Pre-Nuptual Agreement.

[DTS]

I was at a wedding this weekend. One of my best mates married his long term bird in Hatfield.

The next morning at the breakfast table it was revealed that my mate has got her to sign a pre nuptual agreement stating that anything that is his before the wedding remains his and anything after is a joint assett.

To give some back ground my mate has a top job as a hedgefun manager in Hong Kong as is a real high flier. His Mrs in comparrison has not worked for 6 years (He is 27 years old and she is 30). and basically he sole existance is to spend his money. He is worth a mint but invests all he can.

I personally think he is spot on getting it done. Why should he work hard all his life for he to take half if it goes wrong. Some say its not romantic but for my mind if you think you will always be together why would she not sign it.

A few of my mates and their birds said its not on and is well out of order.

Your thoughts please

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

Spot on.
I probably would have thought about it if for one second my Mrs would have agreed to it, but seeing as she wouldn't there was no point!

 

[Shrimper2thecore]

Its a difficult one, I kind of feel that maxing your Mrs agree to it, is condemning the marriage before it has begun, but I see both sides

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I don't really know anything about family law, but on the basis that you are supposed to keep the ex-Mrs in the lifestyle that she has become accustomed to, my legal advice would be to dispense with the pre-nuptial (which may or may not be enforceable) and keep the Mrs locked in a cupboard fed only on stale bread.

Should for some reason she want to divorce you, you should be able continue to provide for her and allow her to maintain the lifestyle that she has become accustomed to, at minimal cost to yourself.

 

[chadded]

Alternatively marry a lass with more money, and let her keep you in the lifestyle you have become accustomed to.

Yours in singleness,

chadded :)

 

[Uncle Leo]

Surely you come in to marriage truly believing you are going to spend the rest of your life with that person? Sign a pre-nup and you're effectively saying "Hmm, not 100% sure about this one". Seems to defeat the point as far as I can see.

 

[SEE ESS Jay]

Not very catholic is it.

 

[Shrimp_Stu]

You should direct your friend to the following story:

High Court Ruling

In the Miller case, Mr Miller challenged an earlier court order that he pay his ex-wife the £5m after their brief marriage failed.

The Millers, who lived in Chelsea, London, were married for two years and nine months and had no children when they split.

A judge had decided Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle

 

[DTS]

Surely you come in to marriage truly believing you are going to spend the rest of your life with that person? Sign a pre-nup and you're effectively saying "Hmm, not 100% sure about this one". Seems to defeat the point as far as I can see.

Well my arguement for this is if she believes that too then surely she wouldnt mind signing it.

DtS

 

[Uncle Leo]

Well my arguement for this is if she believes that too then surely she wouldnt mind signing it.

DtS

I see your point Dave, but I'm afraid it all just comes across as a bit mean spirited to me... :(

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Hate to break this to your mate, but I'm fairly sure that "pre-Nups" are unenforceable as a matter of English law - although I'll check - unless he got her to execute the document as a deed. Even then, I am not sure a Family Law court in Ancillary Relief proceedings (the proceedings to split up the pie post-divorce) needs to consider a pre-nup in exercising its discretion to apportion marital goods...

Perhaps I'm too callow and blithely optimistic for the cynical times in which we find ourselves, but surely you marry someone because you want to spend the rest of your lives with them and share everything you have with them.

If you're not prepared to do that - with all that entails (e.g. the bad times as well as the good, having to turn down temptation when it's laid in your path) - then why get married?

:confused:

 

[DTS]

Hate to break this to your mate, but I'm fairly sure that "pre-Nups" are unenforceable as a matter of English law - although I'll check - unless he got her to execute the document as a deed. Even then, I am not sure a Family Law court in Ancillary Relief proceedings (the proceedings to split up the pie post-divorce) needs to consider a pre-nup in exercising its discretion to apportion marital goods...

Perhaps I'm too callow and blithely optimistic for the cynical times in which we find ourselves, but surely you marry someone because you want to spend the rest of your lives with them and share everything you have with them.

If you're not prepared to do that - with all that entails (e.g. the bad times as well as the good, having to turn down temptation when it's laid in your path) - then why get married?

:confused:

Well this worrys me Matt,

If you can take my scenario - I own x2 flats and my new wife to be own square root of nothing. Worse can happens and I leave her for Wiggy.

How can I protect my assests? (Financial not Sexual)

Ta
Dave

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

Does a pre-nup not also prevent the other partners money-grabbing relatives from snatching half your estate in the event that the plane to or from the honeymoon lands too vertically?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I seem to recall agreeing to marry someone is an established form of consideration, but I suspect "pre-nups" are probably contrary to public policy.

However, I'm a big fan of unenforceable provisions because you may know that you can't rely on it, but the other side probably doesn't!

 

[blues_r_best]

I think that in this scenario it's a good thing, If she doesn't contribute anything and only lives to spend his money, why if the marraige doesn't work should she get half of what he has? If she was working and could support herself then I wouldn't see the need for one.

 

[The General]

The Yoots are all in agreement, i see!

:D

 

[Einstein]

Totally in agreement with your mate. Anything he has earnt prior to even meeting her she should not be entitled to if the worse happens.

Can understand peoples opinion saying should be going into a marriage thinking should be together forever etc etc, but seeing as something like 1 in 2 marriages do fail then he is just being realistic in today's world IMO.

Totally in agreement, that if he's future wife thinks they will be together forever and isn't marrying him for his money then she should have absolutely no problem signing it.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I seem to recall agreeing to marry someone is an established form of consideration, but I suspect "pre-nups" are probably contrary to public policy.

Future consideration - it's an agreement to agree, isn't it? The wedding itself is the consideration, isn't it, not the promise to marry...?

:confused:

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Well this worrys me Matt,

If you can take my scenario - I own x2 flats and my new wife to be own square root of nothing. Worse can happens and I leave her for Wiggy.

How can I protect my assests? (Financial not Sexual)

Ta
Dave

Don't get married.

:confused:

Sorry, I'm perhaps not the right person to be asking.

I'm very old-fashioned when it comes to this sort of thing. You get married to someone when you have sat down and worked out that this is the person that you will spend the rest of your life with - which means you have sat down and reconciled to yourself that you understand and agree to abide by the phrases "forsaking all others" and "til death us do part".

I read these stories about Brides / Grooms having it off with Best Men / Bridesmaids at weddings and it makes my blood run cold. Did they not sit down and have a really long & hard think about what they were doing? Why on earth were they getting married?

Marriage isn't for everyone, and we're a bit daft for having a society that pretends it should be. If you are not prepared only to be with one partner for the rest of your life, then don't get married. That way, you're never going to lose your assets, since there's no such thing as a "common law husband/wife".

If you are prepared to be with one partner for the rest of your life, then you'll want to share everything you have with them - so again, you're never going to lose your assets, since you and your other half will enjoy those assets and then pass them on to kids / loved ones in the fullness of time.

Yours, somewhat traditionally,

Matt

 

[mattytheshrimper]

if i was your mate i would have done the same. good idea i think. also proves that if your bird signs it that shes not after your money!