Pre-nups..... good or bad?

[MrBen]

This news last week suggests that pre-nuptial agreements might finally become enforcable in courts in England and Wales as more couples decide to take this route. One reason for this increase is though to be that we're generally marrying later and therefore have more accumulated assets and more complex personal affairs. Scottish law already recognises the pre-nup as do Canada, France, Germany and Italy which have similar versions.

Setting aside all romantic notions of marriage, the cold hard facts are that 45% of married couples end in divorce with the basic starting point for dividing assets in England at 50:50. And the homemaker (even without kids) entitled to as much as the main breadwinner.

Or to put it another way - if you marry in England you statistically stand a 45% chance of losing 50% of your net assets. Whilst every situation differs and is assessed by the courts independently, that broad principal (and some recent rulings) just seem grossly unfair to me , especially where one partner has accumulated significant assets through years of hard work prior to meeting their partner. And where the wife run's off with the milkman. It's a bet with totally lousy odds.

So I'm personally all in favour of the pre-nup becoming a standard sensible part of the UK marriage agreement - it's a contract after all right? Granted - completely unromantic but remove yourself from that and surely it's just plain common sense?

What do you all think?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Dang it - for a minute there I thought the news was more... personal MrBen

Having being through this particular mill before, I would argue against the institution of marriage before I would argue for or against pre-nups.

If you are married, or intending to then by all means don't take this as an attack on your choices. And I hope yours lasts - I just hated the intrusion of institutions into a personal matter when the time came to seperate. And relationships outside marriage often last far longer than those within. I know there are practical benefits to marriage as well but on balance...

And as MrBen states, statistically it is as likely as not (I would guess the 45% will be a lot higher in 20 years)

As for the 50/50 split - trickier to call. Mine ended amicably and whilst it wasn't 50/50, we were able to agree which bits were fair. But if you throw in a nasty seperation, all bets are off, hence pre-nups I guess.

I'm rambling I know but in short - I'm against marriage, pre-nups and automatic 50-50 splits

[Moos]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

And relationships outside marriage often last far longer than those within...

Not heard this one before, what's your source?

[SteveT]

I have yet to see statistics for people who are 'shacked-up'.

Mr Ben wrote:- Or to put it another way - if you marry in England you statistically stand a 45% chance of losing 50% of your net assets.

I hate to say Mr Ben but you stand to lose far more than 50% if it breaks down, my cousin lost 90% of his assets and both his children were over 21 and in full employment.

My brother fared better he retained 30% of his assets, and I landed 25%.

[Ladymuck]

Well, my view (and it's a simplistic one) is that if a couple has to even CONSIDER pre-nups, then they shouldn't be together. The mere THOUGHT of such a document undermines any trust between that couple. Hubby and I share everything (well, he doesn't wear my underwear and vice versa - obviously!)...but everything is jointly owned...we have ONE bank account and it is in JOINT names...there is no such thing as "my" money or "his" money...and it's fabulous...if either of us want to purchase something over a certain value, then we will consult each other. There is COMPLETE trust. Result: happily married 31 years.

[SeanMacGabhann]

"And relationships outside marriage often last far longer than those within...

Not heard this one before, what's your source?"

I wasn't citing any sources - just an observation of friends and colleagues over the last 20 years. I doubt my experience is unique either. Surely most people know lots of friends with marriages that haven't worked and equally know lots of people in long-term relationships?

I'm not saying not marrying is better than marrying. I know plenty of happily married couples etc etc and I hope everyone of them lasts. I guess I am sounding bitter - but I'm trying to say that splitting up happens. A lot. Even to married people. And the process of divorce is, in my experience, enough to make me think more than twice about risking it again

[Brendan]

I have no problem with the idea in principle. I do think the law should step in and override them if there are children to be cared for though.

One would like to think that if a man had protected say the ownership of his home for example in a pre-nup he would hand it over to his ex anyway if she needed a place to raise his children. Well if he was a real man anyway. Unfortunately as I travel through life I learn more and more that there are plenty of people out there who may posses Y chromosomes but are by no means real men. When these bastards reproduce we need the law there to ensure they live up to the very minimum of their responsibilities.

[SteveT]

One guy I new said that if you make a path in a marriage with a pre-nuptial agreement, then that is the path your marriage will finally take.

My advice would be move in together and see how it goes.

I was 'shacked up' with my ex-wife for two years before we married, it still ended in disaster for me, but she swanned off with the assets that she hadn't put in.

Men do not get either a fair hearing, or fair play when dealing with the divorce courts.

Most divorces occur during later life, over fifty years of age.

One couple I know have been married for 48 years, successfully raised 3 children, both are convinced they now have nothing in common, and are most unhappy about their position.

[????]

Bad science Sean, bad science...clearly many marriages fail but non-married relationships are more successfull???? Actually, the VAST majority of people I know with say 10 years plus under the belt are married but I wouldn't put my anectdotal evidence forward as proof. Relationships fail...but married ones at a worse rate than non-married ones????

[Brendan]

Yeah I?ve had many more failed unmarried relationships than failed marriages.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I know I'm not being very clear with my posts, so it's my fault I'm not getting my point across - at no point did I intend to say that I thought non-married relationships were MORE successful per se

Nor am I trying to "prove" anything, anecdotally or not. The idea was to suggest that the institution itself wasn't absolutely necessary. That doesn't make it undesirable or without specific benefits. It's just that, given the subject is pre-nups, if a relationship is to fail, married or not, I would prefer it to be possible to not involve lawyers etc. Although I see Brendan's point as well

[sophiesofa]

If I married I would want a pre-nup to protect myself. I'm quite a realistic person and I know the statistics so naturally I would want to proetcet myself. My boyfriend and I have separate accounts and a joint account for the mortgage and bills etc. I requested when we bought our flat that the solicitor write one of those documents (don't know the name) that states exactly how much we both paid (I paid a bit more) so I know if we do split up then everything will be fair. Obviously it's a lot more complicated with children but there is no way my boyfiends wage would support a family so I'd be at work also, probably earning more than him.

All circumstances are different but I think it's sensible to protect yourself and the other person with a fair agreement.

[????]

Of course Sean, I know a fair few unmarried couples with strong long term relationships...I suspect that this would have been the case wether they were married or not. In that sense marriage is an irrellevance. I put no value on any of it. For instance I suspect that marriage puts pressures on people in a relationship especially if one of a couple is less keen on the institution than the other; on the other hand, relationships go through rocky periods and my 'suspicion' is that as it is generally easier to walk away from a non-married relationship it is possible that married couples try and work through these periods possibly a bit harder than non-marrieds as a whole.

As someone who has previously been married and also had a few other failed long term relationships I know which was the hardest split even though it was relatively amicable. I dunno witterings and off topic, apologies!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Not wittering - expressing some of the things I was trying to say better than I managed - but I'm going to keep schtum on this thread now as a couple of people have pointed out to me offline that I'm sounding bitter. And that's not what I'm trying to do

MrBen or The Chair - sorry if I have pulled this OT

[mockney piers]

I can kind of see where sean's coming from.

Marriage seems to me a pointless enterprise to embark on if you're doing so with the sortof attitude to it that requires a prenup. It should or shouldnt be for life.

If it isn't then perhaps the marriage was ill thoughtout in the first place, or if you're just being realistic then why get married? Have yourselves a big party, live together, make an agreement about how you will split and enjoy your time together.

I've no idea whether mine will last the distance or not as life is unpredictable, but I'll give it my best shot and approach all our decisions based on the assumption that were together til death do us part.

Call me old fashioned...

[DaveR]

Not being married does not prevent disputes about jointly owned/acquired property - they just get resolved according to different rules (and not always that different). I think pre-nups are a great idea - for someone else.

[MrBen]

Interesting comments and a rather diverse range of views too. DaveR - Jointly acquired property - fair enough. But where one partner creates a large amount of assets personally - without any sacrifice or contribution from their partner then I think it is grossly unfair to have to split it equally or even worse in a divorce outcome because of current English marital law.

I reckon that giving legal recognition and removing some of the social stigma from the pre-nup (previously associated with people like Michael Douglas which doesn't help) would be useful step forward. And I think that the inclusion of prenups could form part of a wider reform of marital law.

Civil partnerships aside, I'm not sure that the institution of marriage has moved with the times - society has changed, church attendance has dived, we're marrying later and living longer. And it's now ok to live together and have kids outside of marriage without the threat that we'll all burn in hell. I think it needs a fresh look and pre-nups seem a sensible part of that in the current day.

I respect the argument that " if there is total trust then there's no need for a prenup" but an equally worthy response might be " Well if we are going to stay together for life then you wont mind a prenup then because we'll never have to use it will we?!"

[pebbles]

I totally agree with LadyMuck that one shouldn't feel the need to have a prenup otherwise it would mean they had doubts before going into marriage. I went into my marriage with pretty much equal everything so it was never even a consideration and now i'm a mother and not working for a salary we have one joint account that we both live on however the money we receive from child benefits (can't remember the name) go into an account in my name for me to buy my husbands bday and xmas presents - just something that means something to me!!!

Question - should the split be different dependent on what has broken up the marriage? ie affairs (male or female), mutual no longer loving each other etc.

Another question that I'm interested to know whether it makes a difference - if there are no children in the relationship is it still a 50/50 split?

[Santerme]

I divorced after 22 years of marriage.

To sort out the finances we sat down at the kitchen table and came to a reasonable arrangement.

There were no third parties involved so, as much as it can be, it was perfectly amicable.

I married in Canada three years ago, which is a country that allows pre nups, but we both decided not to as we felt it would get things off on the wrong foot.

[daizie]

I think they are a good idea, but not very romantic. You dont have a fire extinguisher in your house because you want a fire, you have it there just incase there is one. Sensible .

[Brendan]

MrBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jointly acquired property -

> fair enough. But where one partner creates a large

> amount of assets personally - without any

> sacrifice or contribution from their partner then

> I think it is grossly unfair to have to split it

> equally or even worse...

There are some who would say that you may be missing the entire point of marriage with this point.

[daizie]

It is interesting that it is usually the person with less earning potential who is never that keen on a pre-nup .

[Brendan]

Yeah, fascinating.

[brum]

Although a marriage itself is a legally-binding contract, I do think that we live in a sad world if we enter into a marriage armed with a pre-nup 'just in case'. I say that as someone with a greater earning potential than both my ex's and have regarded my consequential loss of property/earnings as the price I have had to pay. Besides, in life there are more important things to worry about than money.

[Ladymuck]

brum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Besides, in life there are more important things

> to worry about than money.

I KNEW there was something missing from my earlier post...it was exactly that. Such a simple thought, but often ignored. Thanks Brum for bringing it to the fore.