Pre nuptial agreement

[rainsbow]

Just after some advice about doing a pre-nup. I'm not after a backlash about how seemingly unromantic this is, this is about protecting myself and my kids in the future should we get divorced.

In a nutshell, im 29 and I'm fortunate to own a large property mortgage free. This is solely in my name. Df and I are getting married in the autumn. If we broke up, will marital law automatically give him a share of my house despite not contributing to the purchase and the fact that it was bought outside marriage? Rightly or wrongly, that seems morally unfair and unjust to me. I want to ensure that if we broke up, that no claim can be made on my house.

Has anyone done a pre nup and can advise?

Dont get married. You dont need to, it wont add anything as you dont need the financial security say a sahm needs. You just want to. Then then you dont want to share assets. The longer you are married the less chance any prenup would stand up in court.

Best you are likely to be able to do is write a will leaving your house to your kids.

I grew up with a lot wealthy friends. None of the men signed prenups even when some had many millions and most were at least as wealthy as you. I guess men and women view assets differently.

I would love them to be legal, so many go into marriage for what they can gain rather than the right reasons. Maybe then more marriages would last.

In your situation I'd simply not get married and would protect myself as pre nups aren't binding here so can easily be over turned.

Would you show your fiancé this thread, including points made by ghjklf for example? That's not necessarily a point a solicitor would make. Basically, is your fiancé ready and willing to go down the route of a prenup because he's ignorant of where it would leave him/ he's just thrilled to be marrying you soon? Hypothetical question, as the more I read of your posts the more bull-nosed you come across. It could just be because internet doesn't convey emotion well, but there seems to be something a little too pragmatic and unbending for someone who is about to get married. An imbalance of power between you, maybe. Meh, who knows.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't think that once you are married you can have the complete separation of finances that you would like. If your dh got into debt (after marriage) then you couldn't just 'keep' what you own, I think you would also be liable for some of the debt.

How do you pay for shared expenditure such as holidays?

Also you already have one child between you. If you did get married and then subsequently split up are you really both completely happy with the concept that he might have no assets, no home, nowhere that his dc could spend time with him?

What would happen if you died? Does the property pass to your children? Who wold pay the ongoing bills / upkeep maintenance? What would happen if you became incapacitated or unwell and couldn't work, would you expect that he would then make a contribution to the bills and other household finances, including the costs of your first child?

Does he have any current assets / debts? Does he work currently? Do you have shared pans for how he will pay of debt or build up his own assets? You might not have a shared account, but do you have a shared approach and the same kind of values around money?

I was once in love with someone who had a different approach to finance. I knew that I couldn't marry him, and in the end we split up.

There's no right or wrong here - just the simple fact that if you do not want to share your assets, then you shouldn't get married. That's the only way you will be able to keep all your money.
Only you and your DP know what is best for you and the relationship.

'Why should I share my hard earned assets I worked my ass off for with someone who hasn't earned it'

...a short while later....

'These assets are not earned as described above, my parents helped.'

Lolololol.

I wouldn't get married. Marriage is not just about love - (in fact, the contract has bog all to do with love) - it's about money, and responsibility, and pensions and all that. Don't bother if you're not willing to share your whole life with someone, which you aren't

I've read a lot of these messages and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter where your money came from ie worked for or parents, why should a guy with nothing be able to marry and claim half thereafter? I understand where you are coming from, you need to safeguard it for your children's future. All I'd say is, just ensure he's not seeing you as a "lifestyle" or hooked up with you because you do have assets. I'm not saying he's marrying you to then claim half down the line, but I work with men and they do prefer financially independent women who can offer the big house/have less dependence upon them resulting in them not having to provide as much to get that middle class lifestyle.
Just be careful and any doubt in your own mind that he's wanting you because of a comfortable future, I'd suggest avoiding the wedding ring.

Namo tell me where I actually wrote that second sentence.

"Lolololol"

I don't think you understand what marriage is TBH.

Marriage is about contracting to share assets. That's what it is.

What would be unfair would be entering a contract to share assets and expecting not to have to share them.

This is why ppl are saying 'don't get married'. Realistically given the disparity between your capital and assets no court would uphold a prenup. There is a principle re marriage which is designed to avoid leaving a divorced spouse reliant on public funds. Prenups are usually only upheld between people of equal means, they aren't able to be used to keep one spouse wealthy and another poor.

And you should actually be careful re living together too as increasingly the courts are giving property rights to cohabiting couples with children.

You certainly need legal advice.

And technically if your parents helped you financially to buy your house they may have a claim on it too.

There is a difference between the legal ownership and claims for beneficial interest.

If you wanted to completely avoid someone else having beneficial interest in the house you own you need to not live with, not have a child with, not accept money from other ppl.

Honestly....in your shoes I wouldn't get married or live together..but that's just me.

I'm perfectly happy for my parents to claim on it, though they never would. I am going to co own with my parents.

This is why you need legal advice.

If you live in the house with your partner and you have a child there may already be some entitlement.

If you marry, the home becomes the marital home no matter whose name it is in.

The whole point of marrying is to protect the financial interests of the poorer party.

Pre-nup or no pre-nup a married couple with a child? No court is going to let one half of the couple walk away with everything leaving the other half with debts and no home.

Mercenary as it sounds this is the thing with marriage, if you aren't committed to sharing your money, don't get married. On divorce it will be left up to the court to decide what is fair. If you are a high worth individual it is risky to even live with, never mind procreate with someone who brings nothing but debt to the table.

You have, not only the issues of interests in the property to contend with but occupation rights too.

And you are already in the mud with that as you are engaged and have a child! Engagement may confer the property rights of married couples anyway.

Thanks for all these nuggets and pearls of wisdom but we will await firm advice from our solicitor/s.

Good, that's the most sensible thing. You should really have just gone straight to a solicitor TBH if you didn't want advice from MN!

Bear in mind that it won't be 'our solicitor' it will be 'your solicitor' and his totally separate solicitor who will be paid to advise him on his own best interests....

What if he sticks by his verbal claim (for now) that he wouldn't ever take what's not his?

But, he might feel very differently if you were splitting up. As PPs have pointed out, he may think that he had every right to some capital, sufficient to provide a house large enough to accommodate his DC. He may even by then, have friends (or a new partner) whispering in his ear, but you are entitled to half, so asking for a quarter is only reasonable, so that you can have your DC to stay.

His view on what is his might well change. This is the message his solicitor will be peddling, that it would not be right for him to renounce anything for his DC. Especially if he has lived in the house, it will feel like his home. Whether he or you initiate any split, the court would start at 50:50 and focus only on ensuring that any children are accommodated.

All the best.

His verbal claim to "not take what is not his" could be considered just lip service, which is saying insincere statements to keep you strung along. Talk is cheap. It could also be a sneaky statement because in marrying you, he very well may consider half your stuff (no matter how it was obtained) to be legally his. He could very well be playing you with all of his sincerity and honest looks...that doesn't cost him anything.

And, nope, he should not attend your solicitor appointments. If you are thinking this bloke will rip you off at some point in the future, then you definitely do not want him hearing what your options and strategies may be so as to subtly (or otherwise) influence your choice of action. Also, you may feel inhibited from being completely honest in establishing your point of view in front of him. This is fertile ground for collecting resentments to spring back in your face at a later date...such as the day after the wedding, or even the night of the wedding.

Our of curiosity, did he propose with a Grand Gesture in a public setting that made it difficult for you to say "no", or "I need to think about it"?

I agree with not marrying. However the very least favor you can do for yourself would be to postpone as an essential move (at this point) for the solicitors to have time to volley the prenup back and forth.

Engagement confers no rights at all to your property btw.

uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-503-3983?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 Yes it can do ange1fish.

No it doesn't. That case was about a couple where a beneficial interest already existed. Engagement doesn't confer a beneficial interest.