Should I let DP take a share in the house?

[Minki]

DP and I are getting married next month. He has 2 kids aged 11 and 8 and I have 2 boys aged 6 and 4. We don't yet live together. We will be having a pre-nup at my request because there is a lot of equity in my house, which DP and his kids will move into at some point, and I earn significantly more than DP. I got badly burnt in my divorce last year (after my ex had an affair and left us) and spent 30k on solicitors and court proceedings trying to stay in the house so I want to do everything possible to protect myself and the boys and to have peace of mind if things to go wrong. My solicitor has told me that getting re-married is a big risk as pre-nups are not necessarily enforceable and my partner could make a claim on my assets, including on the house. Things are further complicated because my ex still has an interest in the house which is repayable if I do re-marry. That said, I love DP and I want to build a life with him, including by getting married. My solicitor has said that if I must re-marry then to keep everthing separate, i.e. do not let him take a share in the house unless he makes a capital contributions. This creates a couple of problems. First of all, we need capital to pay off my ex who could otherwise apply for an order for sale if we don't repay him. DP was going to sell his house and we would use the proceeds to re-pay my ex and give DP a commensurate share in the property going forward (which will only be around 4% in any event). In addition, DP does not want to pay rent to me and says if he is paying money to live somewhere he wants it to count towards something. My solicitor countered this by saying that DP would need to pay to live somewhere anyway. In addition, I am broke and have very little money to live in so it would make sense to let him pay a share (probably only a 1/3rd share ) of the mortgagae going forward and to split the bills with him. Everyone benefits as DP gets an investment interest plus a bigger property where his kids will get a room each and I start saving a lot on living costs as I really cannot continue the way things are now. The catch is that my solicitor says that I am crazy to give DP an interest in the house, legal or equitable. Who is right and what should I do to protect myself? Bottom line is that I want to stay in the house in the event we split and I want to leave my share of the equity to my kids, all of which is covered in the pre-nup. DP would pay in capital which would give him a 4% interest and pay 1/3rd of the mortgage going forward (I would keep all equity up to the point he starts paying then we split the share 2/3rds to 1/3rd.

I know it seems odd but I think it's because we don't live together than it has become even more important as we somehow want to be together "officially" as it always feels like we are pulled in different directions, he with his kids and me with mine. I do believe in marriage and I really love him and we both saw it as the start of a new life together, with lots of work to be done of course, but it would give us a framework within which to do that.

Getting married before you have lived together is utterly bonkers. Especially when you both have children.

It makes no sense.

It jeopardises your financial security.

You don't want to hear this, you want to hear "what a lovely way to bond yourselves together! That pre nup will be water tight! Go ahead!"

You are not listening to everyone's advice.

Good luck.

Don't worry MN will be here to pick up the pieces when your latest husband takes you to the cleaners. Your choice if you name change first.

PS I know it sounds cynical when you are in love but your house is worth 1.4 million and you earn 3x his salary. What does he see in you? Why goes he want to marry you so quickly?

What is the rush?

I know i am being extremely optimistic here but I don't think that I am that insane in thinking a pre-nup will give some protection, at least in the early years when the risk of a brea-up (due to the blending of families etc) is greatest. My solicitor says there is a 95% chance of it being enforced in the early years, less over time. Is getting married after 3 years together a rush?

Also, what happens if you can't live together as a blended family? Do you break up or just decide to live separately?

Under the circs, you would be mad to marry or cohabit. Prenups aren't worth the paper they are written on other to show intent. Do you want to be the test case and have the legal costs associated with it?

Options
a) ignore the professional you are paying and all of mumsnet and put your financial security at risk and get married
b) wait until you get the cash together to pay off the EX and then cohabit. See how that goes, then revisit whether or not you are prepared to accept the risk. I'd say about 8 yrs into cohabitation so quite a while off
c) Put your house in trust for your kids giving yourself a right to live in it during your lifetime. I don't know how this works but a mate had an extremely messy divorce, went to all the ends of the earth to financially be able to keep the house is still paying off the mortgage and this is what he did before he remarried. No idea what happens to wife 2 and their two children if they divorce but I don't think the house is considered to be a marital asset.

I think the stony broke thing is very important. I had a high income when we divorced (although only over £1m of debt as he got all the money and no savings as he got our life savings and all my shares). In your case you may need him to pay towards the mortgage. But can't you do that without marriage? he can have his interest in the house 2% or whatever % you both think is fair. As soon as you marry he gets all these new huge extra rights perhaps even to over half the equity in the house which could be over £1m of the kind of sum my lower earner spouse got on my divorce.

Most charges the ex has are triggered by cohabitation - yet another reason to live apart. He could do what my children's father did which is pay towards your family - my ex paid his girl friend's school fees even as have 3 men I know - they have a girl friend and they pay her expenses and child's school fees even without moving in. You can be Mr Generosity to someone you love (or Miss Generosity) without having to share smelly socks and have the daily grind of one parent criticising the children and parenting of the other which is often the sole result of moving in a man who has children.

[ Caveat - we all know couple who remarry and live very happily forever of course so you may never part - let us all not be too negative.I just don't see why marriage cannot wait for 2 or 3 years even if he moves in just to see how things go. Most of us are hardly recovered from a divorce after a year. Do the children want him moving in and his children around? Most don't.]

Thanks Itismy and tread softly. I know it is all good advice but I think I am going to marry him anyway, taking every other precaution possible including pre-nup and separation of assets etc. Yes there is still a risk but I love him and want to build a life with him and I think there has to be a tiny amount of trust that he is not doing to dispute the agreement. He may but he will have an uphill struggle. And I know the whole set-up is unconventional with us not living together first but it just hasn't been possible for a number of reasons including kids going to different schools.

Ridiculous. Do you know how many times you have written 'build a life together' in this thread? Marriage is not the first brick in that life. There are many foundations that should be laid before marriage and even then in your situation I would hold back. You're taking a huge risk.

Oh well your kids future you're risking not mine.

Entering into the pre nup (make sure both of you have separate lawyers for it or it will be invalid and make sure it is entered into at least 1 month ideally 3 before the wedding - your lawyers can tell you all this) is better than some people manage and clarity over who owns what in writing and who pays what.

A massive issue new partners argue over is school fees if your child does go at 11 to a private school so do make sure that is fully aired and how it will feel that his children don't go to fee paying schools and yours will. Also make sure it's very clear if you will always work full time until retirement age or whether you or indeed he plans to retire early or give up work and just live off the other.

Also check he is not one of those male sexist slobs who expect women to do more than men around the house. Ask him if he wants to do all the family washing or all the family cooking and food shopping (his choice, one or the other) as part of your due diligence over his feminist credentials.

I think for most women the most important thing of all is not money but if the child wants that man living in their house. It's easy if your brain is demented with love to think everyone must be really pleased for you but the children are key to it. Think how and whether their lives will be improved by him being around - he might be lovely to play with or read stories to them for hours or buy them expensive things or whatever but they will need something.

PS I know it sounds cynical when you are in love but your house is worth 1.4 million and you earn 3x his salary.

Would you say that if the genders were reversed?

I think there has to be a tiny amount of trust that he is not doing to dispute the agreement.

It might not be up to you or him. If you divorce and a judge doesn't deem the financial remedy as fair they won't sign it off and tell you to go back and rethink.

I would say exactly what your lawyer said: Don't marry him. Not right now. You're not planning to move in together right now anyway, so nothing will force the repayment at the moment.

In regards to your DP helping towards the mortgage, does your lender allow this?
Most lenders will not allow someone to contribute to repayments if they are not on the mortgage.

Right, I risk outing myself here, but I got married (despite reservations) when we did not live together. It was important to xH to be married as I was pregnant, and it turned out he was something of a controlling person. For professional reasons, we lived in separate places, and my dc from previous marriage was in school here. He also had dc from a previous marriage.

There were other issues in the relationship, so I am not going to project too much, but essentially the relationship worked when we were living apart because we were living apart. He could concentrate on his career, come and go as he wished, and generally carry on much as before. For this reason, being a non-resident parent also seems to work better for him.

I am not going to discuss the financial risks, but for the dc, there are enormous emotional risks. You are talking quite cavalierly about the pre-nup being enforceable if you break up early in the marriage. What happens to the dc when they have been living with other dc as step-family and then their step-siblings are no longer there? It is not like a first marriage when dc stay together; 2 dc are going to go one way, and 2 dc another. The scenario gets worse if you add a baby to the mix.

Now you could say this issue is there even if you don't marry. But marriage suggests permanence to dc; and also, if there is conflict over assets, you are less likely to be able to sort child issues dispassionately. We were not even arguing over assets, but xH used the relationship with his dc/my dc as a way of maintaining control, to the extent that I felt the best thing was to quite simply keep my dc out of it. And throughout, that has been the very hardest bit. But the whole thing has been very damaging.

Obviously, this is personal, and I am debating posting it as you are clearly going ahead anyway. I would not do it again, but then the experience has put me off bringing anyone into dc life again. I would really be questioning why the question of marriage right now is so important.

I did know a man ( with 3 divorces behind him - paid for breast enlargement surgery for each of the women although that's another story..... he had a thing about it) who had to pay school fees for his step child after they broke up as that child had become a child he lived with, a child of the family. It was Millfield too x 2 places so quite an expensive risk and you might have thought the children's parents might have paid instead but no - he was held to have supported them whilst they lived with him. So if you move in the new husband and as you earn more help pay towards his children do be aware that if you spilt up you may continue to have some financial responsibilities towards his chidlren if you take any on when they live with you.

I accept the point of the person above mentioning gender reversal. I think that is equally unfair. Why should someone get a massive share of the proceeds of a London house because they gave a spouse a bit of sex and some company for a few years? (No new babies, both work, no career sacrifice). That is English law and I think it is unfair mostly on men but sometimes on women (my position). As more and more women earn more than their men it will continue to be an issue for women (and always has been for men). I am talking here about where neither side gives up work or scales back work and there are no babies. It still usually a 50/50 split unless you split up pretty quickly and even there people can get millions.

Is your dp taking independent legal advise about this prenup? You don't mention what his solicitor thinks. It is much more likely to be held up in court if he had legal advise as well. I can certainly understand him not wanting to pay you rent and if he is contributing financially or otherwise to the marriage then he should acquire a share of any future marital assets. If you are seeking to protect your current assets then the prenup should protect his too. If he is selling his house and contributing to your house without any return then he is putting himself and his children in a vulnerable position should you split.

However understandable, I think this is a sad way to start a marriage.

Actually, that is a really good point, Bilberry, the DP is selling his house to put the money to OP's house (as she is broke) and if they split up, will no doubt have to take this through legal channels to recover his money and divorce, which is expensive. He is right to say he wants some share if he contributes, if he is giving up his own house. I would have thought he needs independent legal advice here too, and it is not clear if he has had that.

Hi both. Yes, DP has had independent legal advice (which is essential to the pre-nup being enforceable) and whatever he puts in he will get out if we split. The point is that I have net assets of around 800k (equity in the house, pension etc) and I earn 120k p.a compared to his assets of 50k and salary of 45k, so I stand to lose a LOT more if the pre-nup does not stand up. My worry is that whatever he is saying now, he could try to claim more. From what my solicitor is saying DP stands a much better chance of claiming more IF I allow him to put money into the house to contribute towards the mortgage so I am better off now allowing this. When I say I am broke, I earn a good salary and in the long term should be able to pay off my debts once my youngest goes to school in September and I stop paying £500 per week on childcare. My ex reduced his maintenance and the money I spend on childcare eats into the money that I have to live on each month. I can cover mortgage, bills, childcare etc but then only have about £400 left for food, clothes etc which is not enough so I ended up getting in debt. This should change very soon as I change my childcare and get an au-pair instead of a nanny once my little one goes to school. Thanks to whoever suggested a lodger - not a bad idea at all but think I will try the au-pair first as it will still be a massive saving. I know everyone thinks I am crazy but I am still intending to marry this man at the end of the month. Yes, there are risks but you have to take some risks in life. Yes the financial side is a worry but he has given a huge amount to me and my kids and having him in our lives has made them better in so many ways. I know that doesn't mean I have to marry him but we both want to make that commitment to each other. I did actually ask him why we had not managed to live together and for us it is really clear that it just hasn't been possible so far and that we want to focus on our relationship first and then address living together as and when that feels right. It's the living together and blending families that will cause most disruption and upset and we need to take time in getting it right. I am honestly in no rush to all move in together/blend families but happy to defer this until we all feel ready. It would also be extremely hard for him to make a claim on a property he is not even living in in the event that we do split.

Chunderella, my solicitor (who is very good!) did advise that. I think they are increasingly enforceable and the courts tend to enforce them unless obviously unfair. I know there are no guarantees but are there ever in life?