Prenuptial Agreement

Pixie5740

Co-habitation doesn't have financial implications like marriage does. Yes jointly purchasing a property together will financially link you and you'd both be entitled to money from the jointly purchased property if you split up and sell further down the line but your property will still be yours and your partner's property still be theirs. Your pensions, savings and other assets would remain separate too unless you put them in joint names.

So if you don't want to link your existing assets don't get married. That would be the simplest solution. It's not just marital relationship ones which breakdown but family relationships too. There are plenty of threads where siblings have shafted siblings, parents shafted children, and children shafting parents.

Gorie

We have looked at 'cohabitation agreements' and 'trusts'. Cohabitation agreements are a little wooly and again don't seem enforceable (plus we do plan to marry in future so why not sort that now).

Gorie

I recognise all relationships can go sour.

I also realise that if we don't get married we will be more protected.

I appreciate the help and useful comments, however I was more looking into whether anyone had used or experienced a limited company instead of a prenuptial agreement. We do plan to marry in the future and I'd just started to look into these sorts of arrangements now.

I did not envisage a discussion on the strongest types of relationship etc... All of which are important points but a little off piste.

goodwithsaving

For what it's worth, I think you're being sensible. Relationships don't always work out (as I am currently in the midst of separation). Every year many of us pay insurance premiums on things we hope will never happen; paying for a sensible, rational agreement to be drawn up is no different.

Guest101

You need paid for legal advice for this really

WillowCat

Easiest way is to not get married, and make sure that any joint property you purchase is set up with declaration of trust etc.

However, contrary to what most posters have said, properly drawn up and executed nuptial agreements (pre-nups, post-nups and separation agreements) will be given weight in a divorce court.

The agreement itself is not binding (which is where some of the confusion comes in I think) but the court is bound to adhere to it unless one of the following factors exists:

It does not meet the needs of any child of the marriage
There was no disclosure
There was duress or undue pressure one party
It leaves one party 'in a predicament of real need'
The parties did not have an opportunity to obtain independent legal advice.
Unforseen major change of circumstances exist.

In practice both parties should get independent advice and the document should be drawn up by a solicitor.

In the supreme court decision of Radmacher v Granatino, paragraph 78 it is said:

78. The reason why the court should give weight to a nuptial agreement is that there should be respect for individual autonomy. The court should accord respect to the decision of a married couple as to the manner in which their financial affairs should be regulated. It would be paternalistic and patronising to override their agreement simply on the basis that the court knows best. This is particularly true where the parties' agreement addresses existing circumstances and not merely the contingencies of an uncertain future.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68495

caprikid1

Whilst not enforceable I believe courts use them as an indication as to the intentions of both parties. Whilst not enforceable they will be taken into account ????

Pixie5740

Having had a look into "Confidential Prenuptial Agreements" isn't the whole point that the other party doesn't know it exists because it's confidential? It's really just a way for someone to hide their assets before they get married and because it's so expensive to set up it's really just for the very rich.

Entrusting your family with your assets would seem more risky than a) just co-habiting, b) throwing caution to the wind and getting married, c) getting married but using a regular prenuptial agreement (accepting that depending on the length of the marriage, children, etc it might not be adhered to if you get divorced).

Gorie

Thanks again for the input.

It is secret as you can do it without your partners knowledge but that's not what attracted us. It was the legal enforceability of such an agreement in the absence of a clear UK court stance on prenuptial agreements.

In seeking legal advice from around 4 separate solicitors/firms now specialising in divorce and family law 3 wouldn't comment as they didn't work within business law at all, one told me it was a good idea and tried to sell their services.

It seems there has been one test case (from a solicitor who got back to me), but there isn't really much expertise or information on this around.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

Gorie wrote: »

Speaking to many solicitors, indeed almost all, by living together without being married we are classed as co-habiting and even in the absence of a marriage co-habitation can have financial implications in the event of a separation.

This is exactly what my solicitor told me when I was given my house in a deed of variation. She told me if I was to move anyone in then they could claim on the house