Updating an existing marriage contract/prenup? - please advise me if you can

Carrot007

PuffingPanda12 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

PuffingPanda12 said:

Slinky said:

Can't this be covered by a simple agreement you make yourself stating that whoever's name the investments are held in, this is for legitimate tax reasons and you both consider them to be joint assets of the marriage, both sign and date the document.

This is what I want to find out - would just the two of us be able to do this or do we need a formal marriage contract, in order to be legally recognised?

Which aspect of law does it need to be legally recognised by? Is it a 'tax' thing? Or is it an 'in case we decide to divorce' thing? Or is it an 'after we die' thing? I may be wrong, but I think clarity on that would help. 

I feel its definitely a "in case we decide to divorce" thing, as the other things are covered by our wills and investment regulations.

Then as such agrements are not legally binding in the UK and the default is 50/50 there is nothing to do surely.

However in the UK if someone decides thery deserve more then it means going to court and as non legally binding and agreement could not stop this (and the court case would obviously waste money but that's how it is). Valid agruments for wanting more would be thigns like 1. Children needing support. 2. Other half not having a job as had raised children. Howver it needs more reasoning in court that just existing there are many factors and nothing you can do under current law would change that.

So nothing to do at the moment until the law changes or you move to another country at which point look at the laws there.

Though of course signing an sgreement may help favout the courts response so it is not entirely pointless, it would only help in frivolous cases.

AskAsk

as others have said, a prenup is not recognised under UK law so there is little point in making one unless you plan to move back to SA and get divorced there.  but in that case, i don't know if a prenup drafted in the UK would be accepted in SA?  you would have to find that out.

AskAsk

burlingtonfl6 said:

gettingtheresometime said:

Not an answer to your question but after 22 years of marriage, when you consider the assets each of you brought to the marriage 'ours' rather than 'mine'?

I agree, unless there were some special circumstances or you both have something you really want to keep in ''your side of the family''  after 22 years does it really matter?

the timing does not actually matter if you had always intended to separate assets anyway.  i and my husband have completely separate finance so my money is mine and his money is his.  we do the accounts settle up monthly 

justworriedabit

OP
You make valid points.
After many years of wed-lock it may be sensible for all to consider that.
Situations like family gifts, inheritance, etc may have been only gifted to you or your other half. You or your other half may want to give substantial amounts to their side of the family or something you disagree with with and vice-versa. 
Therefore, returning to SA or somewhere else is not important what is the fact you both feel the need for this and want to keep a clear definition of who owns what so go for a prenup in the UK. IMO it can be used as evidence of where you both stood at the time of the prenup and no judge in a country with a decent legal system would completely ignore it IMHO.

Tokmon

AskAsk said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

gettingtheresometime said:

Not an answer to your question but after 22 years of marriage, when you consider the assets each of you brought to the marriage 'ours' rather than 'mine'?

I agree, unless there were some special circumstances or you both have something you really want to keep in ''your side of the family''  after 22 years does it really matter?

the timing does not actually matter if you had always intended to separate assets anyway.  i and my husband have completely separate finance so my money is mine and his money is his.  we do the accounts settle up monthly 

What was the point in getting married which legally means you agree that all your assets are shared when you want to have completely separate finances?

burlingtonfl6

AskAsk said:

burlingtonfl6 said:

gettingtheresometime said:

Not an answer to your question but after 22 years of marriage, when you consider the assets each of you brought to the marriage 'ours' rather than 'mine'?

I agree, unless there were some special circumstances or you both have something you really want to keep in ''your side of the family''  after 22 years does it really matter?

the timing does not actually matter if you had always intended to separate assets anyway.  i and my husband have completely separate finance so my money is mine and his money is his.  we do the accounts settle up monthly 

What I meant was there might be a piece of jewellery that the OP wanted to go to a sibling and kept on their side of the family. Something like that.

rach_k

justworriedabit said:

OP
You make valid points.
After many years of wed-lock it may be sensible for all to consider that.
Situations like family gifts, inheritance, etc may have been only gifted to you or your other half. You or your other half may want to give substantial amounts to their side of the family or something you disagree with with and vice-versa. 
Therefore, returning to SA or somewhere else is not important what is the fact you both feel the need for this and want to keep a clear definition of who owns what so go for a prenup in the UK. IMO it can be used as evidence of where you both stood at the time of the prenup and no judge in a country with a decent legal system would completely ignore it IMHO.

How can they get a prenup? After 22 years of marriage, they are well and truly nupped.

justworriedabit

rach_k said:

justworriedabit said:

OP
You make valid points.
After many years of wed-lock it may be sensible for all to consider that.
Situations like family gifts, inheritance, etc may have been only gifted to you or your other half. You or your other half may want to give substantial amounts to their side of the family or something you disagree with with and vice-versa. 
Therefore, returning to SA or somewhere else is not important what is the fact you both feel the need for this and want to keep a clear definition of who owns what so go for a prenup in the UK. IMO it can be used as evidence of where you both stood at the time of the prenup and no judge in a country with a decent legal system would completely ignore it IMHO.

How can they get a prenup? After 22 years of marriage, they are well and truly nupped.

should have updated one, so just missed the 'updated' but the post is clear and reads as that. Take care.

74jax

rach_k said:

justworriedabit said:

OP
You make valid points.
After many years of wed-lock it may be sensible for all to consider that.
Situations like family gifts, inheritance, etc may have been only gifted to you or your other half. You or your other half may want to give substantial amounts to their side of the family or something you disagree with with and vice-versa. 
Therefore, returning to SA or somewhere else is not important what is the fact you both feel the need for this and want to keep a clear definition of who owns what so go for a prenup in the UK. IMO it can be used as evidence of where you both stood at the time of the prenup and no judge in a country with a decent legal system would completely ignore it IMHO.

How can they get a prenup? After 22 years of marriage, they are well and truly nupped.

I know, I don't actually think it's a pre-nup they need.
I'm all for pre-nups and had one, so I would have thought I'd be all for this when I read the title at first.  But after 22 years, I think it's all irrelevant.  
A Will can set out everything for the situation of death, but for the scenario of divorce, they need to just have a talk.  Despite me having a pre-nup on marriage, at no point during the marriage have we ever said 'I've just got this, should we divorce then it's mine'.  But I think that's the conversation they need.
Op maybe you can draw up a 'wishes' document, that you are both happy with?  Should a divorce happen then you know how you both felt in the calmness of now before lawyers etc?  Would that be an option?

TBagpuss

OP, just as you can have a pre-nuptial agreement, you can also have a post-nuptial agreement.

Very similar rules apply,  you would each need to get separate and independent legal advice, you would need to provide financial information to each other so that you both know what you might be giving up (or limiting your entitlement to) and you should avoid doing it in circumstances where it might appear that one or other of you had been pressured to sign .

Pre-and Post-Nups are not legally binding in the UK but in the event of a divorce , they form part of the evidence a Judge would look at in deciding what was fair, i terms of any settlement, and of course the negotiation and discussions before entering onto one can be helpful in ironing out any potential issues now, rather than in the event of a divorce.

It might well be reasonable to agree that (for instance) inheritances received by either of you would be kept by the person receiving them rather than being counted as a joint asset to be divided.

A court would still be able, in the event of a divorce where you could not agree on the financial settlement, to over-ride the terms of the agreement, but the Judge would start by looking at the agreement and asking the person looking to change it why it would be fair for them not to keep to the agreement, rather than starting entirely from scratch.

The reason that any solicitor is telling you they would need to open a file is that until then are able to speak to you in some detail about what the assets are, what sorts of things you want to include / exclude, and other background, they wouldn't be able to tell you what might be appropriate or how a court might view your specific situation.

If you put something together on your own without legal advice it is very unlikely to any use to you, as whichever of you later wanted to back out would simply be able to say that they had not had legal advice and hadn't fully understood the effect of the agreement, nd the other person would struggle to prove otherwise.