Pre-nup v debt

DUTR

Errata wrote: »

Are you aware that a prenup has no legal standing?

You may find that may have changed, there was an article on it on BBC breakfast in the last 10 days.

Mojisola

claire21 wrote: »

I am waiting for all those who marry someone more well off to say... I wouldn't sign a prenup, to justify why they wouldn't take on someone with debt and have the judge rule they had a responsibility to the debt if things went wrong.

I wouldn't marry someone with a lot of debt if it was an indicator of someone not in control of their life and/or someone who hadn't made wise choices in the past. I wouldn't want to commit to a life-long relationship until permanent changes had been made.

If the debts had occurred in other ways, it would be different.

It wouldn't worry me to marry someone with a lower income or few savings and I wouldn't expect them to sign a pre-nup.

Like many couples, who has earned/had the most money in our relationship has varied as circumstances have changed. For us, the money that comes into the household is family money and it's all "ours".

Georgiegirl256

Tink2 wrote: »

The bottom line is, I wouldn't marry someone who was in debt, I've never been in debt and never will be so no way in hell would I take on someone else's!

I would marry someone who was in debt. If it was the man I really loved and wanted to be with, and was in a committed relationship with them, then I would work through it with him and help him best I could in paying it off/getting it under control.

What I wouldn't do though is sign a pre-nup which said that if we were to divorce, then half that debt would be mine. I take it that you are meaning that the pre-nup would cover debt run up before the marriage OP?

In answer to your question OP, I actually do believe in pre-nups where one partner brings a considerably larger amount of money into the marriage than the other, and I would have no quams about signing one.

Georgiegirl256

DUTR wrote: »

likewise if I'm dating 'an old fashion girl' I feel annoyed and dissapointed that they cannot will not or unable to dip into their own purse.

That annoys me that, when women automatically expect the man to pay for everything on the first date/s. Yes it's nice and chivalrous but nobody should ever expect it IMO....but that's a whole other topic! :rotfl:

FBaby

Just a question as you said you wouldn't sign a prenup, so the person with more money is taking the financial chance of losing something, so do you trust someone enough to sign something to say you would take on their debt if it came to it?

In principle, yes I would, in reality, it would very much depends on the reason for the debts. If it was debts accumulated on credit cards as a result of poor budget management, i wouldn't marry him, but it wouldn't because of not trusting his management of money. If it wasn't because his business failed, again, it would depend whether I believed it happened through no fault of theirs. I would only marry if I felt confident they were committed to repaying it.

Also, you seem to assume that it is always one sided. My husband would have more to lose financially if we divorced sooner, but I am due a much large inheritance than he is.

74jax

claire21 wrote: »

Thanks I hope for more comments on this thread to see where it goes.

For better for worse....if along side that who would sign a paper to agree to be worse off if things break down.
Like I say, it didn't bother me at all, I had been with other half 8 years when we got married (only living together at the end just before the marriage) and it was something he asked for. As I didn't mind, I signed it. I can't see a divorce or a fall out whatsoever, it may have taken me almost 40 years to find him but I am well and truely with the guy for life now, so if it made him a little less un-nerved it didn't bother me to sign it. If we divorced without a prenup I'd have been an extremely well set up person, but with the pre-nup I leave with my house which I brought to the marriage and thats basically it.

If nobody agrees to signing for worse why are they happy to marry someone richer without signing anything so they don't walk away richer if things end?

I am waiting for all those who marry someone more well off to say... I wouldn't sign a prenup, to justify why they wouldn't take on someone with debt and have the judge rule they had a responsibility to the debt if things went wrong.

I hope you understand what I am asking.

It is really very individual, I totally appreciate some people saw me as bonkers, but in their case they wouldn't have signed one (and that's their choice). It's similar to a relationship where one wants to marry and one isn't fussed either way. If you're not fussed (and clearly your partner is) then why not get married, it's only if you don't actually WANT TO that it becomes an issue.

74jax

Errata wrote: »

Are you aware that a prenup has no legal standing?

At the moment, but there are cases where what has been agreed before marriage is taken into account.

There's nothing to say they won't become legal in the future, in which case, yes you can make one - or just use the one you already have.

FBaby

I still would rather rely on a will in terms of what I would want to go to my children than a pre-nup.

claire21

Thanks all some interesting replies, let's forget wills as we are saying divorce happens rather than death. In the most basics of terms let's put it this way. I am talking in the most general of terms here, so I would use the basics of the person being at a minimum over £100k better of financially than the other person (but we could be talking millions better off) and so to make the balance we shall say the debt is a minimum of 100k, as I can't see a prenup being asked for when dealing with a smaller amount if let's say 20k. Let's say the richer person is not making any more money and the debtor has now got it under control.

A is rich

B is middle of the road (I presume that's the position most are talking from)

C is in debt


So if we use the person B

They marry A without a prenup , they become better off on divorce and A becomes worse off.
They marry A with a prenup, both parties walk away as they came.

They marry C without anything they signed and they both walk away as they came
They marry C signing for half the debt, they become worse off and C becomes better off.


So I hope you see what I'm saying if we are putting ourselves in B shoes, by doing nothing and marrying either A or C we are either walking away the same or better off ...only A has lost something.

If we marry A or C and have signed something we are either walking away the same or worse off....only C has gained something.


I know this is really basic and not exactly how things would work but you get what I mean.

A few have mentioned signing something to protect children, I'm guessing this is why prenups are used in some cases, for exactly that reason.

I am just curious why someone wouldn't sign a prenup as you can look at it from A point of view rather than B, if you love me and want to marry me why if something went wrong would you want to take my money that I had before we were together?

Talking of the trust thing, it looks like A has to have more trust than B to enter the marriage.

claire21

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4895453

Here's a post, that perhaps we could say is person A who had no prenup.