Pre-nup wanted by future in laws

quidsy

Agree but have a clause written in to it stating that you have a right to live in the property until you die should your husband die before you.

The issue i assume is mainly about being left homeless & penniless in old age if oh dies first? Just have clauses written in & tell fil that you can't afford the legal fees yourself so is he willing to cover the cost for both sides.

lostinrates

twojaystwokays wrote: »

I would not end up with both houses because I have no intention of getting my oh to sign a pre-nup on my house, as far as I am concerned what we have now and what we will always have is ours not his and not mine.
I wonder if he could just have the house in the two youngest childrens name and then it effectively has nothing to do with me or my oh.

The only experience I have ( of my own and a couple of friends) is that assets of both parties are discussed on the prenup. Its my understanding that this would be and important aspect of a good prenup and would be considered prejudiced without that.

While prenups are continuing to be considered they aren't required to be considered by courts. My friends was not considered in her financial settlement this year.

Furthermore, if the house is in trust to your husband and two children I'm not sure that would be impacted by divorce or change the courts ability to grant you access to live in it. I am REALLY not sure of that at all, though, I'm just highlighting that we keep discussing it as if it were being left to your husband simply, but the trust aspect to the next generation and deliberate exclusion of you by your fil in that trust creation might have an impact on the award a court could make of that, because it wouldn't be necessarily an asset of the marriage????

( absolutely no idea though)


Edit....(very personally, despite your reservations on the location and complications I would cut free of the fil and house and either sell the old house at a loss and buy another or move into it and live independently. I sincerely believe that everyone in this situation is tying to have a cake and eat it. ). I wish you luck for you future.

twojaystwokays

I am inclined to sign it but have a clause saying that if the marriage breaks down due to ohs infidelity, abuse or violence then the pre-nup is void and then get oh to do a will that somehow helps me if the worst happens.
Does this sound fair, I dont see why I should be left homeless if he cheats on me.
I hate the way I am thinking like this when all I want to do is plan my wedding (which we are paying for ourselves)

DigForVictory

Whew. While I thought prenups were legally tissue I was all prepared to recommend keeping him happy. (I'm sure you have other, more potent tools to use on your husband to be.)

Then I realised he owns your house & most of your beloved's backbone.

However, you also have children & a property of your own to protect. I'd start with a chat with your husband - does he know, does he agree, does he not think this a pretty shabby way to treat you, his intended bride, & mother of his children? Does he appreciate you carrying him some of the time? Do his parents know you have? Has he said anything to Dad (or Mum) about your support of him, or about their apparent lamentable view of you?

Don't quite agree with Judi in that you'll end up with both houses - indeed if FiL decides to fund rottweiler lawyers you may have a few years in the present family home & then nothing as the other house will have been sold to defend yourself.

If son can't/won't get dad to soften towards you, how about working on MiL to be? Again, does she know you've supported her darling son? Might she be able to tell her husband to back off, treat you with the respect you've earned & umpire a seperate peace?

Start calmly with husband. (FiL wants fireworks? Send him a box of firecrackers.) Escalate as far as you can with him. Open courteous communication/negotiation with MiL to be & see if FiL can be outflanked.

Only as a last step would I rub their noses in the fact that you have a place to retreat to over which they have no control & if they push it, you might take their son & grandchildren & they can whistle for contact...

While this goes on, I wouldn't be sending out invites. Your beloved may have to choose & "can't get away to marry you today, Poppa won't let me" would just be messy.

System

Don't quite agree with Judi in that you'll end up with both houses

Yes a bit extreme I know but that's probably what the Father in Law is afraid of.... and he's not exactly thinking straight.

bagpussbear

My answer is a short one - don't sign anything!

Obviously we don't know what the future holds, signing something would possibly be to your detriment if the relationship went wrong, but also overly complicates.

Say no, stick by it, and let them get on with it.

warehouse

DigForVictory wrote: »

Only as a last step would I rub their noses in the fact that you have a place to retreat to over which they have no control & if they push it, you might take their son & grandchildren & they can whistle for contact.

That's disgusting behaviour from anyone and then you wonder why the FiL might not trust women? Outrageous even for this forum.

OP, DigForVictory's bit before that rubbish quoted above was possibly the way to move forward.

tizerbelle

twojaystwokays wrote: »

I am inclined to sign it but have a clause saying that if the marriage breaks down due to ohs infidelity, abuse or violence then the pre-nup is void and then get oh to do a will that somehow helps me if the worst happens.
Does this sound fair, I dont see why I should be left homeless if he cheats on me.
I hate the way I am thinking like this when all I want to do is plan my wedding (which we are paying for ourselves)

No, No and No. Not without having obtained independent legal advice yourself. You must get proper legal advice. They will need to know the terms of the trust (get OH to get this off FIL) and have sight of the pre-nup. It is not just as simple as adding a clause in between yourselves to put fidelity conditions into the pre-nup. One wrong word can alter the terms and make something unenforcable. If the property is in trust, whats to say that anything in a will prepared by OH can change the terms of the trust?

twojaystwokays

Thanks dig for victory for putting a big smile on my face. You hit the nail on the head with the backbone statement.
On a serious note however, he has this control on every member of the family (except me, not that I think I will ever be "family")
This is where my problem is, yes they know I have supported my oh and yes they know that he was on a one way road to destruction when we met and yes they know that I have turned his life around and given him two beautiful children.
But I am still (in their eyes) this evil older woman who is divorced with two kids who came along and trapped their little boy by getting pregnant( not true, biggest shock of my life) and refuses to play the game and jump to his tune.:mad:
Rant over.

fabforty

quidsy wrote: »

Agree but have a clause written in to it stating that you have a right to live in the property until you die should your husband die before you.

The issue i assume is mainly about being left homeless & penniless in old age if oh dies first? Just have clauses written in & tell fil that you can't afford the legal fees yourself so is he willing to cover the cost for both sides.

No reason why that should happen. OP owns a house and will be able to work once her children start school, which shouldn't be too far off. It is only a problem if they intend to live off FIL forever, instead of supporting themselves and their family independently, without help from the in laws.


ETA - It doesn't matter what kind of man the FIL is or what he thinks of you, he will always be able to control you as long as you are both happy to let him support you. Perhaps if you both stood up to him (by going it alone), he might have a different opinion of you.