Pre-nup wanted by future in laws

Person_one

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

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.

You've misunderstood.

Of course the vows can't prevent bitterness or nastiness if it comes to that. I said they'll prevent giving in to those feelings. You might decide in ten years you want to take your husband to the cleaners and leave him destitute without a penny to his name while you keep everything. Your marriage will prevent that, because the divorce court won't let you behave that way.

Georgiegirl256

duchy wrote: »

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 ?

To answer your first question (which btw I actually take offence to), I sure as hell didn't get married to get half of my husbands worldly possessions in he event of a divorce. Not that he's really got any anyhow tbh. The house is (and was before the wedding) in both names anyhow. I was already named on his death in service benefit etc, and even if I wasn't, I didn't get married to potentially gain half of what was his.

A lot is said in the vows you make. You promise to forsake all others....we all know a lot of people don't stick to that one now don't we?

One example of an ex friend of mine who basically slept with all the local football team, the local mechanics, most of the lads at work....I could go on, took her poor long suffering husband for a fool. Oh, but she would never leave him, he was her everything etc....eventually he poor guy had enough, so he left her....she took him for every penny he had, he now lives in a crummy little bedsit, and hardly sees his kids, all down to her.

As I have said in previous posts, I am a realist, it seems a lot of people around here have just got their heads stuck in the sand.

Serious question here though duchy, as I'm curious. Say you had a really expensive house, and you got married, then unfortunately you got divorced, and your ex spouse turned into a right ahole, and got his hands on half your house, how would you feel about that?

Person_one

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Serious question here though duchy, as I'm curious. Say you had a really expensive house, and you got married, then unfortunately you got divorced, and your ex spouse turned into a right ahole, and got his hands on half your house, how would you feel about that?

I'd have had the sense to realise that getting married and staying married for more than a couple of years meant it wasn't just my house anymore, but both of ours.

If I didn't want that to happen, I wouldn't get married. It is optional after all, you never have to sign a contract if you don't agree with the T&Cs in the small print.

Mojisola

twojaystwokays wrote: »

I suggested to my oh that we stay as we are (dont get married) then I cant be accused of marrying him for his money or house etc.

He took this badly and basically said it sounds like I was after the house all along!!!!!!!!!!!

So you've lived with him for seven years, had two children together and supported him when he's been out of work - typical picture of a gold-digger, I don't think!:rotfl:

How does he react if you suggest the two of you move elsewhere and start living within your financial means? Would he chose you over Daddy and his money? If it's Daddy - who is the gold digger?

Georgiegirl256

Person_one wrote: »

You've misunderstood.

Of course the vows can't prevent bitterness or nastiness if it comes to that. I said they'll prevent giving in to those feelings. You might decide in ten years you want to take your husband to the cleaners and leave him destitute without a penny to his name while you keep everything. Your marriage will prevent that, because the divorce court won't let you behave that way.

That's how it came across to me.

I've seen that many people get divorced to know that the vows you take DON'T prevent people 'giving in' to those feelings.

If the OP doesn't sign he pre-nup though, what's stopping her from getting her hands on the house in the future?

Georgiegirl256

Person_one wrote: »

I'd have had the sense to realise that getting married and staying married for more than a couple of years meant it wasn't just my house anymore, but both of ours.

If I didn't want that to happen, I wouldn't get married. It is optional after all, you never have to sign a contract if you don't agree with the T&Cs in the small print.

Very true. What I meant though was wouldn't she want to protect from that potentionally happening?

Person_one

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

That's how it came across to me.

I've seen that many people get divorced to know that the vows you take DON'T prevent people 'giving in' to those feelings.

If the OP doesn't sign he pre-nup though, what's stopping her from getting her hands on the house in the future?

The divorce courts.

Person_one

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Very true. What I meant though was wouldn't she want to protect from that potentionally happening?

If she did, then the way to do that is to not get married.

Jinx

My best friend had a scenario similar to this - her inlaws offered a nice large house deposit (with the right house lined up around the corner) and she signed to say it was a gift to the son only. He worked minimum wage and she earned more and was the main bread winner. She really found their interference hard to deal with and they very much 'lorded' it over her. Anyway, years later they divorced and she remained in the house and had to repay the whole deposit instead of just her half.....which I thought really unfair - it was a debt of the marriage not just hers.

I think prenups are a good idea where they are agreed by the couple as it allows full and upfront discussion. My hubby and I had a financial agreement drawn up when we decided to buy a house together as I already had a teenager and we were both putting a lot of money together before we considered marriage. All bets are off now we are married!! But a pre-nup 'forced' would not work for me but then neither would living in someone elses house.......

GobbledyGook

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

If the OP doesn't sign he pre-nup though, what's stopping her from getting her hands on the house in the future?

The trust. Presumably that's what it's there for.

Especially if it's in the names of her children.


I have to say i don't blame the OP for taking some time out. For her OH to call her a gold digger when she's kept them going (along with his Dad) when he's been out of work and there's been absolutely NO mention of her protecting her asset is rude at best.

You can have a trust just for children, it just needs one person (in this case Grandad) to administer it for them. If your OH doesn't want that then perhaps the golddigger looks should be going in his direction.