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.

Also, my DCs adore him and his children and vice versa and they all can't wait to move in. DP has been around my DCs enough for me to be very confident that him moving him would not be an issue. His DCs moving in is a different story and will no doubt lead to a host of issues/tensions which I can't even start thinking about (bad sign?). I guess the other main issue I am forgetting is that remarrying will trigger repayment on the charge and how I will fund that if I don't let DP contribute.

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?

I think that if he contributes into a household but gets little out of it then it is unfair.

I know of a few cases recently where there were pre nups that were thought of as water tight and wouldn't be questioned. The judge dismissed them.

I am also very suprised at the 95% stated.

Also has the pre nup been signed and sealed because with only a couple if weeks to go before the wedding at the end of the month I think you are on really sticky ground.

Yes, Chunderella, he really did. I am not making this up! Earthwind, we have both been advised that we need to enter into the pre-nup 3 weeks / 21 days before the wedding. We are being advised by top notch firms so I don't think we need to question the legal advice. Earthwind, what are the names of the cases you mention and in which courts as I would be really interested to check. Also, the pre-nup says that DP would get out exactly what he puts in. i.e. that if he pay a % towards the mortgage, he gets a beneficial interest in the same amount.

I don't see how that is unfair. If he pays 1/3 of the mortgage, he gets a 1/3 interest going forward, with me keeping the equity up to the point he buys in. Anything else would surely be unfair, e.g. if I am paying 2/3rds but get a lesser interest. He will not be taking on any childcare or other household responsibilities and vice versa.

But you are questioning your legal advice because you have been told that getting married is a big risk. If you take that risk you need to accept, as you have also been advised that your pre nup may not be enforceable. They are dependent on so many differentiating factors, just like every other financial remedy hearings in divorce.

I do think it is unfair and I also think people would be up in arms if the roles were reversed. Just because someone doesn't give the same financially it doesn't mean that they aren't contributing more elsewhere in other ways.

If you really want to get married then that is a risk you have to be willing to take.

Why do you think it's unfair Earthwind? He works half the amount I do and is off all over the summer with his kids whilst I am slaving away 12 hours a day in an office. His choice to work less and spend more time with his kids. My "choice" to work full time and have less time with kids but more income which I want to put towards the mortgage. He would not be contributing in any other financial ways, e.g. doing childcare etc. Why do you think he should be entitled to more? I wouldn't expect to anything from him or anyone else from the matter. The gender stereotypes are irrelevant here. I have always supported myself and never relied on a man to pay for my or my kids and expect the same from a partner. I am not a meal ticket and I hope neither of us are doing it for financial reasons.

I think it is unfair as you are expecting him to help you to pay off your ex.

You could say it's a SAHP 'choice' to not take up paid employment or only work part time.

Once you are married you are a partnership aswell as individuals. Finances should be shared.

If he really is never going to look after your children or be responsible for them or do a greater share of housework/cooking/DIY then fair enough but in reality this may not happen.

But Earthwind I said already that any financial contribution will of course be recognised. I agree with you about shared finances/SAHP IF it a first marriage. What we do around the house is surely irrelevant. We will share household tasks but I am pretty sure I will end up picking up most of the costs.

Are you the same poster who posted on the Stepparent board and everyone said,

FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY DON'T MARRY HIM!!!!

Apart from the legals I suggest you sit down together at a calm time and write down clearly what you both expect from the marriage ie private schooling for some children but not others, who pays for what, who washes what, who cares for children at what times etc. Then you can be really clear and have a benchmark to keep up to on both sides.

Good luck and I hope it all works out for you.

What we do around the house is surely irrelevant.

Not when it comes to separation or divorce it isn't.

Rather than pre nup, what about deed of trust ie you ring fence your assets. Also it wouldn't just be a third(which you could afford now) but what about 10 years down the line when your property as gone up in price. Plus nobody knows what's round the corner, at least you have your own house for you and DC .

Having a relationship with somebody and actually living with them is miles apart!!!!
You don't really get to know somebody till you actually live with them

Have you had any say stay over weekends? All in one house, all children together. The more you do this the more you will get an idea what it's like living together
Have you all been on holiday together for week? How much time do all children have together?

There is no need to be married to show that you love your DP, don't be talked into this.

Listen to your solicitor, not your DP

Good luck. You'll probably need it. It's very unwise to get married under these circs.

Does your DP pay his ex maintenance? Have you worked out what will happen if his maintenance increases? Did he get a clean break in his divorce?

The children are excited because they are caught up with your enthusiasm. They have no real understanding of the reality that their home, their toys, family money and above all else, their parents, will have to be shared permanently with their future step siblings.

I think you could be making a huge mistake if you rush into this marriage.

I'd drop you Solicitor an email asking him to confirm the 95% thing
This will either reveal that you have misremembered what he said
Or will come in useful if you ever need to complain about bad advice

( Slow down OP, move in together for a year or so first)

I am shocked that having spent £30k trying to get rid of your ex you are prepared to marry again when you don't need to and against all advice!

I agree with MadonnaKebab. I mentioned this situation to a RL friend who's a solicitor, who immediately said, "No solicitor worth his salt would be giving the client a percentage number like that, especially since the percentages are all wrong in this case." OP, you may have misremembered, or you may have received bad legal advice. Just because someone works at a prestigious firm does not necessarily mean they're a wonderful solicitor who never ever makes mistakes.

LisaMed

Yes, it is the same OP from MN Step-parenting.

This is MN Legal, therefore contributors to this thread may not understand the background to this relationship: it is a

financial, legal and familial car crash waiting to happen.

Minki, as LisaM points out, everyone said not to marry him for reasons other than finances. You will unfortunately end up paying financially.

If you are doing it partly because you are finding things difficult with regards to money at the moment, would you consider selling and downsizing?

From your first post, everyone is saying the same thing.

If you are who I think you are from other posts, there's also a lot of other things to consider- a partner who is not happy that your children go to an expensive school and his don't, a partner who wants your children to lose their bedrooms so his don't get the smaller rooms, a partner who even during the honeymoon period is letting you know that his idea of what he's entitled to is as much as he can get.

You seem to be entrusting your children's future to hopeful thinking while ignoring the signs of what's to come.

I hope you do have your solicitor's advice in sitting.

I hope you don't find yourself in the situation of finding out how much more controlling your partner becomes once he is married to you (he will be) and wondering how you can split from him while continuing to pay his children's school fees and continuing to pay for their new, more expensive hobbies and all the other lifestyle costs that will occur. And deciding that you can't afford to pay him to leave.

in writing

Oh dear God. Thanks for the context, Mipmop. I already thought this was a terrible idea, but now I think it's even worse.

OP, another poster upthread suggested that you could relieve the financial pressure you're under by selling your expensive house and downsizing. I think it's a good idea. Have you considered it?

I really don't see why you are so keen to get married and co habit. It sounds like your current arrangement works well for everyone, and is without any major issues. If you get married you have already said you see issues with his DC's moving in, there is the risk of losing your equity, and the need to repay your ex. Why not carry on with him coming to yours half the week for now? The DC's will not be children for ever, so things could well change in the future, but for now it seems far more sensible to leave things as they are.