Prenuptial Agreements

nearlyrich

I think too many people care far too much about money and possessions these days and I wonder if they really understand what love and marriage are all about. When you read about "celebrities" and royalty stressing about inheritances and alimony you realise that it really doesn't make you happy.

Legal_Academic

Spendless wrote:

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.

There is no suggestion that couples who opt for a pre-nuptial agreement know that their marriage will be short-lived or childless, any more than there is a suggestion that you opted to insure your house because you know it will be destroyed in a fire. But if it turns out that your house does catch fire, then your prudence in insuring your house against the risk of fire would be rewarded. If your house does not burn down, it would be an odd assumption that there was no point in getting the insurance in the first place.

Similarly a pre-nuptial agreement will help protect an asset-rich partner who gets married but, for whatever reason, the marriage turns out not to last. Statistically the first year or two is when a significant number of marriages fail, and a pre-nuptial agreement will help protect an asset-rich partner against a substantial claim made by someone they have only been married to for a year or two.

My point is simply this: Those who benefit most from pre-nuptial agreements are those with assets who find themselves in a short, childless marriage - not those who plan to have one. The more successful and long term the marriage turns out to be, the less effective the agreement would become, and indeed the less likely it is to be needed by that stage.

In relation to children, the rights and care of any children take precedence over any wishes expressed in a pre-nuptial agreement, but nonetheless the agreement will still be taken into account once the needs of any children are addressed.

tru

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".

That's the problem then. People should take them literally, then the divorce rate will go down. Just before we got married, I studied the vows, then decided I didn't like the 'obey' part. So I left it out

I think if people don't take these words seriously, they have no business getting married in the first place

margaretclare

troo wrote:

That's the problem then. People should take them literally, then the divorce rate will go down. Just before we got married, I studied the vows, then decided I didn't like the 'obey' part. So I left it out

I think if people don't take these words seriously, they have no business getting married in the first place

I agree. In two marriages (the first in 1957, the second in 2002) I had no intention of vowing to 'obey'. But some of the words in the marriage service are beautiful, and they are still meaningful: 'For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health'. In other words, we don't know what will happen, but whatever comes, we will face it together.

I am well aware of what the situation was before the Married Women's Property Acts of the 1880s. In fact there was a vestige of this kind of thinking that went on for another century - the Inland Revenue considered that a woman's earnings were part of her husband's income. It wasn't until the 1980s that we had independent taxation, and this was one of the issues that I lobbied for, for about 20 years. People are now beginning to think in terms of pension provision for individuals, not as a 'pensioner couple'. We both get pensions income independently, we still get the married people's tax allowance (originally paid to the man because he had a wife to 'support') and we split it between us. However, having independent incomes doesn't mean we don't share and work as a team - we do.

It has been mentioned knowing that you can no longer have children - this of course applies to us. OTOH it could also mean that we have to give thought to existing children and grandchildren - see a thread already on this board headed 'Cohabiting and he wants to leave house to his kids'. We have no arguments around that kind of an issue - my daughter and his son and daughter are all doing fine and have no need of an inheritance from us.

Aunty Margaret

Miroslav

I'm sure pre-nups are useful in some places, but where's the romance and if a pre-nup is needed, does that mean those involved think it won't last?

If you can't trust the relationship, I'd either A) Get out of it or co-habitate rather than get married.

Edinburghlass_2

blondie wrote:

Well ... if you think spamming is expressing a personal and informed opinon in a money saving forum in favour of a legal mechanism that saves people money then hey! lock me up and throw away the key! :rotfl:

Debbie

Promoting websites without declaring an interest is though.

margaretclare

Legal_Academic wrote:

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?

I don't know if it's 'traditional' to expect a half-share of everything...from what I hear around me, that seems to be more of a modern idea! Even if it's a cohabitation scenario and not a marriage (BTW the bride and groom do not say 'I do' - they say 'I will' and then 'with God's help, I will'. The person who says 'I do' is whoever 'gives the bride away', and in a modern wedding ceremony, it's possible for both bride and groom to have someone to 'give them away'. But I digress.

No, marriage is not, or shouldn't be, about the money, only insofar as both need money to live on and both should help each other and share whatever they have. This helping and sharing is IMHO what marriage is all about. It requires being open and trusting with one another, not hiding pre-owned assets from each other as in 'Well, I'll leave half of the house to my kids, I'm not bothered about your kids'. If you marry someone who has children already then they are your children just as much as if you gave birth to them yourself. And also, respecting each other and respecting the needs, wishes and aspirations of the other person. We've moved on from earlier centuries when, as you point out, a wife was just part of her husband's property and owned nothing of her own.

Aunty Margaret

blondie_2-2

Miroslav wrote:

I'm sure pre-nups are useful in some places, but where's the romance and if a pre-nup is needed, does that mean those involved think it won't last?

If you can't trust the relationship, I'd either A) Get out of it or co-habitate rather than get married.

Prenups aren't meant to be romantic - they're meant to protect what you've worked hard to build up before you got married just in case things go pear shaped shortly after, as mine did, and you can hardly argue with a statistic as high as 50%! I assume there's little chance of you dying over the next decade, but I also assume that wouldn't stop you taking out a life assurance policy, right?

Miroslav wrote:

...does that mean those involved think it won't last?

No, it means those involved are going into marriage with their eyes open, not blinded by love to the one in two chance that a marriage in England will fail. And because marriage is not supposed to be about filling your boots with your partner's savings, what's the problem with taking that possibility out of the equation all together? I lost a fortune, and if I remarry without a prenup I stand to lose another fortune, if mine is amongst the one in two that doesn't work out.

Miroslav wrote:

If you can't trust the relationship, I'd either A) Get out of it or co-habitate rather than get married.

It's not about trust - it's about being realistic. One in two marriages in England fail. People in love do silly things. Some people marry for money. I'm not psychic - I'm human. I lived with my ex-husband for 1.5 years before marrying - I was as sure as I could be that this was it for life. So I was wrong and it turned out he was Going for Gold! It was enough to lose my marriage. Must I also lose a massive chunk of everything I worked hard to build up before we married?

Marrying without a prenup is all well and good when neither of you have much to lose. But just suppose you weren't penniless - suppose you have over £1m in property and savings and you want to marry someone who is penniless. Believe me, it's enough to focus your mind on that 50/50 statistic!

Miroslav wrote:

Promoting websites without declaring an interest is (spam) though.

Agreed. So let me declare my interest. I am very interested indeed in getting a prenup from one of those prenup specialists if ever I decide to remarry.

Spendless

Legal_Academic wrote:

There is no suggestion that couples who opt for a pre-nuptial agreement know that their marriage will be short-lived or childless, any more than there is a suggestion that you opted to insure your house because you know it will be destroyed in a fire. But if it turns out that your house does catch fire, then your prudence in insuring your house against the risk of fire would be rewarded. If your house does not burn down, it would be an odd assumption that there was no point in getting the insurance in the first place.

The difference is fire affects your home by burning it down regardless of how long you've been married and whether or not you've got kids.

As you've already pointed out children and how long you've been married affect pre-nuptial agreements. In my case there was a child within 1 year of marriage.

As I've already said it is possible that you may know that the marriage won't have children from it, but if you're getting a pre-nupt just in case the marriage is short-lived, should you be marrying this person in the first place?

Miroslav

blondie wrote:

Prenups aren't meant to be romantic - they're meant to protect what you've worked hard to build up before you got married just in case things go pear shaped shortly after, as mine did, and you can hardly argue with a statistic as high as 50%! I assume there's little chance of you dying over the next decade, but I also assume that wouldn't stop you taking out a life assurance policy, right?


No, it means those involved are going into marriage with their eyes open, not blinded by love to the one in two chance that a marriage in England will fail. And because marriage is not supposed to be about filling your boots with your partner's savings, what's the problem with taking that possibility out of the equation all together? I lost a fortune, and if I remarry without a prenup I stand to lose another fortune, if mine is amongst the one in two that doesn't work out.

It's not about trust - it's about being realistic. One in two marriages in England fail. People in love do silly things. Some people marry for money. I'm not psychic - I'm human. I lived with my ex-husband for 1.5 years before marrying - I was as sure as I could be that this was it for life. So I was wrong and it turned out he was Going for Gold! It was enough to lose my marriage. Must I also lose a massive chunk of everything I worked hard to build up before we married?

Marrying without a prenup is all well and good when neither of you have much to lose. But just suppose you weren't penniless - suppose you have over £1m in property and savings and you want to marry someone who is penniless. Believe me, it's enough to focus your mind on that 50/50 statistic!

Agreed. So let me declare my interest. I am very interested indeed in getting a prenup from one of those prenup specialists if ever I decide to remarry.

Sounds to me, like you shouldn't get married again and just co-habit if you don't have faith in love. If someone penniless declared love for me if i was rich, I'd be very wary and certainly wouldn't marry them within 1.5 years! My ex I was with for 1.5 years, turned her marriage proposal down, 10 days later she split up with me cos she was with another bloke........who agreed to marry her! Call me a good judge of character.

btw, that last quote you 'quoted from me' about being interested.........I was not the original poster of that quote...