Prenups, or why marry at all?

PaulMike

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

and I don't know... love maybe?

I don't know, maybe same old statistics says that more than half of those decisions were wrong?

[Deleted User]

Current statistics show that the divorce rate is 42%. It wasn't until the 70s when the divorce rate went up quite a bit.

But some things are to do with the heart, not statistics

onomatopoeia99

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Current statistics show that the divorce rate is 42%. It wasn't until the 70s when the divorce rate went up quite a bit.

Divorce was made easier in 1969 with the intoduction of no fault divorce, which explains the rate going up. It needs reform again to make no fault divorce easier, e.g. one year with no consent required, rather than requiring five years separation if there is no consent as at present.

unholyangel

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Divorce was made easier in 1969 with the intoduction of no fault divorce, which explains the rate going up. It needs reform again to make no fault divorce easier, e.g. one year with no consent required, rather than requiring five years separation if there is no consent as at present.

We're not far off that in scotland - separated for 1 year with consent or 2 years without.

Although theres also a difference with distribution of assets. Generally if you want to keep pre-marriage or inherited assets, scottish law is better. If you want to claim maintenance etc, english law is better.

p00hsticks

PaulMike wrote: »

Well, this is fun. Only traditional/emotional reasons remain?

Not for is oldies. Me and OH have 'lived in sin' for about 30 years now. We're currently intending getting married simply to secure each others financial future when one of us dies - we are both approaching pension age and on deaths, our DB pensions only provide follow on pensions for spouses, not cohabitees.

FBaby

OH and I entered into marriage taking all the points you raised into consideration. It is exactly why we got married, knowing that there was a lot to risk and that therefore, if we were prepared to do so, it meant that we were truly fully committed to each other. That depth of commitment is what is making our marriage work.

It's a vicious circle. You are not prepared to take risks, you are not fully committed, and if you are not fully committed, you are much more likely to want to escape when the going get tough. Making a marriage work can be tough, especially second time around when both come with baggage. Marriages break more and more because people only look at issues from their own perspective rather than trying to understand how things impact on our partner, and consider compromises.

People more and more expect perfection. If their partner don't give them all they aspire to, then they are worthless and so is the marriage. Commitment is what gives you the will to work on what you have rather than bin it.

So ultimately, I see marriage as an investment. If you lose, it's painful, but if you make it successful, it makes you even richer than winning the lottery!

onomatopoeia99

FBaby wrote: »

It's a vicious circle. You are not prepared to take risks, you are not fully committed, and if you are not fully committed, you are much more likely to want to escape when the going get tough.

Totally disagree with you. If I'm in a relationship, I'm fully committed, the fact of my signature on a bit of paper does not make me any more or less committed.

I won't get married because marriage isn't simply a public statement of love (if it was, I'd be delighted to with the right person), it is a complex and difficult to terminate legal contract and I won't accept all of its terms. Reading all the divorce topics on here has simply cemented this opinion.

Kayalana99

PaulMike wrote: »

Hi all,

As I started getting a hint that tying a knot is not as a simple procedure as I initially thought (see previous post), I continued my research into the legal aspects of marriage. Came across some eyebrow-raising facts.

1. Over half of marriages in England eventually break down. Maybe true.Promises to love forever vs cold-hearted science of statistics.
2. Schools kind of teach you basic finance, and high-street banks show you mortgage repayment scenarios at unreal 11% base rate, but both fail to mention that you are a lot more likely to suffer financially due to a divorce. Regardless of if married, assuming you are equal partnership this would always be the case as everything you build together should be spilt 50/50, but if you were living on your own you wouldn't have built up what you have so quickly as obvouisly two incomes are better then one.
3. The 50-50 split of assets upon a divorce is a thing of the past. The partner who contributes the least assets and income during marriage is likely to get more than half of assets and a finite or an indefinite maintenance. A so-called needs-based assessment. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate partner's contribution who chooses to stay at home, look after kids, forgo career etc. Again, any spilt would mean loss of money regardless of marriage but in case of children a lot of woman give up the chance to have a proper career. In my case my Husband's career has to come before mine because I was at home with kids when his career now took off - so I have a choice of night work or school hours (youngest is only going full-time this Sept too so couldn't before due to childcare costs) and that's it despite wanting an actual career, I'm most likley looking 5 years + when kids are older before I can even start. By that time he could have been promoted again and had many payrises.
4. People who got married 15-20 years ago and don't have prenups simply face a completely different legal environment today.
5. Prenups are considered, but still are not enforceable. Any material change of circumstances, such as a new kid, or a deterioration in one's health mean pre-marriage assets are more likely to go into the shared basket (and are allocated to dependants and the partner with lower earnings).
6. Prenups are not cheap! Ideally both parties have a solicitor. I had quotes as high as £2,000 (self) + £1,000 (her) + VAT for a straightforward agreement. In the end found one with a total quote just under £1,000.

To the above points I've never actually known anyone to get a prenup. It feels like a very rare occurance.

Soberly looking at the bullet points above begs a question: why get married at all?

Why get married? Because you form a legal partnership and celebrate in front of your family and friends. It isn't all about money, and you can't live your life on a 'what if this happens' or you would never live.

Also the point I touched on before, most people wouldn't be where they are without being in a parternship.

Say someone earns £1,500 with £1,000 a month bills that leaves them £500 a month left, they meet someone who also earns £1,500 and they move intogether and bills go up to £1,500 - they are now left with £1,500 a month.

Even if they spilt up in 10 years, they would have been better off together and then spilting 50/50 then if they had lived on their own all that time.

p00hsticks

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

I won't get married because marriage isn't simply a public statement of love (if it was, I'd be delighted to with the right person), it is a complex and difficult to terminate legal contract and I won't accept all of its terms. Reading all the divorce topics on here has simply cemented this opinion.

My feeling is that, once you have a longstanding partnership that involves a lot of emotional and/or financial investment, then if that relationship breaks down acrimoniously it's going to be hell whether you are married or not.

I don't regularly frequent this particular board - but I suspect there are as many threads over on the property board where couples have bought a property together and then split up and can't resolve what's gonig to happen as there are on divorce here. And on the CAS board dealing with issues where unmarried couples with children have split. At least perhaps divorce provides some sort of legal structure to manage that separation, especially where children and property are affected..

FBaby

Totally disagree with you. If I'm in a relationship, I'm fully committed, the fact of my signature on a bit of paper does not make me any more or less committed.

You missed what I was trying to say. It's not the signature on the piece of paper, it's the signing to what you could potentially lose by doing so that enters you into another level of commitment.

You are clearly concerned about getting married because of what you know you could lose by doing so. That's fair enough, and indeed, if what you are risking is more important than marriage, don't get married.

However, expect your partner to feel differently about your relationship for that same reason. I am fully aware that my OH had a lot to lose from marrying me, but still he did it because his love for me was stronger. That has meant the world to me and for that, it made me love and respect him even more. We are both definitely in for better and for worse.