Pre-nup ????

Pollycat

cici71 wrote: »

My will currently states my children will get 50/50 and I know my will will be void once I marry. To be honest even when I do a new one - when I die I still want my house to go to my children ?!

And will you be sufficiently generous to your husband to do this:

Person_one wrote: »

I think you can write a will that will leave the house to your children if you die first, with the condition that your husband can live in it for the rest of his life. You can't protect it from him in the case of divorce though, especially if you stay married for a while.

Or would you want your children to evict your widower to allow them to get their hands on their inheritance?

cici71

Pollycat wrote: »

And will you be sufficiently generous to your husband to do this:

Or would you want your children to evict your widower to allow them to get their hands on their inheritance?

No that wouldn't happen. There would be a clause that he remains in it until he chooses/dies. They will inherit once we're gone, not to inherit by chucking anybody out 😉 which they would never do anyway.

Guest101

cici71 wrote: »

No that wouldn't happen. There would be a clause that he remains in it until he chooses/dies. They will inherit once we're gone, not to inherit by chucking anybody out 😉 which they would never do anyway.

These words come back to haunt so many people, so often....

talkchat

Prenups are so useful, especially when it's a second (or third) marriage or unequal balance of assets. Look upon it like insurance. Would you drive a car uninsured?

Guest101

talkchat wrote: »

Prenups are so useful, especially when it's a second (or third) marriage or unequal balance of assets. Look upon it like insurance. Would you drive a car uninsured?

1: Driving without insurance would be illegal (and therefore very stupid)


& 2: Pre-nups are not enforceable in the UK.


Your post makes little sense.

C_Mababejive

The best answer is simply to not get married. Why the need to have the state sanction your personal relationships? I have seen plenty of friends shafted once their relationship collapses.

pphillips

The UK Supreme Court decided in 2010 that prenuptial agreements can be legally binding: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11580907

If this is really important to you, my advice would be to engage a solicitor and wait and see how they respond to it then. If they run a mile then it should give you some idea of their motives.

onlyroz

I think you'd be better off writing an iron clad will rather than getting a prenup. After living with you for ten years already your partner deserves some security if you die before him.

Mojisola

pphillips wrote: »

The UK Supreme Court decided in 2010 that prenuptial agreements can be legally binding: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11580907

That wasn't an average case because of the wealth of the couple concerned.

http://www.terry.co.uk/pre-nuptial_02.html
Parties cannot come to whatever agreement they want and be confident that agreement will be respected by the courts. The overwhelming likelihood is that where 'needs' are in conflict with the agreement then a court will give more weight to needs.

TBagpuss

onlyroz wrote: »

I think you'd be better off writing an iron clad will rather than getting a prenup. After living with you for ten years already your partner deserves some security if you die before him.

Actually, the sensible thing to do it to have a pre-nup and also to ensure that you have an up-to-date will.

One of the key thigs with a pre-nup is that it forces the two of you to think about your repsective finacial assuptions and your expectations about the relationship and the finacial relationship between the two of you now and in the future.

It's ccorrect that the cases which have reached the Supreme Court have been 'big money' cases - this is typical, as most people or normal means can't afford repeated appeals. However, the rules established in the big cases are followed by the courts for lower value cases as well.

It is correct that pre-nups are not legally binding but that is not the same as them being useless.

Cici, in your case, your partner paying bills etc over a 10 year period would likely be seen as a contribution entitling him to an interest in the house as he was freeing up your income to pay the mortgage. However, you could, in a pre-nup, ake clear that the two of you inteded that you would retain the equity (as a % of the value of the house) which you had when the two of you started your relationship, or the two of you could agree a difernt % split which you bboth felt was reasonable.

You could also build in provision that (for example) in the event of a split, you had a specific time period in which to organise funds to buy him out, and 'first refusal' on the house.

You can build into a will provision for your partner or spouse to remain living in a prioerty either during his lifetime or for a set period after your death, or until he remarried, and/or provision for him to be given first refusal to buy the house from the estate.

I know that some people (including some who have posted here) feel that marriage ought to wipe the slate clean of all previous finacial arrangemetns, and of course that is a valid point of view, but it isn't the one which the court uses if things do go pear-shaped, and what you need is a set of arrangments which work or you and your fiance.

Finacial disputes are a major cause of problems within marriages, and are a contributing factor in a lot of divorces. It's common sense to discuss finacial issues with your faince before the wedding, to make sure that you are both on the same page.

And having a pre-nup means that you are making decision at a time when you are both able to work with the other and both wish to be fair - which is not aways the case if you wind up having those discussions at the time a relationship breaks down.