Doomed before it starts...

It’s probably an argument for getting married at 19, though. Before either of you has anything.

I can see a justification for concern if you have children from previous marriages and you want to make sure that they will be looked after if the worst happens. Otherwise, I don't see the issue and wouldn't marry someone who viewed his previous assets as his and his alone.

Which is what I did. Mind we were divorced 25 years later

I'm surprised how damming people are of pre-nups. I kind of view them a bit like insurance. You hope you don't need it but nice to have a plan of action should the worse happen.
I would sign one and and if I was wealthy I would consider one.

But that said I wouldn't want anything that wasn't mine and I wouldn't want to share any previous assets.

But then I guess it depends what kind of person you get involved with. If you are lucky enough to be find kindness and a good heart attractive then a potential split is unlikely to get messy.
On the other hand if you're attracted to fireworks and difficult people you are more likely to have a fiery split.

I had a very kind hearted split compared to a lot of my friends but during break ups people can behave in ways that can surprise you. On balance I think pre-nups are worth considering.

Some helpful posters have indicated that you have asked this question more than once. Just see a solicitor.

Ps the person without the wealth entering the marriage could be bringing into it what money can’t buy!

[QUOTE=Poor_Single_lady;74130826On balance I think pre-nups are worth considering.[/QUOTE]

Or would be if they had any validity in law anyway.

Of course it's hard to say what you'd do in a certain scenario, but I think if I were entering into a marriage, I'd expect to share my assets with my partner and expect reciprocity from him.

If he refused, that would impact on my attitude towards him and I could see myself walking away.

There's a thread on here about assets and pensions from a lady in her 2nd marriage, both partners have children from previous relationships.
It makes interesting reading.

Exactly, my view is that marriage is an union of faith that means you are prepared to take the risk that comes with it along with the benefits. In my view, that's what makes marriage sacred, you are telling the person you are committed to that you are prepared to lose financially for them, how much more a commitment of love is that?

Nothing wrong for not being prepared to do this, but then DON'T get married since you are doing so on false pretense, ie. you are married only for the better, not the worse.

Don't get married, stay single.

Given that almost 50% of marriages end in divorce, I think it's very practical to take steps to protect assets built up prior to the marriage. It's not the best odds is it!

So I genuinely don't get why many on here find it so unpalatable when someone suggests protecting their assets from something that happens so regularly. I find the whole 'if he/she won't share their financial assets with me they clearly don't love me enough' argument really quite mercenary.

In simple terms your friend shouldn't get married if he wants to completely protect his assets. If he really wants to marry then he needs proper legal advice, but I doubt anything would be water tight. And obviously his fianc!e might well feel that his money is part of the package she's getting and so this damage his relationship beyond repair.

I love you with all my heart, just not my money. Now that does sound mercenary.

I agree with that in terms of you are taking the risk and showing the commitment, which is what marriage is about. However, I would also question the mentality of any person willing to take an asset from someone when they had no hand in acquiring that asset in the first place.

Obviously all assets built up as a married couple should be split as a starting point 50/50 regardless of who put the most in (obviously % might change depending on if children involved etc) but when I get married if the worst was to happen and we ever divorced I would never expect part of my partners assets from before we even dated or married. I had no hand in my partner being motivated enough to acquire them so why should I take them or even part of them?

One of the big advantages of having a pre-nup is that in order to get one drawn up, you need to be able to have the conversations with your partner, and that ensures that you do think about how each of you approaches financial issues, and what expectations you each have about the financial element of your relationship. If you have a better understanding and agree on your general approach to things, then you are far less likely to have a serious dispute over finances (and financial issues are an element in a lot of relationship break downs and more likely to be able to resolve issues which do arise, either to preserve the relationship or to end it without a huge fight.

They are not strictly legally binding but are taken into account. How much weight is given to a prenup will depend on whether it was properly drawn up, with full financial disclosure and legal advice on both parts, and how long after the marriage the relationship ends, and whether there are any major changes of circumstances (such as birth of children) - which is why it's not uncommon for pre-nups to have provision in them for the agreement to be periodically reviewed and updated.

I wouldn't quite say its the money that causes it - after all there doesn't seem to be any objection to them protecting their assets if they're just dating or living together.

But many people see marriage as something much more (and it is - its a legal joining of 2 people) and I can sort of see why they might think that going into a marriage with the view of mine & yours rather than ours defeats the purpose and will eventually lead to marriage being no different than cohabiting.


What about when a couple have been living together 10 years where one may be earning more but the other is doing all the housework and/or childcare?

Real life is rarely black and white, usually some varying degree of grey.

I agree with the varying degrees of Grey. I accept that there are many varying situations leading to a variety of outcome. In general I would still question the mentality of anyone who would happily take an asset that that they had no hand in building up. Your scenario about 10 years living together with one mainly at home minding kids etc well that is a joint asset. My post was to some of the posters who seem to suggest that once you marry well thats it they are entitled to everything even if they had no hand in it. That doesn't fit well with me. I did in my second paragraph make reference to other scenarios.


I'm in a situation where my partner already owns a house with a large equity percentage and has a significant cash savings pot and earns more than me. This was all built up before either of us even knew the other walked on this planet.

We have spoken and my partner wants to keep that house and rent it out. Any money made on the rent will be family income being added to both of our wages to buy a family home etc. If the crap happened and we divorced I hand on heart say now and have said to them that I would not touch that house or go after part of their current savings pot. That house would always be theirs in the event of a split I had no involvement in them acquiring that asset or their current savings pot. For me the only assets that would be right for splitting would be the assets we build up as a couple.

Maybe I have been brought up differently. My parents did a similar thing when they divorced. They split the assets that they accrued as as a couple but left alone anything the other person had before they married and still owned by the time they divorced.

Everyone has different moral standards.

And not everybody thinks that divorce is likely when they marry - that seems to me to be truly immoral.

I can only assume that the people who are so against others protecting their wealth are not in a situation where wealth is an issue.

Its crazy this country doesn't recognise prenups and its about time the law changed. The fact someone with zero financial input can walk away with significantly more well off after what could be a relatively short period together is madness!!

It doesn't seem romantic but divorce happens and if people saw it coming common sense says they wouldn't have married to begin with. We have life insurance and home insurance and car insurance......
Are we talking thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions? I'm pretty sure any wealth would be fully investigated so if it were me I'd take out cash and stash it away. Not very secure but prevents a paper trail.

Neither are we! Where have I said that?. I just pointed out that my partner has more than me to start with. We will share everything as a family unit and I gave an example of how but in the event that it was to go south then I would not see myself as entitled to the assets that they had built up before even knowing that I existed.

Just noticed who I was replying to then. Your response now has context!!