “if it was a woman” argument even when it’s a false equivalence.