MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Antony & Cleopatra get a pre-nup?



  • awehla
    awehla Posts: 109 Forumite
    My boyfriend's brother wanted his girlfriend to sign a deed of trust when they bought a house together because he put 10K into it. She was in tears in the solicitors office and he still says to my boyfriend now he wants her to sign one even though they've been living together for over a year now. Whatever they do they need to make a decision one way or the other rather than leaving it hanging over their relationship.

    I think if you have something to lose you should get a prenup after reading other people's stories. Though I think it's still awful how money grabbing some people are and I agree with dave2 that having to give future earnings is ridiculous. If you are not together anymore that is the end of it and if you have children that's why you have child support.
  • snowyhunter
    snowyhunter Posts: 1 Newbie
    edited 24 September 2009 at 2:50PM
    From the other side, I married an only children of fairly well-off parents. Had I been asked for a pre-nup by either my future husband or my future parents-in-law I would never have got over the fact that I was not thought to be trusted and I would have considered walking or at the very least not actually getting married but living together. This may have looked bad but I just know that I would never have been able to live it down and deal with on a day to day basis. I am so grateful that this never happened as we have been married 6 years, have 2 lovely children and a very trusting relationship - and have been told by my now parents-in-law that I have been fantastic at reigning my husbands spending.
  • tallgirld wrote: »
    I wouldn't marry him full stop. I would never marry someone who has a lot less than me. I have had my fair share of waste men that I have carried wont be doing that again!!!

    Hey, tallgirld - this guy is a newly qualified teacher, not a "waste man". We happen to live in a country where teachers, nurses and many others doing truly essential work are grossly undervalued. What is needed is a shift in attitude so that people's worth is not judged purely by what's in their pay packet.
  • dave2 wrote: »
    Yeah go for the pre-nup. I wouldn't get in my car if I had any thoughts about crashing but I still wear the seat belt.

    Pre-nups only seem awful when you're idea of marriage is out of the 1940's, where people married young before they had much assets to speak of and tended to stick together for a long time. In those situations at least all the assets have been built up while together (even if one contributed more than the other...) and one likely supported the other building their career.

    But nowadays that's simply not relevant. Couples each have their own careers, which are already underway, and often already have existing assets.

    Whenever these things go court the resolution rarely seems to make much sense, I think the courts go on ancient precedent and punish people heavily for indiscretions which may be morally reprehensible but have absolutely nothing to do with the finances.

    Maybe it's because I come from an accounting background but the way I see it courts should consider it a partnership, just like a business partnership. Parties should be jointly liabile for debts incurred during the marriage but assets left over should be based on what each put in (counting both capital and work).

    One thing I really cant stomach is the "share of future earnings" thing. I just can't fathom how it can possibly be anything other than outrageously unfair and punitive.

    You quite clearly haven't a clue about how divorce law works!

    Firstly there is no blame in Divorce in England and Wales. It doesn't matter what either of you have been doing, the wife could have been screwing the pet dog in the husband's treasured car while the budgie watched, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the eventual settlement.

    There is no punitative element to settlements in divorce proceedings either the emphasis is on a fair and equitable resolution that as far as possible allows the couple to go forward unfettered.

    The English courts prefer a clean break settlement, with no ongoing payments wherever possible and often the division of assets is inequal in order to fairly acheive this.

    Ongoing maintenance is extremely rare where there are no dependant children. When it is awarded it is almost always in cases of very long marriages breaking down and one party having compromised earning potential. In those situations looking at it dispassionately it is often the most equitable solution.

    For example, a couple have been married 35 years, they have three children all of whom are now grown up and independant. The wife gave up work when she became pregnant with the first and has not worked since, at her husbands request, although has been a full time stay at home mum, she has also assisted the husband with entertaining buiness associates and clients, this has helped him get to where he is today. They divorce when she is 55, she has few qualifications, prior to having children she was a secretary but her skills are out of date as she gained her qualifications in the days of manual typewriters. The chances of her being able to get a decent job to see out her five years to retirement are slim. Any job she gets will be unskilled, yet had she not given up work to look after the children she would most likely still be employed and probably on a decent wage as a highly experienced secretary. It is probably fair enough to allow some ongoing payments to assist her to maintain a reasonable standard of living given that she has sacrificed her career for the sake of their marriage and children.
  • There are several threads on here full of pain from step children, whose new father has not made a will.

    Anyone else see the episode of "Heir Hunters" where the child of a bigamist watched the program and said "that my dad"?
  • cleo should not get a pre-nup - what message does that give her future husband about her level of trust in him? she shouldnt be marrying him at all if she has any doubts whatsoever that she may need a pre-nup - live together for a while and see how that goes.

    i earn significantly more than my husband (for a variety of reasons), but all teh money we both bring to the marriage is 'ours'. i would never split it. why?because i love and trust him utterly and would not have married him in the first place if i thought i would need financial protection. we were together for 11 years before we made the decision to get married and have kids. don't rush into marriage and you shouldnt need a pre-nup.

    plus if antony puts in lots of e.g. diy to the house, or does most of the housework etc then in a divorce settlement, that would be accounted for....
  • Always have a Prenup.
    Never have a joint account. People can change and you can't protest if they run off with all your money and leave you with lots of debt if you were too lazy to read or insist on the contract.
  • I'd appreciate someone being on the same wavelength in terms of thinking that a married couple are still 2 different people. Personally I'd be happy to maintain that independence.
    Order of events: Banks lose our money -> get bailed out -> were inflating GBP to cover it -> now taxing us -> next will grab your funds direct -> things get really desperate to balance the books. What should have happened?: banks go bust and we lost our money much quicker
  • pineapple
    pineapple Posts: 6,931 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    edited 25 September 2009 at 8:44AM
    Solitaire 64 that's a horrendous story.
    When I split up from my husband it was I, yes I, who had an affair and it was I who left him. That said, nothing is black and white.
    However, if I had insisted on my 'rights' he would have had to sell the house. I felt bad enough so we agreed something he could afford. I was also asked if I wanted to go for a stake in his pension !!!!!! and said no.
    Many years later it was the reverse position with my partner of 10 years who I actually found with his 'interest' in our house when I came home early one day. But we agreed everything amicably. We had to use a solicitor to draw up the legal issues re the house and he said we got on better than many a married couple.
    But you can't guarantee that everything will always be so reasonable. I would always go for a prenup. It may not be 100% legally binding yet but at least signifies intent and may help. Either it should be built into the marriage contract or the law over division of assets should change. It's ok being all lovey dovey and wanting to share everything when you are both young and starting out but think that especially when you are older it is a necessary consideration.
  • I agree with all those who say that asking for a pre-nup agreement shows the wrong attitude going into a marriage. I got married believing that we would be together forever and that we would be forever loving and faithful. I was, sadly my ex-wife wasn't

    What Cleo and Antony need, like the rest of us, is a system which delivers a fair settlement for both parties when a marriage comes to an end. Clearly, in this country, we do not have such a system. The settlement in my own case and those of Solitaire 64 and several aquaintances of mine are all grossly unfair to one of the parties (usually but not always the man). Divorce is always difficult and it is made even more so by our appalling legal system and the leeches that feed off it.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors


  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards