Protect my assets before marriage

onwards&upwards

LilElvis said:

onwards&upwards said:

goodwithsaving said:

onwards&upwards said:

Don’t get married if you don’t want to share your stuff.

Its not compulsory if you’d rather not.

It's not about not sharing. It's about protecting what you've worked for or inherited should it all go wrong.

I'd share my stuff with someone, but would want my assets protected too. We buy insurance every day without batting an eyelid. This is an insurance policy.

But getting married is a choice, if you don’t like the terms and conditions you don’t have to do it!  

But even the "terms and conditions" acknowledge that in a short lived marriage that the two parties should be put back in the same position they were in, financially, before the marriage. 

Well exactly, I think that’s sensible.  With pre-nups people want to extend that for the whole life of the marriage and that’s not really the point, things change, it’s right that there’s a ‘point of no return’ where you can’t just restore factory settings as it were!

Retireby40

OP speak to a solicitor. I dont understand why people want to go down the route saying "well dont get married then". It sounds childish.

It is understandable that someone may want to get married, and set up their life in a way to have a family but also having the insurance that everything they worked for as an individual cant be taken away from them.

Theres one thing being happy to share with someone, however sharing with someone and being stolen from are 2 different things and if they did divorce 1 year down the line and the OPs partner claimed and got half of the house that's what it would be. Theft if not legally classed as that.

If I owned or almost owned a house and met a girl and decided to marry her I would be doing exactly the same.

Fireflyaway

I can kind of see the logic. You can't make someone else behave. Even after a seemingly long happy marriage people do cheat, leave, become impossible to live with. Legally I have no idea sorry but I think it's a sensible precaution. Ask a solicitor.

svain

The "dont get married" brigade must live in a fantasy world full of rainbows and fairies where nothing goes wrong - I really dont understand why anyone would be against a pre-nup especially if marrying again, have no children or are later in life .... It is about time the law changed on this to make it simpler to protect own assetts

onwards&upwards

Retireby40 said:

 if they did divorce 1 year down the line and the OPs partner claimed and got half of the house that's what it would be. Theft if not legally classed as that.

But that wouldn’t happen because it would be a short marriage so the court’s starting point would be to return them to the pre-marriage positions as far as possible.

Its not a bad system, really!

svain

onwards&upwards said:

Retireby40 said:

 if they did divorce 1 year down the line and the OPs partner claimed and got half of the house that's what it would be. Theft if not legally classed as that.

But that wouldn’t happen because it would be a short marriage so the court’s starting point would be to return them to the pre-marriage positions as far as possible.

Its not a bad system, really!

It should not matter if they are together 1year or 20years .... If Person A went into the relationship owning their asset outright then that should revert back to them in event of a break up (including any increase in value due to market rises)

Retireby40

svain said:

onwards&upwards said:

Retireby40 said:

 if they did divorce 1 year down the line and the OPs partner claimed and got half of the house that's what it would be. Theft if not legally classed as that.

But that wouldn’t happen because it would be a short marriage so the court’s starting point would be to return them to the pre-marriage positions as far as possible.

Its not a bad system, really!

It should not matter if they are together 1year or 20years .... If Person A went into the relationship owning their asset outright then that should revert back to them in event of a break up (including any increase in value due to market rises)

Correct doesnt matter if it is 1 year or 20 years. You go to the table with x the other person goes with y. While things are good you share at the table and enjoy. If things turn sour you leave with what you brought. It is simple. People just use the "dont get married then" in order to get a reaction. 

onwards&upwards

svain said:

onwards&upwards said:

Retireby40 said:

 if they did divorce 1 year down the line and the OPs partner claimed and got half of the house that's what it would be. Theft if not legally classed as that.

But that wouldn’t happen because it would be a short marriage so the court’s starting point would be to return them to the pre-marriage positions as far as possible.

Its not a bad system, really!

It should not matter if they are together 1year or 20years .... If Person A went into the relationship owning their asset outright then that should revert back to them in event of a break up (including any increase in value due to market rises)

So everything that happens in the intervening 20 years, kids, illnesses, redundancy, career change, caring for parents, none of it should have any bearing in your opinion? 

Retireby40

None of it should have any bearing on the 30/40k or whatever the person has paid of their mortgage to date.

From the day and hour they marry what they build together will. So if their partner starts to contribute into the house via mortgage, food, family bills then in 10-20 years they could claim against something from when they were actually contributing.

Why do you think someone should have a right over something that an individual has built up over the years as a single person? 

onwards&upwards

Retireby40 said:

Why do you think someone should have a right over something that an individual has built up over the years as a single person? 

Because life happens, things change!  After a certain point it becomes impossible to draw such clear lines, doesn’t it?  Things blur!