prenup without the nuptials

[cakestop2016]

I'm guessing a lot of people are going to tell me to run along and get married right away, but that isn't what I want to do.

Basically, partner and I met 8 years ago and bought a house together after 12 months. His parents gave him 40,000 to put down as a deposit, mine gave us nothing as they're poor. We had an agreement drawn up that if we were ever to separate then the first 40,000 would go to him.
We are now about to move house again and have 2 children, we both don't like the idea of marriage for various reasons (yes, I know it makes me vulerbale) I still work although now part-time since having DCS.

We are in the process of drawing up the mortgage for the new house and partner has mentioned that same "agreement" that he keeps the first 40,000. I was surprised since now we have children to consider and surely he would want us both to be able to create a stable home environment each should we separate. So assumed any remaining money would now be split.

Anyway, I just mentioned it to him. He told me he too feels uncomfortable about the "agreement" but that apparently it's his parents who have requested that 'their money' is kept 'safe in the family.'

I'm shocked by this after having 2 children with their son... surely they would want us all to be financially ok should we ever split?

Or is this quite a normal thing to do? We are not likely to split any time soon btw. It just makes me worry a little as to how I would cope financially if we ever did.

What do others think?

I think this is quite normal. Both DH's and my parents helped us out with our house deposit and both expressed similar concerns.

It's quite sensible I think - generally in these situations it's a lot of money and the reality is that if a couple split up and one remarries then their half of the original assets belong partially to their new spouse. There is no guarantee that the "right thing" will be done by any children involved.

Of course you have to have some trust, but that's not automatic and acrimonious splits tend to undermine any previous good relationships with extended family.

If it were my child I'd want it protected too, you are not married so the relationship could cease over night very easily. I'd already have concerns he was shouldering most of the financial burden already without him losing that as well should it go belly up.

You have two choices, sign the agreement or thank them for the deposit and return it and buy without it.

I would be fine with agreement staying in place on 2nd property

I am planning to help my ds in the future and would definitely expect the money to be protected. If the other partner brought the same, less, or more along I'd also expect that to be protected. After 8 years the property should have increased in value by quite a lot ( round here perhaps almost double) so it's very fair if only the original sum is protected because probably it would be more accurately fair to include the proportion of the property value increase.

It's the same when anyone brings money to a marriage or partnership, the money accrued during the relationship is joint, not that brought to the relationship.

It sounds as if there is much more to this than you've said here, though.

Totally understandable & most sane people would do the same

I had a similar situation with my DD. She and BF wanted to buy a property together after graduating, but wanted to buy outright ie without a mortgage, on the basis that they would own half each. His share was coming as a gift from his GP and my DD asked me to give her the money for the other half.

I agreed but said it would have to be a gift and set out in a Deed of Trust, for all the reasons the above posters set out. The BF didn't seem to be happy with a Deed of Trust and was very difficult and frankly quite obnoxious during the purchase negotiations, didn't want a survey, searches etc, didn't want to 'waste' the money, was quite aggressive. The relationship with DD was also going through a rocky patch and I know that they nearly split up.

In the end, I withdrew the offer of assistance, which I believe for lots of reasons was the right thing to do (not least because he came across as a controlling individual), and I was worried about her being tied to him.

Anyway, 18 months on and I still think it was the right decision, but it has impacted upon the family dynamic with my DD, who still loves him and can't see why 'you don't see what I see'. Sometimes, I really wish I had just given them the money - ironically, it was an identical sum- as I am terrified of losing my DD. We were fine, we were so close, even after I changed my mind, but i feel that he is chipping away, that she is being gaslighted, that she is being influenced against her family (she is now NC with her sister but that's a whole other thread).

Sorry for rambling on about my situation, but I wanted to show the other side of the equation and try to explain why his parents may have acted as they have; it's just caution and common sense, rather than hostility towards you, I think.

I agree that you should just pay the DP back, thank them for the loan, but say that you want to be independent and that you can manage now.

If you split up he would be obliged to look after his children. But he would not be obliged to look after you.

This money was given to him by his parents. You did nothing to contribute to it. I'm not really sure why you think you should be entitled to half of it to be honest.

It's good to have a range of opinions.

I just hope that if we ever did separate, I would have enough of a deposit to put down on a home for my children, as would partner. It wouldn't seem quite right for him to be able to afford a home for them and me not, at the end of the day, the money would be split for their wellbeing, not mine. Although I Really like the idea of putting the money in trust for the children, I think that would be very sensible. Thanks.

But, OP, the bottom line is that you would be getting £20k of his money. He would need to provide for his kids if he was the higher earner anyway so I don't think it is reasonable for him as one half of an unmarried couple to give up such a significant sum.

Sorry, I meant loan not gift; although I didn't want the money back, I just wanted to protect family money in case of a break up.

If you were married would you draw up an agreement like this? Or when married would the money be split anyway and agreements like this disregarded? I'm just curious to know, as for me, having children together creates much more of a tie and duty to take care of each other financially than marriage does.

I understand the sentiment, but the reality is that it doesn't. Marriage makes you a single financial entity, to some extent: any division of assets following a split starts at 50-50 and takes into account what was brought into the relationship by each party, but needs come first. At the end of a cohabiting relationship, barring certain legal applications (such as that to stay in a property because of dependent children) each party leaves with their own assets. The 40k belongs to your DP outright, in other words.

Just answered my own question: apparently deeds of trust do not usually stand once there is a marriage. The marriage tends to over-ride this. Seems quite old fashioned really, that marriage can over-ride a deed of trust, yet the presence and importance of havING children makes no difference to the deed of trust.
It's quite normal in the modern day to not be married and have children, probably law needs to reflect this change in society. Seems crazy actually. A divorced spouse without children is in less need for greater financial security than an unmarried, separated spouse with children. Bizarre.

It's not really bizarre, considering that many people have children together but aren't in committed relationships. Marriage and civil partnership provides an unambiguous route for people to make this level of financial commitment - without being rude, what are your reasons for wanting the financial commitment of a marriage without the marriage? Honestly not being judgey (I don't care if people marry or not!).

As a parent I have often thought of this. If I give my child a lump sum towards a property, like it or not I will have to assume once he partners and has a child/children, the money can be lost through divorce.

To me though, my relationship with child's partner would be prioritised over protecting the money, as that person would always be my grandchild's parent.

• the money can the lost through divorce/separation

Hormonal, it's very true. My DH'a parents contributed some cash to our deposit, my DH contributed the most significant amount and I contributed a smaller amount. If we divorced in ten years, we would be awarded 50% each of the value of our home because we have chosen to pool our assets through marriage. His parents would lose their money. But that is the risk you take when you choose to get married!

A marriage is a legally binding partnership similar to a business partnership and, as you say op, affords you financial protection.

In your case you've decided against entering into that legal partnership, which is your right.

Hence your DP would be able to walk away with everything he took into the relationship, and would be liable only for child maintenance.

Basically he would have to support his children but not you, and I don't understand why you think his parents - or he - should essentially give you £20k so that you can rehouse yourself if the relationship fails.

I'd do exactly as he has done, ringfence it.

Trifle: several reasons. My parents went through a very messy divorce when I was in my teens, the divorce took forever, was expensive and seemed to drag things out. My partner and I have a large circle of friends who appear so stressed out by marriage and the organisation of it, family disagreements etc that it hugely impacts on their once happy relationship, also many of our married friends are now going through divorce or separation and from a distance, it looks ugly.

We quite like the freedom of knowing each other can leave of we want to and I think that freedom actually keeps us together, knowing that we're here because we want to be.
Not judging anyone who really values marriage btw. We just decided from the beginning that it wasn't for us.

Fair enough. But with that freedom comes the freedom for your DP to take his greater contribution to your joint assets with him if you split

But you clearly don't want the freedom. You want to have a hold over him and his assets when you split up.

The thing is that it's not the bit of paper and legal commitment that causes stress but having children. You have the children but not the protection for them or you. The financial settlements in divorce are there to protect the children more than the partner. Nevermind the other issues that can occur if one of you dies or becomes unwell.
As you have reduced your earning you have doubly risked your financial stability.

I know it seems that they care less about you, but isn't that always the case? He is their son. They were being nice when gifting the money. If you want to be nice please gift it back to them.

They probably see the children as a seperate issue. If you both split up, 50% of the care is down to him. The money will be 100% his. Otherwise if you have another relationship then some of that money will be used to finance you and your new partner?

As others have alluded to, if you split up the £40k will be the least of your financial problems. You have given up salary, (possible) promotion, pension and CV filler and he still has his money from mum and dad protected. What a crazy situation! Marriage might not be your ideal scenario, but I'd be booking my registry office ASAP.

I would be a bit peeved too.
You have carried their 2 GCs for 9 months (you took all the health risks not your DH ITSWIM) and gone part-time for them. What if they "loose" 20k?
But as a PP said, was it recent or did they say that when you bought the 1st house?