signing pre nups before marriage

[Charlie12023]

Hi, I was just wondering what everyone's views were on this were?

I have met a lovely man, and we are totally in love, he has been married twice, one cheated on him and the other had a drink problem in the end and was going through a lot of issues with her family. He ended up leaving the house to this ex mother of his son and she took quite a chunk out of his pension but since then he has been able to get it back and earn it back himself as he works hard, earns a three figure salary, owns a house etc and very stable. So for him he isnt phased by loss more so she took a lot!!

I have never been married, engaged twice but not gone through with either, he has lost more financially than I have, when I left my last ex, I just didnt sign anything when we bought our house and ended up having to give him my deposit for a house, when we old our house a few years ago.

Since then my dad is forever saying ok next time you buy with anyone, sign something which makes sense and I said I would.

My partner now is very fair with his exes and generous as well as with myself on all accounts. However I am more cautious.

I have a house with a few hundred equity in it and my parents are financially secure too, they would leave me a lot also, so i would say we are kind of equal but I just dont earn as much as he does. I also dont have a pension just my house and parents inheritance which is a lot too and would give me a nice future.

Now i mentioned a pre nup, he has said no it doesnt matter, as this makes out I can see us splitting up, I said no its because of what I lost with the house re the ex, he said well I lost more and was still fair after my 15 year marriage. He doesnt seem to be too phased by signing anything, whereas even though I have kind of less, he says whats his is mine and wants to build a future.

I cant seem to get past this and its kind of bothering me plus I like to be sensible.

Any suggestions how to approach it without falling out lol.

It sounds like your situations are financially complicated enough that marrying him could make the situation worse, not better, for either one of you.

If you wanted children I would say get a prenup and then marry him for the financial security it will give your family and your children as a result (in addition to marrying for love).

As you don't want children then the dream of marrying the man you love seems to be not worth the reality of a strange and complicated financial picture that might leave one or both of you with the uncomfortable feeling after the wedding further down the line that you'd made a mistake and might be in an unfavourable position.

This could affect the relationship if you're left feeling that way.

Would you feel ok with just not marrying him?

You've got too much to lose to marry this man.
Ring fencing and pre nups won't stand up in UK.
If no kids between you then there's no reason to get married.
Rent out your own place and move in with him instead.

Yes Im happy not getting married, and just living together which suits me fine if I am honest, he loves the thought of getting married as it makes him feel more secure and more settled as he wants to build a future, but Im happy to build a future without getting married. I think its more securing my money re my parents inheritance and my house that concerns me as its something they are giving me, he is equal in that way, but I guess Im a lot more cautious.

OP, you aren't intending on having children and are financially secure.

Unfortunately you were naive before and got stung.
Don't be naive again.
You have absolutely no business getting married.
He doesn't want to sign anything and that is his right, but you need to be firm in that you don't wish to get married.
If he cares about you sincerely, this shouldn't be an issue that you both keep your finances completely separate.

In the future a house could be bought with tenants in common and both deposits of equal amount noted.

I would be very wary of a man who would try and bully you on this issue.

Good men would respect your position.

My opinion is that if you want to sign a pre nup, you shouldn’t marry that person. Shouldn’t start a marriage with plans to split up

Sat here having my coffee and wondering what the responses would be if it were the other way around….

’LTB , marriage is about commitment and what’s yours is mine and vice versa…’

@DurinsBane It’s very very sensible to do this if there’s an imbalance of finances. Especially if some has been gifted from parents. It’s not planning to split up but can ease a reasonable settlement if the worst happens and divorce does happen! No one enters marriage expecting it.

I think children make a huge difference if you have a family together the obligations/responsibilities and benefits marriage give make perfect sense. I would not recommend anyone having children without marriage protection

late in life relationships where assets have been build up on both sides as well as children marriage needs careful thought. For example any wills etc drawn up before marriage become obsolete

you can still build a future but protect assetd

Not in Scotland, I believe. They have no legal standing under Scots Law. The judge doesn't have to consider them at all.

Prenups do carry legal weight in the UK, and will generally be upheld. Speak to a solicitor that has expertise in the area as they will be best placed to advise you.

Worth reading:
https://www.footanstey.com/our-insights/articles-news/guide-to-prenuptial-agreements-in-the-uk/

You could also consider a trust:
https://osborneslaw.com/blog/trusts-protected-divorce/

I would advise anyone, male or female, to consider their options upon entering a marriage, especially when there is a clear financial disparity.

They do have legal standing under Scottish law:

https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/expertise/individuals-families/family-law-solicitors/prenuptial-agreement/how-do-prenuptial-agreements-work/

“In Scotland, a prenuptial agreement is legally binding, provided that certain criteria are met. These agreements allow couples to outline their financial arrangements and expectations in the event of a divorce. For the agreement to be enforceable, it must be fair and reasonable, with both parties fully disclosing their financial situations. While Scottish courts have the authority to scrutinise and potentially alter terms that are deemed unjust, a well-crafted and transparent prenuptial agreement can provide a legal framework for asset division and financial matters in accordance with the couple’s intentions.“

It is true that the UK can be far more interventionist than other jurisdictions, but again a solicitor is best placed to advise to make sure the conditions are met that would prevent this.

This is bad advice. The court might take them into consideration, but they are not the watertight contract that OP is looking for.

I think this is very naive.

Of course no one plans to split up before they are even married.

Just taking OP as an example, she has a whole lot to lose with inheritance etc if everything is just split if they do divorce. And by thinking in advance, she will just be safe guarding what is hers.

Where I am there are three different types of marriage contracts, and I can assure you these days most marriages have a binding pre-nup.

I didn’t claim they were:

“It is true that the UK can be far more interventionist than other jurisdictions, but again a solicitor is best placed to advise to make sure the conditions are met that would prevent this.“

Are they watertight? No. Do they have legal standing? They are not the subject of legislation, but common law has afforded them significant weight (the landmark case was Radmacher v Granatino) and as a general rule prenups are usually upheld.

If OP wants to explore further then it is absolutely crucial for her to take legal advice from a solicitor with expertise in the field, not mumsnet.

They won’t necessarily be upheld 40 years into a marriage where needs and finances might have changed. They can be considered if reasonably relevant. It’s what is reasonable that matters. It shows what the parties intended pre marriage but of course situations can change. The other party (that comes in with £0) might become hugely successful in business and be worth £10 million. So what use is the pre nup then?

Hence why I said ‘usually upheld’. They are.

Whether the above example would negate a prenup would depend on a number of factors, but it is far from a foregone conclusion that it would.

The point of marriage is joining yourself legally and financially so that you are a unit. If that doesn’t appeal, then you could have a commitment ceremony or something but stay unmarried.

Just don't get married. Esp if you don't want kids anyway. Sorted. Prenups aren't really a big thing in the UK.

I have a similar but not quite situation.

We won't get legally married until we are older/any kind of ill heath starts to happen, then we'll do a quick registry office job for inheritance/POA type issues.

Don't fit around the constraints of the societal expectations of marriage, make the laws and loopholes of it work for you.

Pre nups are a thing in the UK. They are not binding but as long as you follow the rules then they are highly persuasive and likely to be upheld by the courts.

If I was to remarry I'd have one.

If you're not prepared to give half of everything you own to your future husband one day, don't get married.

Have a wedding if it's what you want, just don't sign the paperwork.

I don't agree. I got married and have a pre nup. We were both married before and both have children so the pre nup ensures that what we brought to the marriage goes to the respective children. Our wills reflect this too.

That just doesn't make sense .

Except you don’t have to completely join yourselves financially. You may think it should be a requirement for marriage, but that doesn’t mean it is one.

Yet another comment that is not based in reality. It's silly to assume you will be forever for ever and ever....