prenuptial agreement

[SexyGreyFox]

I just don't see the point in there being a richer or a poorer one in a marriage. A marriage is a union, 2 people become a team (it's the same for long term relationships). I work full time, my wife part time, but she's also looking after the kids and the house more than I am. She had more to put into the house etc before we got married but ultimately we knew it would even out over time. It's always seemed rather daft to me that you say "I want to spend the rest of my life with you, but everything I had before is mine and not yours!" Probably why I am not good at poker, I'm either all in or all out

I also don't get those married couples who have their own bank accounts.
I heard somebody at work say "I told him if he wants to go there he can pay out of his own money".
From 1980 all our money has gone into one account.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

..

 

[Hades]

I just don't see the point in there being a richer or a poorer one in a marriage. A marriage is a union, 2 people become a team (it's the same for long term relationships). I work full time, my wife part time, but she's also looking after the kids and the house more than I am. She had more to put into the house etc before we got married but ultimately we knew it would even out over time. It's always seemed rather daft to me that you say "I want to spend the rest of my life with you, but everything I had before is mine and not yours!" Probably why I am not good at poker, I'm either all in or all out

My good friend had the same view at the outset of his marriage. I'm not sure he felt the same while he was sitting in his bedsit while his wife moved the boyfriend, that she had an affair with, into the family home that he was still paying the mortgage for.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Don't do it, surely you don't need to be married to show your love or commitment to someone? it means nowt unless you're a religious nutjob.

How many folk would take a 40% gamble on everything they've worked for.

Like Hades, I've seen a divorce absolutely ruin a man who I thought couldn't be ruined, went from being extremely successful, confident and unbelievably happy to an absolute mess.

 

[Richdog]

This is an easy one.

Find someone who is roughly your equal in terms of intellect, income and future prospects. Makes it a lot easier, and not a sniff of gold digging.

I say this with experience second time around!

Yup, sound plan!

 

[sprite-]

I've been with my wife for over 10 years, around 4 years ago we separated for 6 months. My wife hadn't worked up until that point, staying at home to look after our child - which was her decision - not mine (Played a big part in our separation..). I decided to speak to a solicitor, see what i was facing....

Absolutely shocking experience... Not only was i perpetually screwed if we divorced, it was incredibly likely i'd have to pay her alimony... Due to my income, she would be entitled to payments to help adjust / maintain the standard of living she'd become accustomed to. I was furious, beyond belief.

Safe to say - we're back together and happier than we've ever been. When we got back together she got a job and now she has a full flung career and doing extremely well.

Knowing what i know now, if i was getting married and a prenup was an option it would definitely be a condition of getting married. Logic goes completely out of the window when you separate, it's a highly emotional time and unfortunately allot of people will throw in their two cents. I know for a fact a few of my wives friends were pushing her to "Screw me over" financially (As she told me), thankfully my wife is pretty balanced about that kind of thing.

 

[dowie]

The point is that you're basically saying a prenup means the marriage isn't balanced/one party now has a bias in terms of what will happen if the marriage goes wrong... but that ignores the fact that's reality most of the time anyway. Without a prenup there are almost always predictable winners and losers in a divorce (the richer person will lose, the poorer person will win)... that's the default.

A practical solution is to aim to date people who have put similar amounts of effort into their careers and have a similar level of earnings. Obviously there is a an imbalance that would still need addressing depending on which partner takes some time out for parenting duties when having kids but nothing too drastic. Avoid gold diggers essentially.

 

[Whitewater]

The chances of getting divorced are considerably greater than the likelihood of your house burning down. You wouldn't go without buildings insurance would you?

(I dare say "Divorce Insurance" premiums would be suitably hefty to reflect this...!)

Not if my house and I agree - in front of our friends, family and [insert chosen deity] - to a live-long journey together and it vows not to set itself on fire
I wonder if a change in attitude (divorce no longer being the taboo it once was) has as much to do with the increase in the number of couples divorcing rather than an inherent increase in risk.

 

[Em3bbs]

I also don't get those married couples who have their own bank accounts.
I heard somebody at work say "I told him if he wants to go there he can pay out of his own money".
From 1980 all our money has gone into one account.

That's great it works for you, I think this subject has been brought up about a million times before though.

For us (both working) what works is holidays/food/bills out of joint account, individual purchases out of individual accounts, it makes it a lot easier when you're looking through bank statements when you don't keep having to ask "What was this purchase, was it real?". Having a joint account for everything if you're both employed almost feels lest trusting if anything.

What was the name of that really weird Walter Mitty guy who had a wife who was an accountant and he had to get all purchases approved from the joint account. He always used to post in these kind of threads to say how great his life and relationship was but then left the forum in some kind of lunatic rage.

 

[Dolly]

To answer to OP: the best form of wealth protection is not to get married. That said, life is more complicated than that and so if you are getting married, the next best thing is to have a pre-nup. Agreements freely entered into, in which you both understand the implications of the agreement are likely to be upheld provided they don't prejudice the needs of any children at the time of divorce.

Only you will know whether a pre-nup will be acceptable to your future spouse (and therefore whether it is worth bringing up/ discussing!). I draft pre-nups fairly regularly and the most common are either (1) parents passing on wealth to their children and the parents insist on a pre-nun; or (2) second marriages where they want to protect what they've already built up for their children from a previous relationship. These type of agreements are much easier to explain to the future spouse.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

What was the name of that really weird Walter Mitty guy who had a wife who was an accountant and he had to get all purchases approved from the joint account.

I get all my purchases approved
It goes like this though "I'm having a £20 rear derailleur for my bike"
"Yeah OK"

 

[Em3bbs]

I get all my purchases approved
It goes like this though "I'm having a £20 rear derailleur for my bike"
"Yeah OK"

Haha I think a lot of it in generational (although I'm ~40) and the fact banking was a lot harder 20+ years ago. My parents have joint accounts but with online banking my partner and I find it a lot easier to chuck an amount into the joint account to cover the bills and other family stuff (kids clothes, shoes etc) and then spend what we want from our own accounts. To be honest I really don't want to know what she spends on shoes, and she doesn't want to know what I spend on gadgets so it works well.

 

[lsg1r]

I'm not sure about the legal side of things, last thing I heard was they were pretty useless in the UK, but I can understand the interest in a prenup considering the current state of long lasting marriages etc.

I don't see why a partner should gain anything from before they were together (and this goes both ways) and I don't see why they should have access to inheritance that isn't from their side of the family either (thinking of parental home etc). I also don't think they should have access to anything business related either unless they're actively involved, ie I'm freelance and I don't see any partner should have access to my assets etc seeing as it's my reputation/services they hire. Now if I went into say renting houses with my wife and she was involved then I would look at sharing that side of things but it wouldn't necessarily be 50/50 if all she's done is say 'yes you can do it' with my own spare money type of thing (I'd still cover my side of the bills etc).

Basically my view is that a divorce should only take into account things that were created/bought/done while they were together and not about things that were outside of the marriage or in some respects individually while married. Now don't get me wrong I wouldn't go into a marriage with the intention of getting divorced but I would want to protect myself just in case it did happen, I'd also make sure I'd look after any children involved as well they're just in the middle usually.

I'd only do joint bank accounts for things like a mortgage or bills but that would get the money paid into it as needed, seriously there is no way my money would go in a joint account, it just wouldn't happen.

 

[Em3bbs]

What if you run a business and your spouse doesn't work and instead raises the children etc, without which you wouldn't have such a successful business?

Maybe backdate what it would cost to have had an au pair during that period?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I can't help but think that's richdog's prenup would be a list of awful clothing and footwear.

"In the event of a separation, richdog will retain:

1. Suede camel boots with oxtong detail, 5 pairs of.
2. 3/4 length, diamente encrusted, LED-lit Parka jacket, 1 of.
3. Deerstalker hat made from real deer, 2 of.
4. No-armed cardigan, zebra pattern with buttons made from coins, 3 of."

 

[lsg1r]

What if you run a business and your spouse doesn't work and instead raises the children etc, without which you wouldn't have such a successful business?

Honestly I wouldn't want a wife that basically relies on the husband (both my mum and dad worked even when I was young) to bring in the money plus to be fair it's not really financially viable for most families and then there's this lovely thing called equality that some women keep campaigning for....which in my view means a 50/50 coverage of costs and caring in a family. Now if a wife stops working the husband then has to cover the cost of mortgage/bills etc so while she may have given up work to care for the child, the husband has been financially supporting the entire family during that time, maybe even requiring him to work more hours to compensate, missing out on the child growing up etc (you can't really put a price on that can you) so do they get a rebate on expenses or compensation for missing out on their child growing up?

There is nothing in today's world that is stopping a mother having her own income from a freelance job, not to mention there's financial support for childcare (pretty sure the voucher scheme is still going) and at some point the children will go to school full time so there's no reason for a wife to be at home full time until a child becomes an adult. Also if I'm working freelance and work from home like I do there's nothing stopping me being a carer of the children either.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It shows such contempt for family life that looking after children isn't regarded as real work.

 

[lsg1r]

It shows such contempt for family life that looking after children isn't regarded as real work.

Assuming that's likely aimed at me....I find it strange that some people assume that a husband that is working to support the family, basically making sure there's a roof over the child's head and food on the table, isn't seen as looking after the child....
Just because 'the mother' is at home with the child doesn't mean 'the father' isn't caring for that child while they're at work.

 

[dowie]

It shows such contempt for family life that looking after children isn't regarded as real work.

of course it requires work, but other than when they're very young it certainly doesn't require full time work - in plenty of relationships both partners work, especially once the kids are attending nursery/school, perhaps useful if one partner has reduced or flexible hours and/or the other can work from home on occasion

I think the tradition that women stay at home and the knock on effect in divorces that the man is then responsible for funding her until the child is 18 (or potentially for the rest of her life if she's got some medical issues and has made some dodgy property investments as per another thread) is pretty dubious - frankly the older the child gets the more and more feasible it is for both parents to work.

On the other hand if both parents work and neither is necessarily the primary care giver then you're less likely to get these lopsided divorces or desires for pre-nups in the first place as the relationship is more balanced/equal to start with

 

[Vonhelmet]

Assuming that's likely aimed at me....I find it strange that some people assume that a husband that is working to support the family, basically making sure there's a head over the child's head and food on the table, isn't seen as looking after the child....
Just because 'the mother' is at home with the child doesn't mean 'the father' isn't caring for that child while they're at work.

They are both work. I never said anything about the father. You, however, were dismissing the mother's part as less important.