Prenuptial Agreements

blondie_2-2

Nile wrote:

Marriage is an institution. But who wants to live in an institution? Boom, boom. The words of Groucho Marx I think.:D

Hello Blondie and welcome to the MSE site. Have you paid a visit to the Money Saving Arms yet? As a newbie, your first drink is on the house.

It's also the place to chill out and play in the sand pit or Wendy house......with the remedial class pupils like me. Come and play sometime.;)

You're surely not SPAMMING the Money Saving Arms!?!? *gasp*

Watch out! You'll have Mrs. Thrift (the Spam Police) on your back! :beer:

Mrs_Thrift

blondie wrote:

You're surely not SPAMMING the Money Saving Arms!?!? *gasp*

Watch out! You'll have Mrs. Thrift (the Spam Police) on your back! :beer:

LOL, I couldn't resist this one! Nile has nothing to fear from me - I've already had personal contact with Nile's back (and front) and I think I can safely say we both enjoyed it, eh Nile?








A hug, I mean a hug.....what else were you thinking, you dirty people?! :rotfl:

tru

Nile wrote:

Marriage is an institution.

So is prison :rotfl:

Legal_Academic

Spendless wrote:

I used children as an example in my case but what if the one coming into the marriage with the 'wealth' then finds themselves to be out of work, ill, needing to give up work to look after a sick/elderly relative and finds themselves being supported by the one who came into the marriage with 'less wealth'. What happens then?

In such a case neither party is likely to seek to rely on a pre-nuptial agreement, because it only came into existence so each partner could purport to ringfence whatever assets were acquired individually before the marriage. If those assets are spent, for whatever reason, then there is no point turning to an agreement that would have protected those assets had they not been spent.

Pre-nuptial agreements are not electrified fences around assets rendering them untouchable by the courts; they are merely deeds, freely entered into, expressing a couple's wishes concerning their assets as they go into a marriage. The courts will always retain the final say, being guided on a case by case basis on what is fair in the particular circumstances of each case, including the circumstances you raised.

All things being equal, a properly drafted pre-nuptial agreement can protect property and savings that partners go into a marriage with in their entirety, particularly where the marriage is short-lived and childless.

sarahlouise210

In a traditional marriage ceremony we say the words "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" I think pre nuptial agreements are very distasteful. Ok so 1 in 2 marriages ends in divorce.. Doesn`t everyone start off wanting to be in the half that remains married. When you do remarry with your prenuptial Blondie I do hope your new husband does not win the lottery before you divorce....

margaretclare

sarahlouise210 wrote:

In a traditional marriage ceremony we say the words "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" I think pre nuptial agreements are very distasteful. Ok so 1 in 2 marriages ends in divorce.. Doesn`t everyone start off wanting to be in the half that remains married. When you do remarry with your prenuptial Blondie I do hope your new husband does not win the lottery before you divorce....

Hi sarahlouise

Or in the modern wording which we used when exchanging rings at our Methodist ceremony in 2002: 'All that I am I give you, all that I have I share with you'.

I also think this (prenuptial arrangement) is a bit distasteful, and not in the 'spirit' of what marriage is supposed to be all about.

In our case, when we got together I could have been said to be the one with 'assets' in that I had a bungalow with some equity, even though I still had a mortgage at that time. He arrived on my doorstep with absolutely nothing, 50 years in the working world with good jobs behind him up to management level, no possessions beyond a rusty old car, a computer and his tool-box, no money, no prospects and debts from his last marriage. We both had health problems. Not a bright prospect for either of us.

What we did have, however, was a willingness to go on working and to pool our resources and work as a team. He got a job and worked for another 4 years, not in his own field, but he worked shifts, Bank Holidays, you name it. He managed to keep his annuity in exchange for giving up the equity in the matrimonial home he'd walked out of. He said he wanted nothing from me, that wasn't why he came. Fast-forward to 1999, he became eligible for state retirement pension and that carried with it almost as much again in SERPS, so with him working for another 2 years after that, and me working as well, we were quite well-off. We took out a 'lifetime mortgage' and released 25% of equity to pay off the original mortgage, at the same time I got his name on to the deeds along with mine - although he still said he didn't want anything from me, but if it made me happier OK. I just wanted to ensure he was secure if I died first.

I couldn't have dreamed of 'ring-fencing' my assets to keep them from him. And he has been more than willing to share his last penny with me. I couldn't visualise going into a marriage with a piece of paper drawn up saying 'this is mine, you can't have it'. And in the nature of things, there WILL be changes along the way! At one stage one partner will be the main earner, another time it might be the other, they might decide to support each other in turn through uni or being a full-time parent. I just can't imagine how it would work if it was all planned cold-bloodedly beforehand!

Aunty Margaret

System

I thought prenups were worthless anyway.

Legal_Academic

I think the points made relating to the sanctity of marriage are admirable, and particularly those concerning long-standing marriages where a husband and wife have worked hard to build up a home and savings together over a long period. But these scenarios have very little to do with pre-nuptial agreements.

Yes, in a traditional marriage ceremony we do say "with all my worldly goods I thee endow", but in reality these words are not intended to be taken any more literally than the traditional expression "love, honour and obey".

Up until Victorian times, a wife's property was automatically transferred to her husband on marriage. It was only the Married Woman's Property Act that allowed a married woman to own any property. Until quite recently a wife was deemed to be her husband’s property. As for people obeying each other, these concepts were abolished with slavery.

Times have moved on, divorces are rife and gold diggers abound. The property boom has made millionaires out of thousands of ordinary people, and pre-nuptial agreements exist to protect an asset rich partner against being fleeced by a predatory partner out for all he or she can get, backed by the power of the courts.

As I mentioned earlier, pre-nuptial agreements are most effective in protecting assets in the context of a short and childless marriage. They have little relevance to long term marriages.

Whilst I can understand the views of those traditionalists who expect a half share of everything the moment they say ‘I do’, I can equally understand the asset rich partner seeking the protection of a pre-nuptial agreement.

When all is said and done, marriage isn’t about the money, or is it?

Legal_Academic

Judi wrote:

I thought prenups were worthless anyway.

Pre-nuptial agreements used to be disregarded by the judiciary. However there has been a significant shift in the way English family law courts have viewed them over the past two years (see the websites referenced on the first posting).

There are many safeguards to be observed, but increasingly the wishes of couples, as documented in their pre-nuptial agreements, have been adhered to even where there is a significant imbalance of wealth.

Spendless

Legal_Academic wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, pre-nuptial agreements are most effective in protecting assets in the context of a short and childless marriage. They have little relevance to long term marriages.

Unless the female has gone thru the menopuse, or either of you have been sterilised or have a fertility problem that you are aware of how would you know that the marriage would be childless? And surely no-one knows in advance that their marriage is going to be short-lived?

So to me what's being said is
get a pre-nuptial in the event this marriage is childless and short-lived but in the event that it isn't then there was no point in getting the pre-nuptial.