Marriage when the woman has assets.

[Cocokitty]

I see it time and time again on here that women with assets shouldn't marry, particularly when she has children from previous relationships as it is "stealing from their inheritance" if things go wrong.

So I'm a woman. I have an asset. I have a lovely partner of some years with whom I'd like to marry. I am totally unconcerned about whether he gets "half of the house", although that is unlikely, but let's just say maybe he did. It's just money. It doesn't mean enough to me to make me think I shouldn't be married if I want to be.

My children will inherit, sure. He won't ever take it all. It isn't money I have "earned". It's luck - buying a home that increased in value eventually (was in neg equity for 10 years first though!). Mortgage was always interest only because back then that is what I could afford. I'm in a better position now with him even though he has no assets, pension or savings and has only just begun to earn in the last few years thanks to years as a student. Together we will be able to earn more (I can work more hours than as a single parent as he helps with childcare) and have lower childcare costs, we can buy a bigger house which could potentially have higher equity.

Yes I could lose some. I might have to sell. I'll always be able to buy though, I live in an area of low house prices. I earn enough to pay my mortgage.

I've been married before, whilst still having the same asset. The divorce didn't cost me a penny. The house remained mine as it was before. I bought it alone and have always been the sole owner.

Not all marriages that do end in divorce "take you to the cleaners".

i just wanted to offer a different perspective as this forum can be incredibly heavy on the "don't get married" advice to women who have an any assets. Money isn't everything to all people. Not everyone feels the same way when it comes to their money.

Adult children should not expect to receive an inheritance. I’m 60 and my dad is 88, bless him. If he’d died in his 60s or even 70s I’d have inherited quite a lot. After care bills I don’t think I’ll inherit anything when he finally goes. But that’s fine, I’ve had him in my life all these years, which is worth much more to me. He brought me up to be self-reliant and financially independent, and I am. He’s not given me a penny.

My DC are adults and I’ve brought them up the same way, so in my calculations about marrying again (it’s on the cards) I’m not thinking they need an inheritance when I die or indeed support while I live. It’s my life and the choice I make will be the one that benefits me.

(I probably won’t marry again though. I hated being married the first time, not only because it was the wrong guy - I just hated being a wife!)

Again though, I don’t believe it’s that simple. I think when you are in love and want to marry I can totally see your side.

I can also imagine alot of people on the other side, where the marriage has failed really regretting it. In part, because their ex now has a huge chunk of money that could have been left to their kids instead. Lots of them will ruminate on how they could have helped their kids instead of losing a load in a failed marriage.

I agree that choices shouldn’t be made just on inheritance. But I do believe the whole financial picture should be considered.

And I don’t think children who are concerned about it are necessarily best labelled selfish or entitled. I neither need or care about my dads money. But I would be slightly gutted to see him lose the home that my mum bought when she wasn’t with him, that they then shared and we grew up in because he fancied getting married.

Just out of curiosity, I googled if prenuptial and postnuptial binding financial agreements are recognised in the UK, and they are. Like in Australia they are a legal agreement fully recognised by the courts, setting out how assets should be divided in the case of a divorce, and can be essential in the case there is no will.

I'm surprised that in the many threads on MN about people legally protecting their assets, specially on second marriages with previous children, there is rarely a mention to them.

Your children from a previous relationship will NOT inherit if you marry. Your house will go solely to him. They get nothing.

I can't believe anyone would do willfully do this to their own DC's!

You are mad. I own my house and would never marry. Its mine and the DC's stability.

This isn't always true, at least in the UK. It depends on how you own your house together.

Anyone newly married can make a will specifically leaving their half of the house, plus their pension etc to their children.

It’s complicated.

it’s a legal document. But it’s not always legally binding. There’s a criteria that it must fulfil and they don’t mean both people get to keep everything they deem to be ‘theirs’.

It used to be quite rare that a prenup would be upheld. They are more common now. But it’s not a guarantee.

on mums net, people (women especially) cant ever have another live in relationship after the first one has gone tits up, what a ridiculous concept. What exactly is the point of making a will then?

But you'd rather leave inheritance to your spouse than children?

My grandma married a man who took all her money after she died, refused to give any inheritance to my mom and her sister.

The man ended up going back to his ex wife very soon after anyway.

You can imagine how horrible that might have felt - him, the ex wife and their kids keeping all the money my grandma worked for and had.

Each to their own but I think it's awful you'd prioritize a new husband over your children.

I think this is a great post and applies equally to both genders, if you are the person with more assets and a (much) greater income then you really need to go into marriage with eyes wide open and realise how splitting up will affect not only your immediate future but also your retirement options if your ex-spouse gets a chunk of your pension, I think the pension is often overlooked, with it now not being so uncommon for wives to out earn husbands having better education, professional qualifications, better careers etc, I think women divorcing in their 50’s are going to be looking at giving up a good slice of pension to partners, and getting the smaller portion of the assets rather than the other way around.

Well that’s why people need legal advice.

MN is full of threads where many MANY fathers don’t care or financially support their own dependent children after they split up from the children's mother.

Yes even when it’s their own biological children.

Yet there are threads like this where other mothers are SURE that their male partner will look after her adult children when she is dead, even when he is remarried / partnered . Just because he a is a nice man /he promised /they have a feeling.

They say “ oh I will let him live in my half of our house until he dies, then the children can have it “. They imagine a scenario where she dies at 88 and she dies at 90 - where he will outlive her for 2 year , going to her grave weekly to lay a bunch of roses.

Whereas she could die at 45 and he could have a new partner within months , leaving her parents to bring up the kids while he and his new wife live in the house with her existing kids and any new ones they have together.

Im sure it will be a great consolation to these kids to know that when they are 60 they will finally get their half of the house

Once you are a mother you don't have the luxury of thinking with your fanny and washing your hands of responsibility for your children's future.

i understand that, which is why its sensible to make a will, have legal advice and have all scenarios covered (ive seen it done), then get on with life. its the universal chorus of never marrying again, which i find a bit weird. so just because one marriage failed, people should never have a second chance at marriage should they choose to do so?? life just doesnt work like that.

I agree that there is a criteria. The most important one that both parties need to have independent legal representation for the agreement to be recognised by the courts.

Obviously other issues come into play. If one party has a large mortgage before marriage and their DH/DW comes into a large inheritance and reduces or closes the mortgage, the agreement is void because the circumstances have massively changed. It's the reason why people review the agreement into a post-nuptial one if there is a massive change in financial circumstances.

In our case, our principal asset in Australia is a joint home in Sydney without a mortgage. Under Australian law, if I die, the house will go to my husband who can remarry, change his Will and lock out our children from inheriting my half unless they challenge it in Court.

It's the reason why we did and keep revising Binding Financial Agreements.

I can offer the perspective from someone who's father is wealthy and remarried. I know my step mother will get everything (she's younger so chances are she'll outlive him) but I don't expect anything. So many people think inheritance is a given right but my father had nothing and made his own way in the world and I've done the same. My mother doesn't have much to leave so there's nothing from that side either and I'm fine with it. For the record I'm not well off myself but I still don't expect my father to leave my stepmother of 30 years without anything upon his death.

Inheritance should never be a given right for children. But the wishes of the deceased DH/DW should be taken into account, which never happens under Westminster law, when they were joint assets.

I understand that, which is why its sensible to make a will, have legal advice and have all scenarios covered (ive seen it done), then get on with life. its the universal chorus of never marrying again, which i find a bit weird. so just because one marriage failed, people should never have a second chance at marriage should they choose to do so?? life just doesnt work like that

@northernlight20 i think people are not saying “ Don't marry again under any circumstances”.

They are saying “ understand that if you marry again and don’t protect your children and your assets legally, they are at risk. Keeping your fingers crossed won’t work . “

Or “ I personally do not wish to remarry for various reasons, including protecting my children “.

That’s not the same saying no one else should ever remarry.

The hard reality is that many MANY children lose out on the inheritance that their late parent intended for them, because that person naively assumed that a surviving parent / partner would pass it on.

ganett my life certainly hasn't followed the path you describe, but that's not why I see red flags.

anyway, OP's business. Good to see a lot of people are aware of the financial risks and that they have their DC in mind.

Why would her children be furious? It isnt their money, its their mum's money

You are just so naive OP and careless of your children.
They might never be able to afford a house and you want to give it away to some bloke you might hate in a few years time.
Your children are your priority not a "fairytale" marriage.

If you are both so sure then there is no reason not to set up a trust for your children

How are you so sure your children will inherit if you get married?
I wouldn't risk it just for the want of marrying. Too much to lose
He might be lovely and you're sure he wouldn't go for half now, but partners change when money is at stake
Marriage isn't just a romantic idea, you're signing half of your asset away
Think of your DC They should be your priority not your DP
... and yes, I've lost a lot!

Why was he in family court for 5 years?
Have you read any of the transcripts at all?

This guy sounds like he's terrible at decision making and future planning.

It's your life though, and you know him better than anyone here.

She could write a will.

You can't just will a house that your husband is livng in