At stalemate over pre-nup - does this sound unfair?

[JynErso]

My fiancé and I have a great relationship - he's kind and thoughtful and we communicate well. But we're stalemated over a pre-nup.

Before we even got engaged we discussed the need for a pre-nuptial agreement and carefully thought out wills if we took our relationship forward. We've now got separate, independent legal advice and have undertaken full disclosure of our finances. At the final moment - when the agreement was about to be drawn up (and also new wills) - he has announced that he's decided that just my money should be protected (from him) and not his (from me). And likewise, that although he knows that if I die first he will not inherit the my estate (there will be a separate life insurance policy to provide for him), he will be leaving everything to me, as well as setting up the previously agreed life insurance.

He isn't trying to manipulate me into not having a pre-nup at all, which is what my solicitor immediately 'warned' when she heard that the pre-nup will be so one sided from his solicitor.

But he is being extremely irrational, and it concerns me. For a start, it seems unfair, to him and to his family (such as his nieces, who until our marriage would inherit his estate). I guess that's his choice. And his family won't know our financial agreements anyway.

But I feel like him making this financial decision based on sentiment rather than anything rational might come back to haunt us - he might begin to feel resentful that he placed more trust on me not docking him over than he does for me, or something? That's my real concern, I think.

We haven't rowed about it, but I've asked if he would reconsider (he usually does as I ask, if I have a good reason for it) and he said -nicely- no. That it doesn't sit right with him to protect his assets from me, but that he entirely supports me doing so from him and will never be resentful.

My solicitor is therefore now accepting of this (though rather too cheerful about it for my liking) and wants to get on and draft the agreement.

Argh!

I actually agree with Skyadelic, if you are going ahead with the prenup it should be protecting both of you, if he chooses to be generous if you divorce then he can do that of his own volition at that time. Experience suggests he wouldn't (The myth of the amicable divorce)

One sided pre ups are thrown out when the party against whom that is be side is intended to be imposed has not been given the opportunity to take proper legal advice. On the basis there is a valid reason for this one side and future husband is taking advice, setting aside is no great risk although as op points out, these things are only persuasive anyway (for now)

OP - it sounds as though he is fully aware of the reality of the situation - that you already have DC as dependants and he does not. Obviously, if the worst happened to you, he would feel uncomfortable inheriting your estate and feels that it is only natural that this should pass to your children. He does not already have children - if and when he does, I'm sure he will want to protect them in his will too.

He sounds lovely and very reasonable to me. Congrats!

Yes Jane has it: as long as he has his own legal advice and we've both fully disclosed our assets then there is no reason for our pre-nup to be any less successful than any other. I want to be careful what I say or this will immediately be linked to my usual posting name - but our (me and my children) circumstances are such that a court is likely to be sympathetic to my need to continue to provide for my DC first and foremost.

Mojito his own children are unlikely but I had a shock pregnancy/miscarriage recently (we thought that was something that couldn't happen for us for a variety of reasons) so we're now thinking about whether we make a mad attempt at having a child together. But that is one of the few things that would prompt an early review of the pre-nup, and of course wills could be changed and would be in that circumstance. Maybe this is really about all that - he says not, but I think it subconsciously affected how he thinks about me/finances, because a few months ago his plan very much was for protection for both our pre-marital-assets.

Just accept it but make it clear that you are going pass it on to his family after his death?

I'm making no more plans about wills - we'll sign what we've each planned and stop thinking about it - it's depressing and I've told him we'll just have to both die at exactly the same moment when we're very very old.

We're still discussing the pre-nup thing.

Yes he is a good'un and I'm now squirming at earlier telling him his 'what's mine is yours but what's yours is your own' attitude is a bit sexist.

Well, society is sexist and disadvantages women, so if he wants you to have a slight advantage, why not?
I would try to persuade him to make sure that at least part of his money goes to the nieces, as it is always possible you both die, and you can't make sure they get something. (This sounds like it could result in one of these convoluted Jane Austen inheritance tragedies. ;))

I said earlier to him that I read something online (wonder how long it'll take him to figure out that this is code for 'on MN'!) that made me realise that he prefers me to his nieces and that's okay since he's marrying me.
He said thanks for giving him permission to have me as his favourite person

I really do feel okay about the will thing now, and happy to let it rest - he says his nieces are mentioned.

I find it hard to work out why my sexism hackles are raised about the pre-nup. I totally get that you mean about redressing the balance and that being okay Vestal. But I think it's because I wonder if he might somehow be competing with my first husband. Like... he was a good provider and left you in a strong financial position so I need to too.
And if it was that, would it be wrong?

I'm getting philosophical over finances and that's never a good idea...