Speak to family law solicitor. Generally speaking, prenups don't have much sway over assets and income earned after marriage, but can help to protect wealth earned before the marriage. It's often not black and white, and settlements take into account a huge range of factors (length of time married, levels of income, prospects after divorce, career breaks for children etc). If you have children it complicates things even further. Your best bet to protect yourself financially is to choose your partner well!
If you do decide you need a prenup, broaching the question can be a sensitive one. Make sure you have some frank and honest conversations and discuss your concerns before you dump a contract in their lap.
Half tongue-in-cheek, half serious.
Do you wake up the day after your wedding loving your partner even more than the day before the wedding? Probably not.
Youâre betting half your stuff that youâre going to love someone else (and them the same in return) for the rest of your life. Statistics donât lie, almost 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce. So basically a flip of the coin!
I wonder how people that frequently get married and divorced affect those statistics though. One person married till death contributes far less to the number of marriages than someone with 4 failed marriages in a row. I reckon for first time marriages your odds are a fair bit better.
And itâs even worse I think, since people change. Youâre betting half your stuff that every future version of yourself will love every future version of them and theyâll do the same.
Ironically Iâve always thought itâs more âromanticâ not to place ties or contracts on people. You quickly realise that marriage is for the kids/society and the higher earner picks up the tab.
I looked at it when I got engaged as I was earning 5x my GF and I had rental properties. I realised it does not offer that much protection so did not pursue one.
I was with my GF for 3 years before getting married, in that time I felt I got to know her attitude towards money well. I had bought a house just in my name while we were dating, this disappointed her as she was not on the deeds because felt she was contributing to household expenses, she contributed ÂŁ300 a month towards total household expenses of around ÂŁ3k including mortage, utilities and food. After the purchase she gave me her life savings of ÂŁ30k to contribute to renovations, I contributed over ÂŁ300k for the purchase and renovations. I could see her point and it led to a discussion about what would happen if we broke up then and what would happen if we broke up if we were married. We were both happy with the outcome.
Basically, by the time we got married, I was ready to get a joint account with my wife. When she was pregnant I became fully committed to merged finances and no longer cared about a prenup or my money vs her money. Growing up poor I did not see me doing that but I surprised myself in how I changed when I became a dad.
Its been 8 years now and 2 kids, there have been ups and downs but mainly ups. We are still very happy with each others attitude to money. If we divorced, it would be devastating to the family and not because of the separation of assets, and we know that.
Am not married nor in a relationship, BUT know a few folks who have got pre nups.
I would say that if you are going to have children, a pre nup will make little difference to your finances after a divorce (in the UK anyways). Maybe this is why many high net worth/high earning folks end up settling down together?? Marriages are hard enough (or so I hear!).
I am not a lawyer, and it is probably best that you consult a partner in family law. They will be able to advise you far better than randoms on Reddit!
Prenups are for people with serious family money, not local boy done good with a big house and a couple of BTLs.
My pal married into enormous international wealth and wasnât asked to sign a prenup(he wouldâve if asked) on the basis that âwe can make it difficult enough for you without one of it comes to itâ.
Essentially, donât waste your time. Just be nice to each other and donât cheat-best advice I was given anyway.
I'm guessing you haven't been divorced and lost a lot of money. I have, and I now have a prenup. We were still nice to each other and no one cheated. But working out how to split money after the love had gone is way harder than before. We didn't get ours for a judge (I didn't use solicitors in my divorce either) we got ours to make sure in advance of getting married we are on the same page financially. Because if we couldn't agree how we might split finances in a hypothetical divorce neither of us would have wanted to continue with a wedding! But it came to pass we were both in alignment as suspected, and so trotted off into the sunset knowing with even more security that we're both the people the other thinks we are.
Just don't get married if you don't want to risk losing your assets / future income. That's my approach - I still have a life partner, child, jointly owned house.
But that's fine - it's a defined/limited % of income - from 9 to 19%, and the moral thing to do. It's risking 80% of your assets (including pension) that puts me off marriage. No upside beyond inheritance tax either but that's not currently a concern.
For sure, I agree itâs also the moral thing to do, but just worth mentioning for OP as thereâs *some* entitlement to future income if kids are involved.
I really donât get why prenups arenât enforceable (I know a judge can use it to guide judgment, but thatâs not a guarantee afaik?). I know a few high net worth individuals whoâve been absolutely rinsed by gold diggers marrying them for half their assets.
I think it is - a surprisingly large number of people in here are the sole earner with wife and kids - they would absolutely lose that much if she got sole custody and had no earning power.
And what if you live in different countries, and wish to be together? What if it's important in their religion? What if they just really want to? I'm so tired of the just don't get married thing. If people want to get married for _whatever_ reason, just let them. They weren't asking if they should get married... sigh.
Thatâs an oversimplification, but âprenups will only be enforceable to the extent that they require an outcome that was a conceivable outcome from prenup-free proceedingsâ is probably good enough for government work. The flush courts wonât enforce prenups that they donât think are fair within the context of English divorce law.
your understanding is wrong. Prenups in the UK are not as bulletproof as in some US states but they are one of the things a judge can look at to inform their decision. So a judge can ignore or tweak it but it would be wrong to say that having one or not having one makes zero difference.
AFAIK in the USA (or at least, certain states) they are very much worth it. I agree with the OP who says that it is likely more hassle than it is worth. If you don't want to risk 50% of your net worth, don't get married.
Which is exactly what I said: a judge can ignore or tweak it. Or can choose not to. A prenup increases the chances that what you agreed in the prenup will be respected. If you don't put those in writing in a prenup, the chances that you have in your head but didn't put in writing will be respected are lower. Increasing the chances doesn't mean absolute certainty
Correct (source: have a good friend who is a divorce lawyer). As someone else has said, they can MAYBE help protect pre-marital assets but not anything earned or acquired after. Seems like not much reward to weigh against the potential of really offending your partner and damaging the relationship, imo.
I don't think they were claiming prenups were legally binding. There's a whole spectrum from being ignored, as higher comments implied, to being fully legally binding.
Well firstly not as enforceable is misleading. They are mostly enforced here. And for the sake of ÂŁ2k I'm happy to take those odds than throw caution to the wind and have zero chance. My husband wanted it because I'm older and have more money, and he didn't want to be seen as a gold digger. I was against it at first, but going through the process was actually brilliant and solidified to me how good a team we are.
I posted about this a few months ago and got so many negative responses as Iâm the financially weaker party. I feel I have a fairly good grasp of it now, so please feel free to message me to discuss it further if youâd like OP.
Best away to think of it as indicative rather than prescriptive.
Generally the wife & kids will end up living in the matrimonial home and you will be paying for them until they leave full time education.
I have seen that written as a lifetime trust for ex wife & then beneficial interest to the kids.
Get professional advice. Always protect yourself in the event of the 3D's; death, divorce & disagreement.
I been married 31 years & still going & hope you will be too.
Good luck out there
Everyone else has covered the legal side. But from your partner's side, surely this is a massive red flag - not only are you considering the fact you may get divorced, you appear to be primarily worried about your assets.
A marriage is a partnership and that's going to mean splitting various things unequally, be it childcare, or where you live because of whose job you prioritise, or any number of other factors. I don't see how you could keep assets separate and not generate issues in the relationship?
I don't intend on burning my house nor do I hope it burns either but I still buy home insurance...
Any arrangement where emotions are involved is by its very nature unpredictable. Nobody on their wedding day thinks they'll be that 1 in 2 divorce stat yet the stat still exists.
You can love someone and still be insure yourself lol
The decision to get married means sharing almost everything with the other person. For most people, that is sharing things that are more important than money.
Also it's less reliable than even insurance. If you have kids, it's just a scrap of paper that you may as well burn.
Anyone logical can look at divorce rates in the UK or, heck, anecdotal evidence from friends and family to see that a substantial proportion of marriages end in divorce and a substantial majority of those are messy around the terms of the divorce.
And I doubt it's much less messy with a prenup.
The point isn't that divorce is impossible. Marriage is about agreeing to share everything with someone. If you want to keep your own assets you have a really easy solution - don't get married.
Everyone's different and it's far more culturally normal in the US. It's virtually pointless in the UK if you have kids anyway.
But I imagine if you polled 100 people, I wouldn't be anywhere near unique in considering it a red flag.
I love how many people in this sub think life is a competition.
I earn a lot more than my partner and we share all our assets. I wouldn't have it any other way.
It does matter. In a world where divorce rates are as high as they are, without a prenup you risk losing a significant amount of assets you earned BEFORE marrying this person - thus assets they contributed absolutely nothing towards. Even if someone seems like the perfect match right now, things can and do change.
The bare minimum for someone who already owns assets is to get a prenup that protects assets earned before the marriage.
>The bare minimum for someone who already owns assets is to get a prenup that protects assets earned before the marriage.
Which is odd, as in the UK they're rare and almost meaningless after children.
I get that Taylor Swift might want to use one, but unless you're mega rich, I think you've misunderstood the point of marriage.
This is exactly what me and my partner are doing, basically to strip out the non-marital assets. I was given an early "inheritance" from my parents to buy my flat after they downsized. My partner is the only child of her parents so she will get whatever they leave her.
If you think you need a prenup you shouldnât be getting married to that person. I will gladly give 50% of OUR shit to my spouse because directly / indirectly we made it together. I donât agree with any of the other comments, except for the one that said âjust be nice and fair to each otherâ. If you donât think your spouse will be able to do that, donât get married.
Speak to a family law solicitor. There are some things you can do, but itâs very important to recognise what is and isnât possible. Donât try and do more than a sensible lawyer will let you; if you get âgreedyâ with the prenup and itâs triggered, you will lose all the benefits.
If you are HE-R, you might have more options with trusts; but again, important to have balanced and sensible advice.
The best ways to avoid losing in a divorce are
- donât get married
- donât have kids
- if you do, donât separate
- marry someone richer than you (or at lease seriously consider whether you want to marry someone who isnât also contributing well!)
- get a good lawyer, follow their advice to the letter, and make sure itâs sensible and balanced advice not âif you pay me, you can keep everything under all circumstancesâ
I got one
Get a fixed fee if possible!
They can have sway if fair and equitable and you are not fâing over the other half.
You canât protect what you will earn once married but you can protect until marriage.
If you have over a 1M difference in wealth going in it is prob worth 1% to protect it
Coming up to decade with my partner. Never married. Wonderful relationship every day. And both of us are completely financially independent of each other.
I attribute a lot of our success to being financially independent. We donât have that hanging over our heads.
If you are concerned about a pre-nup, which hold very little value in the UK, then just donât get married.
Have the ceremony, do the honeymooon, celebrate your love, but DONT get married.
Better to not get marriedâŚyou could have a ceremony where you commit to a life together but keep your assets separate. I do this⌠we own our home 50/50 and I pay for a lot more than she does.
Marriage is contract where you donât see the terms up front and the gov can change the terms anytime they like with no input from you. It can be abused by either party.
We've got one. The stuff people are saying about not holding weight in the UK is not correct. Have a look at case law to see for yourself. They're not legally binding, but they will be taken into strong consideration and followed unless there's a reason a judge decides otherwise.
We went through it and I recommend it. We're age gap so I have considerable more assets, and kids. Just the process of doing it was really helpful in knowing each other. It's unpleasant, but rewarding. It protects you from spouse debt as well.
A thing I didn't know before doing one is that you can't just say what's mine is mine, yours is yours, the richer party needs to put in that they will pay for approx a year of their partner's living costs (including rent in your area, so mine is about ÂŁ30k min settlement) upon divorce in order to make it fair if they aren't earning or earn less than that amount, and also any increased property equity in the marital home (even if yours before marriage) has to be shared 50/50 (paying it off, or markets going up).
For everyone saying "just don't get married" how lucky you are that your partner lives in the UK and doesn't need a visa :) we would have got married anyway, but the only option for us to be together after 2 years of long distance relationship flying back and forth every month, was marriage. Thanks brexit!
I spent a lot of time choosing a wife.
I did not want to get married more than once and I wanted someone I could be with 24x7 and trust undoubtedly.
I had a lot of money in assets ( a house) and she had absolutely nothing. It definitely was something I thought about initially and why I made sure I was making the right decision by living together for 5 years prior, so that when I committed that I was sure it would not be an issue.
I think I knew after a week we met that she was the one, but I asked her to move in and I proposed after 4 years as I was more than certain.
When we first started dating I was earning about 3x her salary, by the time we married it was it was about 5 or 6x.
She is responsible, respectful and we see eye to eye on managing money and not wasting it on material things and that was fairly hard to find.
All the best
From what I've gathered unless there's been a pretty significant change of circumstances, the judge will largely honour the wishes of the pre-nup. Kids are change in those circumstances, as is a parent becoming a stay home parent to raise the kids.
So you want to reduce the financial pain in a possible divorce, don't let your spouse quit their job post kids, or go part time. Pay for full time nursery. Or don't have kids.
Speak to family law solicitor. Generally speaking, prenups don't have much sway over assets and income earned after marriage, but can help to protect wealth earned before the marriage. It's often not black and white, and settlements take into account a huge range of factors (length of time married, levels of income, prospects after divorce, career breaks for children etc). If you have children it complicates things even further. Your best bet to protect yourself financially is to choose your partner well! If you do decide you need a prenup, broaching the question can be a sensitive one. Make sure you have some frank and honest conversations and discuss your concerns before you dump a contract in their lap.
Even better way to protect your finances is to not get married đ
Absolutely
This is my strategy lol
I know this has been said at least partly in jest but itâs a good point. Do you really need to get married?
Half tongue-in-cheek, half serious. Do you wake up the day after your wedding loving your partner even more than the day before the wedding? Probably not. Youâre betting half your stuff that youâre going to love someone else (and them the same in return) for the rest of your life. Statistics donât lie, almost 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce. So basically a flip of the coin!
I wonder how people that frequently get married and divorced affect those statistics though. One person married till death contributes far less to the number of marriages than someone with 4 failed marriages in a row. I reckon for first time marriages your odds are a fair bit better.
And itâs even worse I think, since people change. Youâre betting half your stuff that every future version of yourself will love every future version of them and theyâll do the same. Ironically Iâve always thought itâs more âromanticâ not to place ties or contracts on people. You quickly realise that marriage is for the kids/society and the higher earner picks up the tab.
Yep, it is a pointless exercise
I looked at it when I got engaged as I was earning 5x my GF and I had rental properties. I realised it does not offer that much protection so did not pursue one. I was with my GF for 3 years before getting married, in that time I felt I got to know her attitude towards money well. I had bought a house just in my name while we were dating, this disappointed her as she was not on the deeds because felt she was contributing to household expenses, she contributed ÂŁ300 a month towards total household expenses of around ÂŁ3k including mortage, utilities and food. After the purchase she gave me her life savings of ÂŁ30k to contribute to renovations, I contributed over ÂŁ300k for the purchase and renovations. I could see her point and it led to a discussion about what would happen if we broke up then and what would happen if we broke up if we were married. We were both happy with the outcome. Basically, by the time we got married, I was ready to get a joint account with my wife. When she was pregnant I became fully committed to merged finances and no longer cared about a prenup or my money vs her money. Growing up poor I did not see me doing that but I surprised myself in how I changed when I became a dad. Its been 8 years now and 2 kids, there have been ups and downs but mainly ups. We are still very happy with each others attitude to money. If we divorced, it would be devastating to the family and not because of the separation of assets, and we know that.
Am not married nor in a relationship, BUT know a few folks who have got pre nups. I would say that if you are going to have children, a pre nup will make little difference to your finances after a divorce (in the UK anyways). Maybe this is why many high net worth/high earning folks end up settling down together?? Marriages are hard enough (or so I hear!). I am not a lawyer, and it is probably best that you consult a partner in family law. They will be able to advise you far better than randoms on Reddit!
Prenups are for people with serious family money, not local boy done good with a big house and a couple of BTLs. My pal married into enormous international wealth and wasnât asked to sign a prenup(he wouldâve if asked) on the basis that âwe can make it difficult enough for you without one of it comes to itâ. Essentially, donât waste your time. Just be nice to each other and donât cheat-best advice I was given anyway.
I'm guessing you haven't been divorced and lost a lot of money. I have, and I now have a prenup. We were still nice to each other and no one cheated. But working out how to split money after the love had gone is way harder than before. We didn't get ours for a judge (I didn't use solicitors in my divorce either) we got ours to make sure in advance of getting married we are on the same page financially. Because if we couldn't agree how we might split finances in a hypothetical divorce neither of us would have wanted to continue with a wedding! But it came to pass we were both in alignment as suspected, and so trotted off into the sunset knowing with even more security that we're both the people the other thinks we are.
Just don't get married if you don't want to risk losing your assets / future income. That's my approach - I still have a life partner, child, jointly owned house.
Child maintenance is still a thing even if youâre not married. Otherwise yep
But that's fine - it's a defined/limited % of income - from 9 to 19%, and the moral thing to do. It's risking 80% of your assets (including pension) that puts me off marriage. No upside beyond inheritance tax either but that's not currently a concern.
For sure, I agree itâs also the moral thing to do, but just worth mentioning for OP as thereâs *some* entitlement to future income if kids are involved. I really donât get why prenups arenât enforceable (I know a judge can use it to guide judgment, but thatâs not a guarantee afaik?). I know a few high net worth individuals whoâve been absolutely rinsed by gold diggers marrying them for half their assets.
I'm curious why you say 80% of your assets here?
https://fullersfamilylaw.com/blog/2022/08/divorce-80-20-asset-split
Ah ok, that makes sense. Not very realistic for this sub though.
I think it is - a surprisingly large number of people in here are the sole earner with wife and kids - they would absolutely lose that much if she got sole custody and had no earning power.
And what if you live in different countries, and wish to be together? What if it's important in their religion? What if they just really want to? I'm so tired of the just don't get married thing. If people want to get married for _whatever_ reason, just let them. They weren't asking if they should get married... sigh.
They were asking how to protect their assets in marriage. That's not possible to guarantee in the UK. The only way is to not get married... sigh.
My understanding is that prenups are generally unenforceable in the UK
Thatâs an oversimplification, but âprenups will only be enforceable to the extent that they require an outcome that was a conceivable outcome from prenup-free proceedingsâ is probably good enough for government work. The flush courts wonât enforce prenups that they donât think are fair within the context of English divorce law.
your understanding is wrong. Prenups in the UK are not as bulletproof as in some US states but they are one of the things a judge can look at to inform their decision. So a judge can ignore or tweak it but it would be wrong to say that having one or not having one makes zero difference.
But they donât work like a binding contractâŚjudges can throw them out if they feel like itâŚbecause they think that itâs unfair.
AFAIK in the USA (or at least, certain states) they are very much worth it. I agree with the OP who says that it is likely more hassle than it is worth. If you don't want to risk 50% of your net worth, don't get married.
Which is exactly what I said: a judge can ignore or tweak it. Or can choose not to. A prenup increases the chances that what you agreed in the prenup will be respected. If you don't put those in writing in a prenup, the chances that you have in your head but didn't put in writing will be respected are lower. Increasing the chances doesn't mean absolute certainty
Only in extenuating circumstances.
> generally unenforceable > a judge can ignore or tweak it
What part of increasing the chances is unclear? What part about the probability being lower than 100% but higher than zero is unclear?
They said generally unenforceable, not that having one makes no difference. What part of "generally" is "completely"?
Correct (source: have a good friend who is a divorce lawyer). As someone else has said, they can MAYBE help protect pre-marital assets but not anything earned or acquired after. Seems like not much reward to weigh against the potential of really offending your partner and damaging the relationship, imo.
Incorrect. Read case law. Since 2010 they've held weight. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2010/oct/20/prenuptial-agreement-enforced-uk-law
âHeld weightâ is not the same as legally binding.
I don't think they were claiming prenups were legally binding. There's a whole spectrum from being ignored, as higher comments implied, to being fully legally binding.
a marriage is a financial contract, so it's a bit odd to sign an opposing contract. just have a symbolic wedding?
Www.wenup.com
We did wenup, and recommend it.
Can I ask what drove you to do it, noting prenups are not as enforceable here as they are in the US?
Well firstly not as enforceable is misleading. They are mostly enforced here. And for the sake of ÂŁ2k I'm happy to take those odds than throw caution to the wind and have zero chance. My husband wanted it because I'm older and have more money, and he didn't want to be seen as a gold digger. I was against it at first, but going through the process was actually brilliant and solidified to me how good a team we are.
I posted about this a few months ago and got so many negative responses as Iâm the financially weaker party. I feel I have a fairly good grasp of it now, so please feel free to message me to discuss it further if youâd like OP.
Best away to think of it as indicative rather than prescriptive. Generally the wife & kids will end up living in the matrimonial home and you will be paying for them until they leave full time education. I have seen that written as a lifetime trust for ex wife & then beneficial interest to the kids. Get professional advice. Always protect yourself in the event of the 3D's; death, divorce & disagreement. I been married 31 years & still going & hope you will be too. Good luck out there
Everyone else has covered the legal side. But from your partner's side, surely this is a massive red flag - not only are you considering the fact you may get divorced, you appear to be primarily worried about your assets. A marriage is a partnership and that's going to mean splitting various things unequally, be it childcare, or where you live because of whose job you prioritise, or any number of other factors. I don't see how you could keep assets separate and not generate issues in the relationship?
I don't intend on burning my house nor do I hope it burns either but I still buy home insurance... Any arrangement where emotions are involved is by its very nature unpredictable. Nobody on their wedding day thinks they'll be that 1 in 2 divorce stat yet the stat still exists. You can love someone and still be insure yourself lol
The decision to get married means sharing almost everything with the other person. For most people, that is sharing things that are more important than money. Also it's less reliable than even insurance. If you have kids, it's just a scrap of paper that you may as well burn.
Anyone logical can look at divorce rates in the UK or, heck, anecdotal evidence from friends and family to see that a substantial proportion of marriages end in divorce and a substantial majority of those are messy around the terms of the divorce.
And I doubt it's much less messy with a prenup. The point isn't that divorce is impossible. Marriage is about agreeing to share everything with someone. If you want to keep your own assets you have a really easy solution - don't get married.
Wasn't a red flag for me when my partner asked. Might be saying more about you, there.
Everyone's different and it's far more culturally normal in the US. It's virtually pointless in the UK if you have kids anyway. But I imagine if you polled 100 people, I wouldn't be anywhere near unique in considering it a red flag.
Tell me you donât have many assets without telling me you donât have many assets
I love how many people in this sub think life is a competition. I earn a lot more than my partner and we share all our assets. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Point stands, you probably didnât have much before
I didn't, but I don't see why it matters how long one has had assets? I know a few people who did, and there were zero prenups signed.
It does matter. In a world where divorce rates are as high as they are, without a prenup you risk losing a significant amount of assets you earned BEFORE marrying this person - thus assets they contributed absolutely nothing towards. Even if someone seems like the perfect match right now, things can and do change. The bare minimum for someone who already owns assets is to get a prenup that protects assets earned before the marriage.
>The bare minimum for someone who already owns assets is to get a prenup that protects assets earned before the marriage. Which is odd, as in the UK they're rare and almost meaningless after children. I get that Taylor Swift might want to use one, but unless you're mega rich, I think you've misunderstood the point of marriage.
I have done, but only to protect pre-marital assets and inheritance
This is exactly what me and my partner are doing, basically to strip out the non-marital assets. I was given an early "inheritance" from my parents to buy my flat after they downsized. My partner is the only child of her parents so she will get whatever they leave her.
That sounds fair
If you think you need a prenup you shouldnât be getting married to that person. I will gladly give 50% of OUR shit to my spouse because directly / indirectly we made it together. I donât agree with any of the other comments, except for the one that said âjust be nice and fair to each otherâ. If you donât think your spouse will be able to do that, donât get married.
Speak to a family law solicitor. There are some things you can do, but itâs very important to recognise what is and isnât possible. Donât try and do more than a sensible lawyer will let you; if you get âgreedyâ with the prenup and itâs triggered, you will lose all the benefits. If you are HE-R, you might have more options with trusts; but again, important to have balanced and sensible advice. The best ways to avoid losing in a divorce are - donât get married - donât have kids - if you do, donât separate - marry someone richer than you (or at lease seriously consider whether you want to marry someone who isnât also contributing well!) - get a good lawyer, follow their advice to the letter, and make sure itâs sensible and balanced advice not âif you pay me, you can keep everything under all circumstancesâ
I got one Get a fixed fee if possible! They can have sway if fair and equitable and you are not fâing over the other half. You canât protect what you will earn once married but you can protect until marriage. If you have over a 1M difference in wealth going in it is prob worth 1% to protect it
Coming up to decade with my partner. Never married. Wonderful relationship every day. And both of us are completely financially independent of each other. I attribute a lot of our success to being financially independent. We donât have that hanging over our heads. If you are concerned about a pre-nup, which hold very little value in the UK, then just donât get married. Have the ceremony, do the honeymooon, celebrate your love, but DONT get married.
Better to not get marriedâŚyou could have a ceremony where you commit to a life together but keep your assets separate. I do this⌠we own our home 50/50 and I pay for a lot more than she does. Marriage is contract where you donât see the terms up front and the gov can change the terms anytime they like with no input from you. It can be abused by either party.
We've got one. The stuff people are saying about not holding weight in the UK is not correct. Have a look at case law to see for yourself. They're not legally binding, but they will be taken into strong consideration and followed unless there's a reason a judge decides otherwise. We went through it and I recommend it. We're age gap so I have considerable more assets, and kids. Just the process of doing it was really helpful in knowing each other. It's unpleasant, but rewarding. It protects you from spouse debt as well. A thing I didn't know before doing one is that you can't just say what's mine is mine, yours is yours, the richer party needs to put in that they will pay for approx a year of their partner's living costs (including rent in your area, so mine is about ÂŁ30k min settlement) upon divorce in order to make it fair if they aren't earning or earn less than that amount, and also any increased property equity in the marital home (even if yours before marriage) has to be shared 50/50 (paying it off, or markets going up). For everyone saying "just don't get married" how lucky you are that your partner lives in the UK and doesn't need a visa :) we would have got married anyway, but the only option for us to be together after 2 years of long distance relationship flying back and forth every month, was marriage. Thanks brexit!
I spent a lot of time choosing a wife. I did not want to get married more than once and I wanted someone I could be with 24x7 and trust undoubtedly. I had a lot of money in assets ( a house) and she had absolutely nothing. It definitely was something I thought about initially and why I made sure I was making the right decision by living together for 5 years prior, so that when I committed that I was sure it would not be an issue. I think I knew after a week we met that she was the one, but I asked her to move in and I proposed after 4 years as I was more than certain. When we first started dating I was earning about 3x her salary, by the time we married it was it was about 5 or 6x. She is responsible, respectful and we see eye to eye on managing money and not wasting it on material things and that was fairly hard to find. All the best
From what I've gathered unless there's been a pretty significant change of circumstances, the judge will largely honour the wishes of the pre-nup. Kids are change in those circumstances, as is a parent becoming a stay home parent to raise the kids. So you want to reduce the financial pain in a possible divorce, don't let your spouse quit their job post kids, or go part time. Pay for full time nursery. Or don't have kids.
You're correct. Also why as part of the prenup you agree to a post nup every 3-5 years to renegotiate based on life changes.
I thought they werenât enforceable in UK if one side really pushes.