Pre-nup wanted by future in laws

duchy

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

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?

What exactly are you taking offence to ? Sorry I haven't a clue what you're annoyed about- ............
As for the vows ............ Some people do treat marriage vows casually (like your friend) -others take them seriously -I don't think we need to take bets as to which group are more likely to divorce. As far as I am concerned if other people want to treat their vows as "just what you say" that's is up to them. I took mine seriously and kept them (my ex husband didn't and that is why we divorced).

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?

Easy question - I did -and we did ..and he was and yes he came out of it very nicely. I could have spent the rest of my life all bitter and twisted over it like some people do or I could have decided I made a mistake but out of it came some good years and the most wonderful child so all in all I came out of it better off. Life is too short -At the time we got married a pre-nup wasn't legally binding but even if it had been I doubt I'd have gone for it as to me it would be a self fulfilling prophecy to go into a lifelong commitment with one. The split hurt-of course it did....Would it have hurt less if I had walked away with more money - and him with less.... Nope.

duchy

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.

Oooh you said it far better than I did ! Thank you.

Ultimately no court is going to allow a fifty fifty split for a "short-lived" marriage. Anything under five years is considered shortlived.

AcidHouse

twojaystwokays wrote: »

Just a quick update, I am really grateful to everyone who has took time to advice (even the people who have said things that I maybe did not want to hear, but isnt that the point of doing this)
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!!!!!!!!!!!
He also said his dad cant take his name off the trust and put it in the childrens name because they are under 18, anyone able to help me on this one.
I am thinking of going to stay with my eldest for a while with the kids just to sort my head out and see if it is feasible for us all to live there, the relationship is at rock bottom right now and I think a lot of nasty things could be said.
I know by doing this I am doing exactly what my fil wants but some battles are not worth winning and mine and my four childrens happiness is the important thing, not the bloody house.

OP - Is your OH not talking about both of you getting a place of your own together, instead of accusing you of wanting the house all along? This doesn't sound like the conversation of two people that want to marry.

If you really want to marry each other, you won't let the FIL's property come between you. Mind you, I have to say this - the fact that you've lived in the FIL's house for so long, grown accustomed to having a home of a decent size, not having to work your !!!!!! off to pay for it etc - these factors haven't helped, though you've both been comfortable in it.
Can you two live together, in a smaller property that you both own/rent, both working normal hours, and be happy? If your OH isn't willing to move out of that house and get a job to provide a roof for his kids himself, then you're stalemate.

Fingers crossed you can work something out x

Georgiegirl256

duchy wrote: »

Easy question - I did -and we did ..and he was and yes he came out of it very nicely. I could have spent the rest of my life all bitter and twisted over it like some people do or I could have decided I made a mistake but out of it came some good years and the most wonderful child so all in all I came out of it better off. Life is too short -At the time we got married a pre-nup wasn't legally binding but even if it had been I doubt I'd have gone for it as to me it would be a self fulfilling prophecy to go into a lifelong commitment with one. The split hurt-of course it did....Would it have hurt less if I had walked away with more money - and him with less.... Nope.

First off sorry to hear what happened.

No it wouldn't have hurt any less, of course it wouldn't, and like you say, you got your lovely son, so it wasn't all bad. But that's the point I'm making, he must have been a lovely bloke when you married him (I presume?), but come divorce time he turned into said ahole and came out of it very nicely. But I do agree with (and admire) your attitude, what's the point in being bitter as it's not going to change anything.

The thing I took offence to was, you said, "So what is the point in anyone who feels as you do getting married?" Which to me insinuates that because I think that prenups can be a good thing, that I'm wrong in thinking that and that I obviously don't trust my partner, therefore my relationship doesn't mean as much as yours, and that my vows meant nothing either. That's just how it interprets to me, and it's utter tosh, my husband means the world to me.

duchy

I'm sure he does but what you seemed to be saying was that the vows are meaningless -and you don't believe people should be held to them if they happen to fall out of love later whereas I feel if you don't feel that promise should be "til death do you part" rather than "for the foreseeable future but not for the rest of our lives" then I don't see the point of getting married as you're not taking the vows you make as binding. Nothing to do with a pre-nup (although I think the idea of planning an expensive wedding and just before it setting up an agreement about what happens if you part a bit cynical and rather sad-I married believing we wanted the same things and would be together til one of us died -through good and bad......I do believe that if you believe in your vows you'll try a bit harder when your marriage hits a bad patch (which every marriage does at one time or another) .

Quite where you got that I don't think you should trust your partner is beyond me though.

I liked person one's comments about contracts .....Marriage is a contract -accept the t&c or form another type of contract like a living together - I don't see that as a bad thing-marriage is not compulsory .

FBaby

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.

I am totally with Person One on this one. My husband married his first wife, supported her totally as she was going to college, then when she started to make money, she had an affair with her boss, left him when he found out, and went for half of the house. He had to borrow money to pay her off, which he was still paying years later. It does leave a bitter after taste in your mouth when this happened... So I totally understood that agreeing to marry me had huge implications (especially has other investments have grown since). He had to think hard about the fact that he could lose half of everything again....and this is why this marriage means so much to me...because it is the ultimate proof of his commitment to me. He said his vows being totally conscious of what he could lose saying them.

That's what marriage is all about, and if you are not prepared to do it, then don't marry. He didn't have to marry me. I didn't force him too, as a matter of fact, he is the one who mentioned the word much better I did. He is the one who made it all very special.

Georgiegirl256

duchy wrote: »

I'm sure he does but what you seemed to be saying was that the vows are meaningless -and you don't believe people should be held to them if they happen to fall out of love later whereas I feel if you don't feel that promise should be "til death do you part" rather than "for the foreseeable future but not for the rest of our lives" then I don't see the point of getting married as you're not taking the vows you make as binding. Nothing to do with a pre-nup (although I think the idea of planning an expensive wedding and just before it setting up an agreement about what happens if you part a bit cynical and rather sad-I married believing we wanted the same things and would be together til one of us died -through good and bad......I do believe that if you believe in your vows you'll try a bit harder when your marriage hits a bad patch (which every marriage does at one time or another) .

Quite where you got that I don't think you should trust your partner is beyond me though.

I liked person one's comments about contracts .....Marriage is a contract -accept the t&c or form another type of contract like a living together - I don't see that as a bad thing-marriage is not compulsory .

Where did I say the vows are meaningless? I do believe in my vows, and agree with your sentence about that you'll try a bit harder when your marriage hits a bad patch....totally.

You say that I don't believe that people should be held accountable to them, and that I don't feel you should vow "Till death us do part", because there's no point in anyone (I take it you mean anyone and not just aiming this at me personally) getting married "as you're not taking the vows you make as binding". Of course I was and of course everyone else is....BUT as you know all too well, things don't always end up that way, do they? . You say marriage is a contract with terms and conditions? Even though you stuck to them, your ex obviously didn't.

When I said my vows, I meant every word of them. Surely everyone does, or else why get married? But, I have seen enough divorces to know that sometimes people default on those T&C's. Everyone who says their vows mean them at the time (and hopefully for ever), or if they didn't, then they shouldn't be getting married, on that I think we can both agree.

Anyhow, I guess this ones going to go round in circles with us never agreeing. I think prenups can be a good thing, you don't.

Seanymph

surely though everyone is missing the point -

she isn't marrying the blessed father in law to be.

She is marrying a guy without his own pot to pee in...

His FATHER is looking to protect HIS asset. So it isn't about meaning or not meaning vows - because his son is marrying her doesn't mean the FIL has to provide her with a house on divorce.

And hearts and flowers are lovely, but so is a dose of realism - people end up in terrible pickles giving up everything for love when it doesn't work out.

Presumbly no one on here banging the 'if he loved you' drum doesn't have insurance either?

Things go wrong - relationships break down - people pass away unexpectedly.

I'm sure her husband to be is wholehearted - but is FATHER doesn't have to support her - she has her own house and children already.

But it isn't about commitment - why on earth should this guys father be committed for his son to marry.

This lady is being given a free house to live in, which eventually will pass down to her children.

What's to complain about?

Georgiegirl256

Seanymph wrote: »

surely though everyone is missing the point -

she isn't marrying the blessed father in law to be.

She is marrying a guy without his own pot to pee in...

His FATHER is looking to protect HIS asset. So it isn't about meaning or not meaning vows - because his son is marrying her doesn't mean the FIL has to provide her with a house on divorce.

And hearts and flowers are lovely, but so is a dose of realism - people end up in terrible pickles giving up everything for love when it doesn't work out.

Presumbly no one on here banging the 'if he loved you' drum doesn't have insurance either?

Things go wrong - relationships break down - people pass away unexpectedly.

I'm sure her husband to be is wholehearted - but is FATHER doesn't have to support her - she has her own house and children already.

But it isn't about commitment - why on earth should this guys father be committed for his son to marry.

This lady is being given a free house to live in, which eventually will pass down to her children.

What's to complain about?

Finally! Someone (else ) who talks sense!

You're right, we all jumped onto the vows train, but it isn't really about that in this case, it's about the FIL.

There's that word again too....Realism.

Don't get me wrong, I can totally see where duchy, FBaby etc are coming from, I really can but I have to respectfully disagree with them.

lostinrates

duchy wrote: »

I liked person one's comments about contracts .....Marriage is a contract -accept the t&c or form another type of contract like a living together - I don't see that as a bad thing-marriage is not compulsory .

Why should one universal contract be right for all mergers? Why would mergers all cost so much and require such prep if it were the case that one contract were right for all.


Really, why are people so upset about what other people decide to do to make their marriages work well for them?


Marriage offers a superb frame work of both legal protections and emotional commitment, and declaration within society of status. I love being married, love my husband and strongly believe in what marriage represents both emotionally and legally. Doesn't mean I can see that some might benefit from, and some don't some other pre discussion and contract about more complicated arrangements.

What others do extra to their vows doesn't impact on my marriage that I can see, what I do doesn't impact on anyone else's either.



If people were in any other context saying to discuss and plan for different financial futures it would be considered prudent. What a strange lot we are!:D