Getting married.. prenup?

bugslet

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Just struck me as very one sided, but people do what they need to do to cope I suppose.

.

It wasn't one-sided, you can't explain 20 years of a relationship in a few sentences. We both decided to behave like adults. He apologised genuinely for what was a few months of mental aberration and not like him at all and we both made more effort as, like many long term relationships, things had got very routine and dull.

NBLondon

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Pre nups are trying to have your cake and eat it, trying to get all the rights and benefits but none of the responsibilities.

Not necessarily... I know of a case where one partner brought a lot of debt to the marriage and didn't want new partner to suddenly be jointly liable. I can see why some people see it as "planning to fail" but where there are significant pre-existing assets or liabilities I don't accept that these should instantaneously become mutual. Those that are built up during the marriage - maybe. For example - our house is clearly a mutual asset - we both contributed to the initial purchase and both paid elements of the mortgage. But our cars aren't... I bought mine from my own funds and pay for the costs of ownership - m'wife bought and funds hers. We both drive both depending on which is the more practical for the trip. If we hypothetically split - I would expect us to each keep the one we paid for not sell both and split the proceeds.

Mojisola

NBLondon wrote: »

Not necessarily... I know of a case where one partner brought a lot of debt to the marriage and didn't want new partner to suddenly be jointly liable. I can see why some people see it as "planning to fail" but where there are significant pre-existing assets or liabilities I don't accept that these should instantaneously become mutual.

Neither does the law - a divorce following a short marriage (under five years or so) would usually lead to both partners leaving with what they brought to the union - as long as there aren't children involved.

74jax

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Pre nups are trying to have your cake and eat it, trying to get all the rights and benefits but none of the responsibilities.

That could be said for not having one too.


I didn't bring a quarter to marriage of what my now husband did, without a pre-nup was I having my cake and eating it?


He did bring a whole heap more to the marriage so we had a pre-nup, in words having his cake and eating eat.


Either way one of us is eating cake apparently.


OR


We BOTH agree to either have one or not have one and decide together. A pre-nup only works when BOTH parties agree. In the case of the OP I would not be happy that it is down to the parent's wanting to protect their money. However in my husbands case I could see his point and wasn't fussed. Worked for us.


You BOTH need to agree.

pphillips

pred02 wrote: »

Ideally, my parents would like to protect assets they leave for me and my sister that, in case either I or my sister get a divorce these assets would not be touched by our respective partners.

Seems like you parents would be advised to get their assets put into trust.

firebubble

First off, prenups are not binding, but they are persuasive in Court, and if you have one that has been properly entered into, the other party would have to successfully argue that the prenup should not be followed. Grounds for not following it would be things like having had children in the intervening period, or a long marriage and hence intermingling of assets, that sort of thing.

You would also need to ensure that you had both entered into the prenup properly, ie each got separate legal advice, negotiated and signed it at least 3 months before the marriage and that it was entered into in good faith (ie no one lying about their assets). The prenup only covers your assets, so it won't do anything about your parents' assets.

As others have said, if your parents are that concerned, the assets should go into a trust, so that you only get the benefit of the assets (eg if the asset is a house, then it is owned by the trust but the rental income (after costs) is what comes to you, but bear in mind that it will cost money to set up and administer the trust, so it may not be worth it. Also, once the benefit comes to you (eg the rental income), that will be a marital asset, so will be considered joint property (the property in the trust won't be a marital asset because it will never be owned by you).

With regards to your property, you are sensible to get a prenup, which will essentially say that if you split, the property/equity will remain yours. You will then buy any joint property as tenants in common, with recorded ownership shares. You will also need to ensure that your wills reflect the situation (although it may well be that if you die, you're happy for your spouse to receive your assets - if you're not, then I would question why you're getting married. A bitter divorce is one thing, but a bereavement is another. )

Sunrise666

Have you considered buying your next house together as Tenants In Common rather than as joint owners? You would be able to split ownership in proportion to how much each of you contributes eg 75%/25% instead of equal shares?.

Skintski

There’s nothing wrong with protecting yourself. Some people still go into marriage for life, it doesn’t mean that life doesn’t change or that your partner continues to feel the same way. Mine cheated, that doesn’t make it my fault so why shouldn’t both parties protect their future whether that be together or apart.