Should pre-nups be encouraged?

Former_MSE_Debs

Poll started 11 Mar 2014

A pre-nuptial agreement is a contract signed by couples before they tie the knot, outlining how financial assets should be split if the relationship breaks down. Currently, they’re not legally binding, but the Law Commission thinks they should be.

Supporters argue they give clarity from the outset, and make it easier for couples to manage their affairs following a break-up. Opponents say it goes against the idea of marriage, adds expense and can leave the poorer partner under pressure to agree.


Should pre-nups be encouraged? Which of the options in this week's poll is closest to your view?

Vote in this week's poll

Did you vote? Why did you pick that option? Are you surprised at the results so far? Have your say below. To see the results from last time, click this

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.


[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

jely9

What about people in a relationship who are NOT married?
This is me and I had to vote as a single woman although I am very much not single (or married).

izzyuk59

Sadly (having worked for 13 years @ CSA ) family break ups never ever happen nicely. One always seems to walk away better off, usually with the kids/house/bank accounts. Pre nups would stop some from looking on their partners as targets (it does happen) when things go sour. There needs to be prioritised protection for children (CSA does not work for all, if at all) first and then the pre nup can be enforced on a sliding % depending on how long you'd stayed married. It would be unfair to hit a pre nup on someone who'd been married for say 25/30 years. Anything under 5 years warrants a pre nup being valid.

Look how calculating Tom Cruise was with Nicole Kidman - he got out just before Calif. 10 yr rule was about to hit in their marriage because he had a pre-nup. Some people are just sh*ts, pre-up or no pre-nup!

izzyuk59

Are you not classed as a couple in most areas? - even though there are no legal documents.
You're a couple as far as the benefit system is considered, you'd be classed as living together as man and wife.For the purposes of means-tested benefit entitlement, cohabiting couples are treated as if they are
married. As such they are expected to pool their financial resources and share financial responsibility for the household. This is the Living Together rule, known historically as ‘the cohabitation rule’

Sucks but there you go

telsco

The solution - make it compulsary in a marriage contract. That way there will be less court cases by the likes of Heather Mills etc...

tgroom57

Wish I'd had a prenup.

My husband used to joke that
What's yours is mine; and what's mine is my own.
Wasn't til we got to the divorce courts that I found out he wasn't kidding.

A prenup might have discouraged him from marrying me.

VfM4meplse

Good response so far - 825 already. Whilst I agree a pre-nup is a good idea I still think the courts should have the right to exercise discretion as you never know what circumstances may emerge during the course of the marriage.

I think it should be illegal for women to marry less wealthy men, but that's just my own opinion

happyinflorida

Personally I would say if you think a pre nup is essential before getting married that you are not marrying the right person.


So many people rush into a relationship, move in together and marry and then realise they've made a big mistake.


Take time, don't rush. That way you won't lose everything you've worked hard for.


A friend of mine, many years ago, moved into her boyfriends flat after he asked her too. She paid half of everything, when he needed the annual maintainance to be paid, she sold her car to pay it! Yes she was this daft. Not long after he said he wanted to split up and told her to move out IMMEDIATELY!! She had no where to go and no money to pay the deposit on her own place, he waited 3 weeks and then packed all her belongings and took them to her sisters flat (who didn't have a spare room) and he changed the locks - whilst she was at work.


She decided in view of everything to go to a solicitor who then told her as they weren't married she wasn't entitled to anything in law but she might be able to get something as she'd contributed so much, she ended up with him paying £1500 which after she'd paid the sol's fees she was left with about £150, so she said it wasn't worth it.


So learn from this, pay only towards extras - like food as you don't get anything back if you split up.


He sold the flat for a big profit when he wanted to buy a house with his new girlfriend!

iAMaLONDONER

VfM4meplse wrote: »

.

I think it should be illegal for women to marry less wealthy men, but that's just my own opinion

What? So you want to ensure all gold diggers are female?

TBagpuss

happyinflorida wrote: »

Personally I would say if you think a pre nup is essential before getting married that you are not marrying the right person.


So many people rush into a relationship, move in together and marry and then realise they've made a big mistake.


Take time, don't rush. That way you won't lose everything you've worked hard for.

Length of marriage is no guarantee that things won't go pear-shaped. Nor are good intentions at the start.

However, in order to enter into a pre-nup you *have* to think about your financial positions, your expectations and assumptions, so you have the opportunity to discuss those with your partner.

I personally think that if you cannot discuss finances, and your expectations about how they will work within your relationship then you might need to reconsider whether you should be getting married, and also that if you do discuss those things and reach agreement, to enter into a pre-nup, you are actually boosting your chances of staying together because you have already discussed some of the potential pitfalls, and have had the opportunity to address potential problems *before* they happen, and at a time when you are on good terms and both interested in being fair.

Better to find out that you have major areas of disagreement before you marry than afterwards, as you can either work out a solution or decide not to marry!

I think there still needs to be room for a court to have some discretion, however, as it is very nearly impossible to draw up an agreement which remains fair in every possible situation.

cabriolean

In favour of prenups, but with court's discretion in special circumstances, e.g. if one is abusive/has an affair etc. it should be taken into account.