Prenuptial Agreement

Guest101

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel wrote: »

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

What rubbish.


It's far more complicated than simply living there

Guest101

Gorie wrote: »

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.

Lets put it another way.


Marriage is a legal contract, it means that you share everything, you are one entity, if you don't like what this means - don't get married.


It's really that simple.

TBagpuss

OK, it's a new ansd laregly untested thing, so solicitors are going to be wary. it's also difficult to predict what may happen in the future.

If you later marry and were to divorce, then the start pointwould be that a court can only divide up the assets which you own, not those owned by tird parties. But there are pleanty of divorce coases where assets are purportedly owned by a third party and where a court has made, or has been asked to, make findings that they are held on trust by the legal owner for one of the spouses, or where a cpurt finds that they are satisfied that the person holding them can and will pass them back to the spouse on request, and this would be something the court would be entitled to take into account.

So yes, as astirct bbuisness arrangment it might be legally binding, but in a worst case scenario situation they might tnot necessarily protect you, and litigating it would be more expensive that dealing with a divorce case where there is a pre- or poist-nup, becuase thecompany or the other family members might weell need to be joined as parties, and there would be preliminary issues about how and how much of the assets could be taken into accoutn as matrimonial assets.

As Wiollowcat said, although pre-nups and cohabitation agreements are not legally binding, they do carry a lot of weight, particuarlly if you ensure that they are regularly reviewed and are updated whenever there is a change of circumstnacves (for instnace, if/when you marry, if you have a child, if one of you gets an inheritance or there is any significant shift in your respective finacial postions.

In the short term, if you are buying a property together, and are not living in a proprety owned by either of you individually, then a decalrationf trust and a clear statement within it as to what will, or will not, alter the propertions of the proerty which you buy each of you is entitled to should be sufficient.

then revirw and get a prenup once you start to plan to marry, by which time (depending how soon that is) there may have been new cases decided whioch would help clarify things for you.

missbiggles1

Gorie wrote: »

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.

Exactly the opposite is true.

pphillips

The only real way to protect your assets from each other is to put them into trust. Most likely this would be a discretionary trust, which is operated at the discretion of the trustees. Having your assets in trust means that if you get married and then divorced, the trusts are disregarded when it comes to financial settlement. Additionally, assets in trust cannot be taken away by your by creditors even if they force you into bankruptcy and are not taken into account by the DWP in respect of benefit entitlement or by local authorities when they undertake a care fees assessment. Trust law has been tried and tested over hundreds of years, don't waste your time and money on other gimmicks that haven't yet been properly tested in the courts.

SailorSam

They were talking to someone on the radio last week, i think it may have been a Solicitor. She was saying more and more couples were wanting to make a prenup, one of the reasons was the increase in borrowing from the bank of Mum & Dad.. Parents were willing to help out their children, but if the relationship broke down didn't want half the money to be taken by someone outside the family.

theoretica

Gorie wrote: »

We have no children, both own separate houses (hers is worth about £30k more than mine and she has owned it longer).

So the assets you would each be seeking to protect are approximately equal? And she has more to protect than you do? Is she as concerned as you? So in the event of a divorce and 50/50 division you would get the situation you are seeking to ensure anyway? Children will complicate this.

I think of prenups for siutations where one partner has significantly more than the other.

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

Guest101 wrote: »

What rubbish.

It's far more complicated than simply living there

It probably is, but that's what she told me. I haven't found anyone whose willing to live with me yet though to look into it :rotfl:

Guest101

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel wrote: »

It probably is, but that's what she told me. I haven't found anyone whose willing to live with me yet though to look into it :rotfl:

Honestly, it's about gaining a beneficial interest but making payment towards the property.


E.g. paying half of an extension, paying towards the mortgage, new kitchen/bathroom etc.


Not simply existing