So DP lets it slip that finance is behind his reluctance to marry me

[Birkoff]

My DP was married for a long time. He has a good job, earns a good wage and his ex wife never worked a day in her life. When they divorced, she naturally took half of everything despite the fact that she never contributed a penny (his words, not mine). He admitted he was bitter about this as he feels he works "his bollocks off" for years and ended up having to give half of it away.

Anyway, we've been together coming up to 2 years now. I've always wanted marriage and he's kind of avoided the subject. At the weekend I asked him if he'd ever get married again, his reaction was "why when everything is fine as it is?" I told him I'd like to get married and he said "let's see how things go then".

Last night he made the mistake of getting drunk and admitting that he won't get married as he doesn't want to lose out financially again when it all goes tits up. Basically, he wants to make sure that if we split, I'm entitled to nothing of his.

I'm gutted. Not because I want half of everything but because I didn't see us ever breaking up and if we did, I would have hoped finances wouldn't have been his first concern.

Am I being unreasonable to be really hurt by this?

[homeaway]

Have not read through the whole thread but abroad you can have a marriage contract that states whatever assets you go into a marriage to stay yours. If you have bought a house together then you are entitled to half that if you split up.

[homeaway]

should read marriage with stays yours.

[Thisisaeuphemism]

Wrinkly, I probably would have agreed with you before I met DH and his ex. Sometimes it's true.
There's a thread right now (this is bad form, isn't it, sorry) where the guy has been dumped brutally and she wants more money - you can imagine he might talk bitterly about his ex and want to protect himself next time.

I still think, op, the question is, do you want the same things in the future?

[wrinklyraisin]

I've just read that thread. My partners ex is a little like that tbh. The sense of financial entitlement. However, she's not a complete bitch like that poster. She's not done me wrong personally. But she's hurt (and continues to hurt) my partner financially. It's tough sometimes but We are trying to maintain the moral upper hand by treating her civilly so their child isn't a pawn in some stupid game. I will say that she doesn't always afford us the same civility.

[gettingeasier]

I think once you have been through a divorce you do see things differently and realise forever may not mean forever. I can see why you are upset OP and unless you've walked in those shoes it would seem a bit calculating and unromantic

I am in a solid financial position now, past child bearing years with 2 DC . I would never cohabit with someone without an agreement in place to protect what I have for my DC and I in the future. I wouldnt ever want my finances entwined with someone else and likewise would not claim on anyone elses. This all sounds cold and business like when I read it back but to me financial security is of paramount importance.

[Blondeshavemorefun]

tbh i can understand where the op's oh is coming from - he worked hard and lost half of his income/savings

he is just trying to protect his self - my brother is very rich and if he ever got married i would expect him to get a prenup to protect him - obv if they had children he would pay but why should the new wife get 100 of 1000's if they divorce?

CogitoErgoSometimes - get a cohabitation agreement drawn up - this is what i have-i own my house (no mortgage due to dh dying last year :( and being paid off) met a new partner and we have recently moved in together - it basically says he is not entitled to any of my house if we spilt up - cost around the £1000 mark but worth it - he was more then happy to sign it, as said he loves and wants me, not my house - if your new man dithers/says no then that would ring alarm bells for me

i am just protecting myself, just as i think the op's partner is

[girlinabluedress]

Sorry, but I think that the financial issue is a red herring, if he wanted to be in a lasting relationship with you, he'd be throwing caution to the wind and asking you to marry him. Men don't think rationally enough about these things when they're smitten - even if they've been bitten before.

I have seen it happen with male friends and BIL - they swore for years that they'd never remarry/marry, giving all sorts of reasons (financial, losing independence, don't want a big fuss). But all of a sudden they meet a certain woman and they do a complete about-face.

DH took a huge financial gamble/hit when he married me - he was on a six figure salary and just about to buy a house in the SE, with a 60% deposit. Me: dependent on benefits, had a dc already, health issues not currently working. Financially it was madness for him to marry me, he'd certainly be making a loss if we ever split. But he never ever spoke of protecting himself, began to refer to all assets as 'ours' as soon as we were engaged, has always been happy to have open access to our joint finances, provides for ds as if he was his. That's how a marriage should be, regardless of the financial/earnings split. DH still thinks he's the one who's gained more out of this marriage, 'because he gets to be with me'.

I am not after DH's house or other assets, but if he'd ever said to me that if we split, he wanted to ensure I was entitled to nothing of his, it would make my blood run cold. Part of being in a lasting relationship is being a partnership, and you just don't do that to someone when you're working as a team. (And I would say that applies regardless of which gender has the most assets - I think if you're unwilling to share finances then that attitude will penetrate through each aspect of your relationship and make a difference to how close you get as a couple).

[Apocalypto]

He's being perfectly reasonable. Divorcees are more likely to get divorced, so for him to just hope it all goes better this time would be fantastically stupid.

There are many issues to do with how men fare in a divorce, but I would guess that there are two major ones. The main one is that if the man has funded his wife to stay home and parent the children, the ex-wife's claims are often couched as though by fathering children, he has done her an injury for which she needs to be compensated.

The other is that regardless of the circumstances, the divorce settlement is the same. If he discovers his wife used to be a prostitute, or is a drug addict, or is continually unfaithful, or is a serial shoplifter, if he divorces her - she still gets 50%. No other contract is like that. If a fridge salesman lies to you to sell you a fridge, the contract is voided, and you are entitled to be put back into your previous financial position. If a woman lies to a man then marries him, she still gets half of everything, or more if there are children. I believe divorce courts can even order ex-husbands into debt.

The latter is probably why the OP's bloke put up with a crap wife for so long. He could have walked, but it would have had the financial consequences it eventually did have, and he was in denial. Crap idle wives do exist, just like crap idle husbands exist, but crapness doesn't alter what either can expect from a divorce.

The law on this will not change until a few independently wealthy career women are beggared by divorce courts in the course of separating from SAHD husbands who turn out to be punters, porn fiends, serial adulterers or paedophiles. Until then, which I think is about 30 years away, men's best bet is not to marry at all, in which case women's best bet is to remain financially independent. We are already seeing both of these things happening.

[Apocalypto]

@ blondes

I think you would be excoriated on here for being so mercenary about "your" house if you were a man!

The so called Deed of Trust is a truly Orwellian term. It would more accurate to call it a Deed of Mistrust because that's what it is.

[Mollydoggerson]

Love him for who he is and not what you want him to be. He has been burned and possibly eternally scarred, accept his position or move on.

[Blondeshavemorefun]

very true Apocalypto

but im protecting my assets - which tbh i wouldn't have if my dh hadnt have died last year :( and therefore wouldnt be in a new relationship with no mortgage, as i would still be happily living with dh

seems its those that have nothing (money or property) that think what op's oh is doing is wrong

would they feel different if they owned a house out right or had £50k in the bank/earnt £100k a year etc

maybe im cynical, but as i said my new man was more then happy to sign this agreement drawn up legally - and all is fine :)

[nkf]

Hes never been keen to marry again. All that's changed now is that you know the reason. He's come clean as it were. The ball's in your court now. Painful and not easy but you know the deal. What do you want to do?

[AThingInYourLife]

"To be honest, I would not want to marry (or even be with) a man that is so vitriolic against his ex wife, and seem to be telling you lots of lies about her and their life."

Ditto

[nkf]

I've just seen that he has children with the first wife. He's just a embittered divorce. Do you really want that?

[B1ueberryMuff1n]

yes. I agree with AThingInYourLIfe. marry &/or have children with a man who thinks that children raise themselves while they are busy "working their bollix off", they are men who will ensure you have a Very.Hard.Life.

you've been warned.

[Helltotheno]

but im protecting my assets

You are absolutely right to do that. Sorry about your DH.. glad you found love again :)

And the OP's bf is also not wrong to want to do that (for me it's not a woman v man issue) and the position for the OP is still that if she's not getting what she wants, she should move on.

[Blondeshavemorefun]

Thank you hell :)

[OneMoreChap]

Anyone who has assets is a fool not to protect them.

Whether you want to trust someone enough to spend your life with them is another question.

Were I single again, would I ever remarry? No.

I don't want more children, and I don't want to dilute my inheritance any further.

Does the OP want kids and DP doesn't?

[B1ueberryS0rbet]

The 'asset' i brought to the table was my time. Some men think that children raise themselves I think. I wouldn't send my children back, and for all our differences my x would not wish that either. The asset I lost was my time and my potential. It doesn't count though. That was nothing. I know I wasn't married though so it really was for nothing in my case!

[OneMoreChap]

If you have children with somebody, without marrying them to ensure there's a reasonable prospect of protecting your joint children... you are ill-advised, I feel.

[B1ueberryS0rbet]

Yeah....... I know. :-/

[ike1]

Yep. This might sound cold, but it was one of the reasons I married, to insure that any kids from the relationship would be looked after financially. Ironically I was the one who had a veryl inheretance to protect when I divorced. However, my ex was decent and did not ask for anything other than some of the equity in out property. It suited him to take a smaller pay off than his entitlement rather than wait until the kids were 18 to have half of the property. If I was to marry again, I would do everything I could to protect my money for my children. I know what it is like to struggle financially...no thanks!

[ike1]

large

[ike1]

In fact I dont see the point in marrying in my position, mortgage free home, enough kids, own income....thank goodness I am not the romantic type! Lol...

[ike1]

In fact OP I have been seeing someone for 2 years aswell, but made it clear from the beginning that it would be unlikely I would get married beacause of similar reasons to your chap.