How to save your pre-marital assets

Kimitatsu

margaretclare wrote: »

Fast-forward to today. In fact we've now been married for 5 years last January. As part of our marriage service we spoke the words to each other 'All that I am I give you, all that I have I share with you, within the love of God, amen'.

This is the only way it can be. Whether I owned, or he owned, anything before we made those vows, is completely irrelevant. What we had before, what we've gained since we've been together, it's ours, not his, not mine, ours.

I can't imagine living any other way. Otherwise, why get married?

HTH

Margaret

I think that is beautiful Margaret! And it is nice to see that faith in human nature still exists!

If he doesnt trust her then why is he even contemplating marrying her? Surely you marry someone because you intend to spend the rest of your life with them "until death us do part". If you are more worried about what will happen if you split up then really you start off on the back foot.

My husband arrived in my life with very little and a large debt but we have got through it and are stronger for it - doesnt stop us arguing but cant imagine life without him. I know the OP probably thinks I am just being silly and romantic but this is my second marriage, the first one was never right, and I remeber thinking before we got married like your mate.

Give him some money saving advice and tell him to save himself the money on the wedding and subsequent divorce!

Errata

If he can't trust her over his wordly goods, it might be a good idea not to trust her with his bits !

Savvy_Sue

I think that film's on tonight, wish I could remember what it's called, all about pre-nups. I know it's set in the USA but it's quite salutory! :rotfl:

Brain has returned - Intolerable Cruelty!

seven-day-weekend

I agree with Margaret Clare that if you don't love someone enough to be able to make (and keep) those promises, then don't get married.

January20

It's very well saying that when you marry someone, you make vows and you agree to share everything. However, in reality how many marriages fail? How many people find that the person they loved is not the person they thought, that they had an affair, that in an acrinomous divorce the other half who once loved them is prepared to do anything and everything to hurt them and take their "fair" share?

It's a bit unfair to assume the OP's friend does not trust his future wife. It could be that he is very realistic and realises that things can go wrong and why should she - after even a short period of marriage under English laws - be entitled to half of what he owns and probably worked hard to get?

If there is anything I have learned in this life, it is that you can never trust anyone 100% because you never know them fully.

Pre-nups are not legal under English laws and that is a shame as they could save a lot of heartache, and could deter people who are after a financial gain, because although I wish we could all have the experience of MargaretClare, it doesn't always happen does it?

margaretclare

I do agree that many marriages/partnerships start out with the best of intentions - the road to hell being paved with good intentions - and that many marriages and partnerships end up on the scrap-heap. I should know - I am my DH's 3rd wife, both his previous 2 marriages failed. I was a widow when I met him.

However, what Saeed says is somewhat disquieting, because he talks about the possibility of his friend's fiancee 'blackmailing' him and that he may have to give her £150K?

While I might recognise that - with the best will in the world - a proportion of marriages will fail for whatever reason, I wouldn't automatically think of blackmail. Blackmail is a crime, and most people whose marriages fail are not criminals.

Either this bloke is hyper-suspicious, or he doesn't know his fiancee well at all, or there is something else going on that we don't know about. It all seems a bit odd.

Can I just say to January20, I do trust DH 100%, and he trusts me the same. There is no one else in the world that either of us trusts 100%, but it does apply to the relationship that we have between us. And we both had to wait until age 62 before we had that kind of experience in our lives.

Margaret

Saeed

Thanks for all the replies and keep them coming. I think January20 has the right idea about the concerns my friend has. The issue is that my mates brother is stuck in a similar scenario and due to various factors he can't divorce his wife. His brother also has a cash property which his wife has put a court order on so he can't sell it so his brother is pretty well stuck and being treated badly by the wife!!! He can't get divorced due to family reasons (long story) so has to put up with it We are all here coz we want to save money or we haven't got money and we think that is a problem, but those who have money find it is a problem having money!

He doesn't want to end up in a similar scenario, sometimes even good people who you trust can turn nasty when they see a quick opportunity for gain, and can use the threat of taking away your material wealth to "blackmail" you into being a doormat.

So the question becomes, if they do not get married but just live together, if they have children will the wife have the same rights over property or does she have less rights as they are not married.

I'm thinking it may be better for them to just live together for a few years so they can see if they are compatible, but my mate is concerned that if they have children, he will be in a similar situation to if he had actually got married if it comes to splitting up???

Anyone know better???? Also has anyone got any knowledge about keeping money off shore where a partner would not be able to get it ....say Isle of Man, Switzerland etc...

January20 wrote: »

It's very well saying that when you marry someone, you make vows and you agree to share everything. However, in reality how many marriages fail? How many people find that the person they loved is not the person they thought, that they had an affair, that in an acrinomous divorce the other half who once loved them is prepared to do anything and everything to hurt them and take their "fair" share?

It's a bit unfair to assume the OP's friend does not trust his future wife. It could be that he is very realistic and realises that things can go wrong and why should she - after even a short period of marriage under English laws - be entitled to half of what he owns and probably worked hard to get?

If there is anything I have learned in this life, it is that you can never trust anyone 100% because you never know them fully.

Pre-nups are not legal under English laws and that is a shame as they could save a lot of heartache, and could deter people who are after a financial gain, because although I wish we could all have the experience of MargaretClare, it doesn't always happen does it?

bristol_pilot

If he has children he will have to support them whether he stays with his partner or not - and rightly so! However, if he is not married to his partner whom he lives with he is not as vulnerable to being 'taken to the cleaners' as married guys are. BTW £150k is not the limit of what he could lose on divorce, it could be 100% plus a proportion of his FUTURE earnings. 50% is merely the starting point for negotiation!

Pre-nups (prior to marriage) are not legally binding in the UK but 'living-together' agreements can be, as with any other contract, especially if all is fair and reasonable and especially if both parties each receive independent legal advice beforehand. There is some indication that the law on this may change in the future to give a co-habitee the same rights as a wife.

Keeping assets "offshore" will not work in a divorce case - he would be ordered by a court to hand the assets over and go to jail for contempt if he failed to do so. Of course he could flee abroad himself, with his assets, but he would have to go to some country such as Bolivia or Somalia where the UK courts would never be able to get hold of him.

Not getting married and not living together either is the best option - he can still have children. I believe its called '"living apart together".

Saeed

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Keeping assets "offshore" will not work in a divorce case - he would be ordered by a court to hand the assets over and go to jail for contempt if he failed to do so.

yes bristol....if the court or the wife knew about them them they would probably need to be declared or sanctions against the husband could be taken. I am thinking if he keeps his stash somewhere abroad and keeps it a secret, he should be OK. I have read that Isle of Man may be a decent place for this ....but am not entirely sure.

Of course he could flee abroad himself, with his assets, but he would have to go to some country such as Bolivia or Somalia where the UK courts would never be able to get hold of him.

I think the courts are powerless in this case as it is a civil case, not criminal. So one could flee with their money and court could not do anything and I am sure many people have done this and started afresh. To pursue the court action, your spouse would have to find you first and then either go to that country or try to get you back to the UK! No easy feat in a civil case UNLESS you have some assets in the UK that the court/spouse could blackmail you with!

Not getting married and not living together either is the best option - he can still have children. I believe its called '"living apart together".

I think he is not going to get legally register married but just live together and see how it pans out. I think he may sell his house and buy a big one with ALL his assets BUT put it one his mother's name on the deeds. That should stop any wife in their tracks. NO MONEY = NO PROBLEMS

bristol_pilot

Despite it being a civil case, you can still be sent to jail for contempt of court.

Yes, you could probably avoid payment by hiding in some South American war zone for the rest of your life. But isn't that a bit extreme when there is an obvious remedy easily available - do not get married!

Handing over his assets to a relative will not work. A court will decide they are his in reality and force him and his relative to hand them over.

Why do you think your mate can somehow avoid the catastrophic consequences of a divorce when no-one else can? Do you seriously think no-one has thought of these crazy schemes before?