Pre-nup wanted by future in laws

Bella73

twojaystwokays wrote: »

Money is no issue to my future in laws, I get the impression they think I might be a gold digger even though when we met I had a job, a house, a car and he still lived with his parents and had none of these. He is lovely, a fantastic dad but very naive and spoilt. He is also very controlled by his dad.
I have no problem in signing a pre-nup as I think his dad would love me to say no but I am starting to think about horrible scenarios, what would happen if my partner and children died etc.
The whole thing is really upsetting me ( I think that was the plan), my partner will never really stand up to his dad.

What happened to the money from your house? Surely that should be in the pre nup to be returned at current market value as well?

FBaby

Seanymph wrote: »

I'm astounded - because your FIL won't gift you a house unencumbered you will deprive two of your children from living with their father?

Did you really just say that? You are leaving your partner and your kids dad because you aren't a beneficiary of a house you haven't contributed towards at all?

I don't think OP has implied this at all. OP seems confused and personally I think that is her fiance that needs a serious talk too. That the FIL would want to protect his assets, whatever he thinks, after all that is his choice, however, the son seems to be defending his father whilst pretending to be supportive of his wife, yet getting aggrevated when she suggests they stay as they are.

He is coming up with a lot of fibs. Of course it is perfectly possible to hold a Trust with children only being the sole beneficial (this is what I have done myself for my children) so whether it is the FIL making things up and OP's fiance is too stupid to question it and look into it, or he knows it isn't true but doesn't want to confront his father, or deep inside he really is happy with the arrangement, I don't know but he is giving many mix messages that would also leave me very confused and needing time to clear my head up and reassess the situation.

sulkisu

Seanymph wrote: »

I'm astounded - because your FIL won't gift you a house unencumbered you will deprive two of your children from living with their father?

Did you really just say that? You are leaving your partner and your kids dad because you aren't a beneficiary of a house you haven't contributed towards at all?

That is not what she said.


OP suggested to OH that they not get married and continue to live together (as she couldn't then be accused of being a golddigger). Partner took this badly, things were said and the relationship has now hit rockbottom. She is thinking of moving out for a short time to give them some space and to get her head together. That's how I read it anyway.

Georgiegirl256

Sorry to hear about the news in your update.

However, I can see why your OH has reacted the way he has though. If you have no interest in gaining financially from the house should you split, then why would you not just sign the pre-nup? I can see why he is thinking the way he is, and I'm just being honest here, but what is the main reason stopping you from actually signing the pre-nup?

FBaby

I would never agree to sign up a pre-nup out of principle. Either my husband is prepared to take the full risk of being married to me, or if not, we remain an unmarried couple, so can totally understand OP's view in saying that if he can't totally trust her and feel he needs to protect himself, that they are not ready to be married.

Now of course, his defense is that it is not him but his father, but marriage is about commitment to your partner, not his family. If he can't sort things out with his father one way or the other (ie, trust in the name of the children only), then he is not being truthful to OP.

As a matter of fact, in OP's shoes, I would be totally disheartened and would really consider whether I would want to share my life with a man who is more committed to his dad than I.

Georgiegirl256

FBaby wrote: »

I would never agree to sign up a pre-nup out of principle. Either my husband is prepared to take the full risk of being married to me, or if not, we remain an unmarried couple, so can totally understand OP's view in saying that if he can't totally trust her and feel he needs to protect himself, that they are not ready to be married.

My take on it is that you could be the nicest, most kindest, sweetest person ever, good morals etc, with no intention whatsoever of making a claim on the house, but come divorce time (if that were to happen of course), all the niceties go out of the window. Say the husband has do e the dirty on her, some women might think "right, sod him the !!!!!!!, I'm gonna take him for every penny he's got" Or vice versa if it was the other way round of course.

Then the person who's house it was, who had put no safeguard in place whatsoever is gonna feel like such a bloody fool for letting his heart rule his head and not protecting his property by putting a pre-nup in place.

People don't go into a marriage wanting it to fail, but the sad thing is that a very high percentage of marriages DO fail, you've got to be a realist about things. Personally, I don't think it's about trust "if you trusted me, you wouldn't make me sign a pre-nup", it's about being real and about being sensible.

kiddy_guy

So the Fiance does limited amounts of work, sponges off his dad, backs his parents over his future wife and accuses his wife to be a gold digger.


If you were married to such a character, most sane people would be saying divorce him!


To consider marrying this sort of chancer - utter madness...

Person_one

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

My take on it is that you could be the nicest, most kindest, sweetest person ever, good morals etc, with no intention whatsoever of making a claim on the house, but come divorce time (if that were to happen of course), all the niceties go out of the window. Say the husband has do e the dirty on her, some women might think "right, sod him the !!!!!!!, I'm gonna take him for every penny he's got" Or vice versa if it was the other way round of course.

Then the person who's house it was, who had put no safeguard in place whatsoever is gonna feel like such a bloody fool for letting his heart rule his head and not protecting his property by putting a pre-nup in place.

People don't go into a marriage wanting it to fail, but the sad thing is that a very high percentage of marriages DO fail, you've got to be a realist about things. Personally, I don't think it's about trust "if you trusted me, you wouldn't make me sign a pre-nup", it's about being real and about being sensible.

If you want to marry somebody, part of that is wanting to protect each other in the event that the marriage fails, not just yourself.

Its saying "I love and care about and respect this person so much, that I want to ensure things remain fair even if we stop loving each other, even if we later want to give in to pettiness and nastiness, the commitment I'm making now will prevent that.'

Despite what a lot of selfish men who don't really seem to understand marriage think, divorce courts are pretty fair, on the whole.

duchy

So what is the point in anyone who feels as you do getting married? The vows are quite specific and anyone who doesn't want to make that level of commitment (and marriage is a legal contract too not just an emotional commitment) should just live together perhaps ?
There's a lot of talk about how when people live together for a long time first a wedding is just about a party . I've always seen it as "moving to the next level" and maybe in this case the OP is ready to do so - and make that contract but her OH isn't just yet as he's still too tied to Daddy's apron strings.
In the OP's situation regardless of now much nicer the house was I'd be insisting we move back to her house rather than be beholden to someone who thinks they have the right to interfere between man and wife. If the pre-nup goes ahead then what other demands is Dad going to make later on using the marital home as a weapon ?

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

My take on it is that you could be the nicest, most kindest, sweetest person ever, good morals etc, with no intention whatsoever of making a claim on the house, but come divorce time (if that were to happen of course), all the niceties go out of the window. Say the husband has do e the dirty on her, some women might think "right, sod him the !!!!!!!, I'm gonna take him for every penny he's got" Or vice versa if it was the other way round of course.

Then the person who's house it was, who had put no safeguard in place whatsoever is gonna feel like such a bloody fool for letting his heart rule his head and not protecting his property by putting a pre-nup in place.

People don't go into a marriage wanting it to fail, but the sad thing is that a very high percentage of marriages DO fail, you've got to be a realist about things. Personally, I don't think it's about trust "if you trusted me, you wouldn't make me sign a pre-nup", it's about being real and about being sensible.

Georgiegirl256

Person_one wrote: »

Its saying "I love and care about and respect this person so much, that I want to ensure things remain fair even if we stop loving each other, even if we later want to give in to pettiness and nastiness, the commitment I'm making now will prevent that.

Sorry, but I had to :rotfl: when I read that. When I said my vows, they meant something to me and I intend to honour them, but if you think 'the commitment I'm making now will prevent that', then (and I don't mean to be blunt here but), you are being very naive. How is making the commitment of marriage going to 'prevent' any potential pettiness and nastiness down the line? Just because you stand up and say those vows, that isn't a safeguard that things aren't going to turn out nasty, I mean hopefully they won't, but by saying your vows, it doesn't prevent it.

In an ideal world, people would live happily ever after, that would be lovely, but you know and I know, that unfortunately that doesn't always happen.