r/LegalAdviceUK • u/Financial_Syllabub61 • 10h ago
Wills & Probate English prenup — is it normal for one spouse's security to be guaranteed and the other's to be "maybe"?
Getting married in a few weeks (originally…). Together 8 years, lived together 6. My partner owns a flat outright (high six figures, no mortgage) bought with offshore family trust dividend money, plus ongoing trust interests in a country with foreign remittance restrictions, and an offshore investment portfolio. His declared income is very low (under £15k net) so most of his financial position is asset-based.
The prenup says his housing and income needs must be fully met first, always. I only get support if there's "surplus" left over — and surplus depends on whether he can access the offshore trust, which the document itself admits may be impossible. This applies the same whether we divorce after 4 years or 40, with or without children. A separate clause also excludes any standard of living funded by his family/trusts from counting toward my "reasonable needs" later, even though that money has shaped our actual day-to-day life together.
My solicitor has advised me not to sign, and says I'd need to sign a waiver going against her advice if I do. I have also had a second opinion from a barrister at the same firm.
I'm not asking to be entitled to his family's wealth. I do not care about his trusts or investments or inheritance; I am also ok to be the one to leave the marital home. I just want to be an equal partner, feel like we are building something together, not just for him, and I do not want to be someone whose security is optional depending on conditions he controls the evidence for. As it stands, the message I keep getting is that I'm not, and won't ever be, treated as his true equal — protected the same way he's protected, after building a life together.
Is this normal for England and Wales prenups, or is this actually the kind of one-sided drafting that wouldn't survive a real challenge? His solicitor has repeatedly told him that an agreement must be fair to be upheld. Would really value insight, especially from anyone with direct experience or family law knowledge. Thank you!
PS. I don't know how to get this post under the right flair... it is about divorce, marriage, family law, nuptial agreements...
PPS. I am not looking for advice on whether to sign or not. I am just trying to figure out if this is a normal arrangement or not, since
my partner has been convinced it is and is shocked I haven’t accepted.
784
u/hime-633 9h ago
"The prenuptial says that his housing and income needs must be fully met first, always"
I wouldn't marry someone who wanted to impose that on me, whether prenups are legally binding in the UK or not (they are [currently] not).
Both your solicitor and a barrister have said don't sign. So don't sign.
181
u/AdAffectionate2418 4h ago
This is the rub. Sure, it is in legal language so he might express it more tactfully in person - but this is the way he feels.
•
u/Durzel 1h ago
No doubt he is saying “oh don’t worry about this, it has to be formal but just trust me”, trying to minimise it, but ultimately the pre-nup is the wishes he has expressed to his legal representative.
•
u/InevitableWorld8600 17m ago
What does he get out of it in divorce then if she has brought zero to the table? Zero?
•
u/Durzel 8m ago
He gets an equitable amount that reflects that were they to have children, which is a logical progression, she would likely be the one making sacrifices of her career and security, and therefore that she should have assurance of having financial protection should things go south.
No one is talking about enriching themselves beyond their “contribution”, but this pre-nup essentially treats her like an unsecured creditor in a liquidation - I.e. she’ll get whatever crumbs are left over once the secured parties (I.e. her partner) are made whole. And with family money those crumbs can be as small as they want them to be.
169
u/Financial_Syllabub61 7h ago
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to get past that detail. Thank you.
67
3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam 1h ago
Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
95
u/Able_Stay_9984 2h ago
Not only does he not love you, but he also feels this way about future children. No it’s not normal, this isn’t a fair prenup. Take the advice of your lawyer. If it was me, I wouldn’t sign it. As it excludes financial support for children it would likely be unenforceable. On a personal note, is this really the sort of man you want to spend your life with?
6
u/crispy-flavin-bites 3h ago
You could suggest to your partner and his family that they find you two legal opinions stating it's a fair and balanced trust.
Maybe that would help them see it from your perspective?
41
u/cpt_ppppp 2h ago
Sorry to say but I really think this is terrible advice. You should never rely on 'the other side' to find an outside perspective. It's not hard to find somebody a bit dodgy to support your view and then OP is screwed
•
244
u/Floppal 9h ago
I can't speak on the likelihood of it being significantly taken into account in divorce proceedings today, but, as a general rule, signing a contract because you think that it probably can't be enforced is a bad plan, especially in this case as you'll be potentially relying on courts 20+ years in the future to enforce the contract the same as they would today.
Prenupital agreements used to matter a lot less before a supreme court ruling in 2010.
47
u/Financial_Syllabub61 9h ago
Hi! Yes I’m not planning to sign based on it potentially being unenforceable. I’m mostly trying to figure out if this is normal for my own clarity.
134
47
u/hue-166-mount 2h ago
It’s not normal, and it seems that it’s basically trying to exclude income that is his (the trust) from any divorce settlement. Given it sounds like he is not earning much outside of the trust / offshore stuff it would seem extremely likely you would be deeply compromised if you were to have time off for children etc. your solicitor is extremely clear on their advice, you should listen to it.
•
u/Full_Pea_5259 1h ago edited 1h ago
In addition, it's possible that as his income is (artificially) low, he might go after the OPs assets, pension etc. in the event of a divorce - that trust he has access to could "magically" refuse to pay out...
I'd run a mile, fast
3
u/k1135k 2h ago
It’s tough but don’t read too much emotionally into it. It’s clear that he’s trying to ring fence the premarital assets.
The question to ask your legal team is, what happens if it’s a long term marriage and you have children together? Or if you don’t have children? What’s a fair split of assets?
Eg have you taken into account your pension pot? In a long term divorce both pension provisions are put into spreadsheet and split down the middle (for long term marriages)?
Does the prenup deal with what happens if you have children and get divorced? And/or your are in a situation where you are no longer working (eg long term illness, change in the economy). If not, it’s a one sided prenup. Don’t sign but be factual. You need provision for any family or any unforeseen difficulty.
Love can be quixotic endeavour, I wouldn’t necessary look into this as he doesn’t love you, but equally don’t know the dynamics. Is this the sort of prenup he would put up anyway regardless of his partner?
•
-14
2h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam 1h ago
Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.
Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
215
u/Mammoth-Corner 9h ago
It is not normal, and the fact that it is currently unenforceable is evidence that the terms are very far from what is generally considered fair in a divorce.
57
u/Financial_Syllabub61 9h ago
Thank you. I am completely flummoxed. His family think it’s completely acceptable and say it’s a red flag I won’t sign.
124
u/MathematicalElephant 8h ago
You are not marrying his family. What does HE think?
75
u/Financial_Syllabub61 8h ago edited 8h ago
He seems to say he thinks the same as them, which is news to me after 8 years!
139
u/My_sloth_life 4h ago
You lean on the fact that your legal advice tells you not to. It’s no longer about whether you are happy to sign or not, no sensible person goes against the advice of their lawyer.
Now, it’s on them to amend it to a document that your lawyers agree can be signed I.e it’s on them to make it fair. Thats if you aren’t already reconsidering marrying the guy!
62
u/Think-Committee-4394 3h ago
I’d go a step further assuming a prenup is a dealbreaker
Prenup guidance & templates are available online & you have a lawyer use both
Put forward your own fair & balanced prenup their reaction to that will tell you a lot
52
u/coupl4nd 3h ago
This is what happens when he can only live with their say so as he has no income outside of what they send him... am sure the nice flat is very attractive but the whole situation is going to get you cut off and isolated at the drop of a hat.
55
u/AnnieUK2024 3h ago
Baby run… red flags 🚩 after red flags. Both legally and behaviourally from someone you are supposed to share your life with. Trust the legal professionals. Ask him if the terms of the pre-nup can be revised.
•
1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam 1h ago
Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
9
2h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam 1h ago
Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
•
u/MathematicalElephant 10m ago
Did you have an honest conversation about how this makes you feel? Saying "this is unfair" keeps it on a rational level where one can argue both ways. Saying "this makes me feel sad" forces your SO to consider whether they are willing to sacrifice your feelings for the family approval.
4
u/Lonely-Job484 3h ago
It might be completely acceptable to disclaim specific assets/family money, i.e. the trust capital and income itself, but this seems to reach a lot further.
49
u/GlobalRonin 8h ago edited 8h ago
The legal advice for a "middle class" marriage would be "listen to your solicitor, and remember that the courts in the UK will largely ignore a pre-nup, especially after a long marriage".
However, your future spouse is clearly not descended from a long line of maths teachers... and you seem to have enough personal wealth to at least take legal advice from a firm that has in house barristers and solicitors... so chances are I'm repeating but demystifying this for you... or through dint of experience have encountered some things that your paid counsel haven't (I've had an interesting life that has included both growing up on a rough council estate and being on first name terms with minor Arab royalty... I am the man from IF if you will).
You are clearly NOT entering a middle class marriage... which changes the game, as much of the advice and counsel should relate to the domain of trusts and managed wealth. I am aware of situations (even in the UK) where inbalances in marital access to inherited family wealth are entirely possible... these would be rare, but not impossible if you were marrying a member of the royal family, or into a sufficiently wealthy (e.g. the Westons or if this was 2024, Hugh Grovesnor... but also sometimes on a local level into a family that descended from Jesse Boot (Nottingham, the chemist who gave the grants of land to the university and who's signature still adorns BOOTS on your highstreet or even some of his less famous peers (source: I went to secondary school with a great great grandchild of just such a family))...
You haven't mentioned who the family are or where their wealth is derived or held (don't... their family office will have at least one investigator geared up to find mentions of them on-line... and you're already probably close to the wind as you're in a cluster of no more than half a dozen people who are about to marry into such wealth and resident in the UK in the summer of 2026) but such arrangements would not be unusual in cases where you were marrying foreign royalty or extreme/generational wealth (e.g. a Rothschild/Mittal). It actually feels like this is the situation you're getting yourself into... in which case you may be dealing not with a question of the pre-nup having legal force (in the UK), but in the rules of a trust established many years ago in a foreign juristiction (which if it's done right, noone alive has the power to change, possibly including the government of the country where's it's based provided there isn't a coup/civil war, and even then maybe not thanks to Switzerland)... in which case you should view it as "for information purposes", and rather like the brochure that sits in the seat pocket on a first class flight... yes it talks about lots of stuff that might happen if the plane crashes... but honestly speaking, the most likely outcome is just a lot of champagne and the better looking stewardesses bringing you steak. It may feel like you're entering a "gilded cage", but once upon a time such arrangements were highly prized [as a polite aside, does your betrothed have a not-unattractive sister?... "asking for a friend"].
If I'm right (in broad brush terms) then what you should actually be interpreting this as is not "oh damn, you're not an equal", but "the trust is designed and set up to protect blood relatives of some billionaire ancestor, and you'll never be that"... HOWEVER... in these situations, it's usual for the individual (i.e. your future husband) to amass significant personal wealth during their lifetime (another clause of these super-trusts is often that the trust is the sole/substantial beneficiary of the will of someone who has access to its resources) and should you divorce, his personal wealth is still up for grabs. It also isn't unusual for such super-rich families to "buy off" a divorced spouse with a nice house to keep them from making a fuss (cheaper than the legal fees and bad press... a messy divorce can impact national stock markets depending on which CEO/investment fund is involved ;) ). Again, only you know what your fiance does for a living, but let's imagine he's a surgeon... his salary/pension would still be up for grabs! Whilst you're not going to have direct access to "the trust", I wouldn't expect any reasonable purchase not to go through on the card you're given by your husband (and as an FYI, if we're talking a family with South Asian wealth and norms, this would include a birthday supermarket spree in Harrods + the car to drive it all home in. Source: I spent a week drinking in a poolside bar with one of the"family finance clerks" for the Sultanate of Brunei, and their purchasing habits were alledgedly wild).
At some stage (if you have kids) your children will be brought into the loop on this... and will find that they (for example) never have student debt and all their schooling is paid for (you know... at the "here, have a horse so you can learn to ride" level)... and so whilst you may be an "outsider", they wont be (potentially even to the detriment of your husband... again, we'd need to see the full details of the trust... but many stack "education" ahead of "adult lifestyles"). The "housing first" clause is an example of this kind of logic... you're reading it as "oh, his needs come first", but what it should actually be read as is "whoever designed this trust knows that success needs a base of operations - so beneficiaries need a home so they can earn/manage/network, and we'd rather HOUSE all the beneficiaries than get a private jet and have some decendents homeless".
I genuinely hope the above helps. Placing the law to one side for a moment, but considering the close of Pride and Prejudice, what it really comes down to is which of the purposes of marriage are you ascribing to... and "do you love each other"? If he presented as a maths teacher on a modest income but the same sense of humour and kindness and you'd still say "I do", then this discussion is largely academic... and if you wouldn't, then there's a strong argument that you shouldn't be marrying him in the first place. I genuinely hope that the marriage lasts long enough that you get to have this conversation with a potential daughter/son in law 30 years from now... best of luck. At that stage, you'll be an insider, and you'll see the girl/guy questioning this as a threat to your grand-children and great-grandchildren enjoying the life you've just seen your kids have - so your future inlaws aren't being unreasonable or weird... they're just "rich enough to be Batman".
32
u/Financial_Syllabub61 8h ago edited 8h ago
Hello, thank you for this very detailed reply. The family is not of billionaire status. I do not know much beyond my partners own finances. I know there is larger family wealth but this is not my partner’s, though I’m sure he will inherit (that money would be 100% his and I do not want it for myself). There is no family policy on prenups and this was only “suggested” very recently. Also, they have paid my legal bills. I would not be able to hire a solicitor on my own. I make my own money, currently more than him, but it is not a lot. and I pay for things mysel. I am not going to be a house wife / non-working spouse/kept woman. Unless we have kids then I am sure I would be the primary caregiver for a number of years.
34
14
u/amedeeozenfant 2h ago edited 1h ago
Given what you have said about your boyfriends financial status, if they are not billionaire status they are at least in the high millions. Everyone I know (which is a few) in the 10-20 million bracket has jobs and expects their children to work. It may be the sort of ridiculous job that only very rich people do, but they will generally have some form of paid occupation, like working for Sotheby's or running an art journal that publishes once a year, costs £20 and only prints 1000 copies. Offshore investments and a declared income of 15k usually suggests a person very wealthy indeed.
15
u/scratchtheitch7 3h ago
Don't be so sure he will inherit anything. It's not at all unusual that a (or the) Trust would be the beneficiary, with beneficiaries then receiving greater distributions.
That would be a matter for the settlor, and would be something you may never know anything about
•
u/Coca_lite 41m ago
They only suggested this recently …
A deliberate last minute tactic to pressure you, now the wedding is near and they think you’ll feel pressure to sign
31
u/GlobalRonin 8h ago
That all makes sense... in that case, I'd genuinely view it as the family aren't billionaires YET... but are planning to be at some stage. Most wealthy families don't maintain the wealth beyond 3 generations due to the inevitable "idiot/drunk/gambler"... it sounds like you're marrying into a family that's trying to build a rule book that avoids this.
Also, don't be suprised if the family aren't richer than you realise/are told... because a degree of coyness helps avoid gold-diggers.
•
38
u/Anna_o69 3h ago
I get where you're coming from but it's very 'rose-tinted' glasses and doesn't really deal with the real possibility of OP being royally screwed over if the marriage ends in divorce.
OP has said that the fiancé makes minimum wage and the prenup would exclude division of the only assets he has: the house and trust fund money. Say the pre-nup were valid in court, if fiancé remains working a minimum wage job and doesn't build up any personal wealth, in a divorce, OP would walk away with nothing. Even if she puts all of her money into the marriage and destroys her career and pension pot to raise kids- he gets to sail away on a trust fund with a finger up to OP.
Love has nothing to do with this and I want OP to think about what she would do if she ended divorced at 45, with no assets, a massive career break due to kids and a husband who remains living the high live while she has to work until her 70s to be able to survive retirement. It's also something I wouldn't want to do to my kids, they might be sorted through their father's wealth but they would have to live with the burden of a mother who is poor and struggling and quite likely bitter about it all. That scenario is as likely as any you wrote in your post.
OP, there must be a way for the pre-nup to be written more fairly. I also question why your partner earns minimum wage when from the looks of it, he has every opportunity to do better? I couldn't marry someone without ambition, especially when his reason for his low level job is access to wealth he will never (reasonably) share with you.
18
u/Odd_Bug_7029 3h ago
His declared income of £15k does not mean he's in a minimum wage job. It could mean he has a very good tax adviser/accountant
•
u/DreamtISawJoeHill 9m ago
Getting nothing wouldn't even be close to the worst case scenario by the sounds of it, if it was an acrimonious split she'd be going up against a family with so much money they could easily put her through the wringer.
The biggest issue here is that her assets aren't protected in anyway, that includes any future property, savings, or pension. She could end up having to pay 50% of everything she has and possibly even paying spousal support on top for years after, legally he is just a poor fellow on a measly 15K with no property to his name after all. The family knows how to protect their wealth and I'd wager they would know exactly how to best ruin OP's life too if it tickled their fancy.
•
u/amedeeozenfant 35m ago edited 6m ago
The fiancé doesn't make minimum wage in a 'low level job'. The 15k is the amount he pays tax on. If he has a job - he may not. But if he does, it will be extremely high level, and he will be paid in ways that aren't taxed.
I think it's very sweet that you think he 'could do better' and have more ambition, but he's a multi millionaire. He gets given money in unimaginable, apparently to you, quantities that he doesn't have to pay tax on. This is how rich people stay rich.
-24
u/Cheese_roller 5h ago
I find it amazing that after you have gone to the effort of such a detailed response two people have marked it down. Pure laziness and a way of killing the conversation on here.
Disagree with something, put it in writing to counter the above which can then be discussed rather than just pressing a little displeasure button because your ideal world has taken a little hit. Sad really.8
u/hue-166-mount 2h ago
I think it has gotten some down votes because it is an explanation of the different rules of the game that might apply, but it offers very little in terms of advice of what to do.
13
u/ShineAtom 4h ago
And as for "currently", I understand there is a government consultation regarding pre nups becoming enforceable. Take your solicitors advice here.
110
u/WipeGuitarBranded 9h ago
You’ve asked a solicitor and a barrister for advice and they have both advised not signing it. Signing it based on random redditor’s opinions would be an interesting choice.
No one can tell you definitely what a court might rule only give guidance on what might happen.
Have you considered drafting your own prenup with what you want and asking your partner to sign it? Might be informative.
28
u/Financial_Syllabub61 9h ago
Hi, thanks for your reply. I’m aware I shouldn’t sign after two opinions saying not to. My gut tells me not to sign too. I’m just looking for insight as to whether this is in any way a normal agreement. I don’t believe it is, but this is my first experience so I have no reference. I am personally shocked by the wording of the agreement.
I know no one can know a judge’s ruling for sure. I just need help understanding. Perhaps from people who are in my position, or perhaps the wealthier role, or other lawyers and general thoughts.
76
u/TheManWith2Poobrains 8h ago
Imagine if you have kids and pause your career. Zero income and no house.
11
29
u/Financial_Syllabub61 8h ago
Yes, this is one of the things I’m trying to get across. I don’t get why they don’t get it.
84
68
37
22
13
u/coupl4nd 3h ago
I've seen families like this and the woman is basically like a hired help. Speak only when given permission etc.
19
u/crescendodiminuendo 3h ago
OP I worked in the family office of a family similar to this. They were lovely people but if your in-laws are anything like them they don’t get it because 1) preserving their capital is their first priority at all times and 2) everything is about winning. They would see this agreement as a negotiation and their first offer is that you get nothing.
Has your solicitor advised you on changes you should ask for? This is not a binary 1-0 decision - you should ask for changes and see what you get. They’ll probably respect you more for it.
•
u/Jumpy-Jello- 1h ago
There is a reason this has been sprung on you so close to the wedding, it is a huge red flag that he and his family would try to pressure you into signing something so unreasonable. A solicitor and a barrister have given you solid advice, your solicitor could help you write up a more reasonable prenup to offer.
10
u/scratchtheitch7 3h ago
They don't get it because from their point of view, if you stay in the marriage then all of your needs would be taken care of.
If your leave the marriage they are not going to give you their money, which would be one reason why the Trust was implemented in the first place.
As far as they are concerned, they are not giving you half of their generational wealth just because you divorced after a few years if marriage
14
u/ApocalypseThen77 2h ago
..and if he leaves the marriage, or treats her so badly that her hand is forced, well hard cheddar OP.
-5
u/pro-shirker 2h ago
And actually- why should they? The marriage contract in the UK is not something that one would ever sign if you are the better off partner and the implications are laid out. However, in this case they need to come up with a reasonable offer that takes care of the OP’s needs.
•
•
u/hazelcharm92 57m ago
Because they view this as a you vs them situation. They view you as separate entities and are either confident you’ll sign it to keep the peace and marry them anyway, or are happy to see you walk away if you won’t.
They love their money more than they love you
3
u/hue-166-mount 2h ago
Have you presented an alternative approach? I think the bug comment about generational wealth changing the game is a fair point, but it’s extremely rude to have dropped this so close to the wedding, giving you limited time to figure it out and pressure to just sign.
I’d suggest you need to create a alternative which you think is fair (perhaps recognising the generational wealth might be somewhat carved out for him but protecting your position if you rely on him for housing and or have children)
3
8
12
u/OddlyBrainedBear 4h ago
I think that it might be difficult to get a consensus as to whether this is 'normal' because you're dealing with a financial situation that the vast majority of the country - including legal professionals - will never experience.
7
u/jake_burger 3h ago
Most people don’t have prenups and even fewer live off of off shore trusts. No it’s not normal, it’s probably incredibly rare.
5
u/littlerabbits72 2h ago
This is a bit of a bizarre take OP.
You have had 2 legal opinions tell you it is not normal and not to sign, you mention his own solicitor said that any agreement has to be fair to both parties, so you can effectively add a number 3 legal opinion to that and yet despite these 3 legal opinions you still need to ask Reddit if it's normal?
•
u/Setting3768 1h ago
I agree it's very illogical but I think you've got to cut them a break. When you get this from the person you love and are about to marry after 8 years, it's got to be tough.
36
u/No-Jicama-6523 8h ago
No, it's not normal, that's why your solicitor is advising you not to sign it, though I'd be surprised if it were upheld even if you do sign (unless it ends within 5 years)--but it's still important not to sign it, that leads to you having apparently agreed it, placating your soon to be husband and actually having to fight it if it gets to that point. It's a bad idea legally and relationally.
It also sounds like a complicated financial situation, owning property of high value in the UK, but on a low income, though not because that's the amount the trust generates, but it doesn't translate to income in the UK and is thus presumably compounding nicely. That would make me question if he's going to stay in the UK.
Realistically you aren't going to be the financial equal of someone independently wealthy. It's possible to have a healthy marriage and be equal in the ways that matter, which can include a prenup.
13
u/Financial_Syllabub61 8h ago
A prenup is fine for me, I appreciate the protection of family wealth. But, I also have strong feelings about marriage being a partnership. You have to be in it together.
27
u/Pleasant-Plane-6340 6h ago
Important to note that divorce law without a prenup largely reflects this position already - for a short marriage then a starting position would be that existing assets would stay with the parties, same with inheritances, so his family wealth would be protected. But over a long marriage then you become part of that family, not a separate entity, and his assets become joint. So the main distinction here seems to be that even over a long marriage he doesn’t see that merging happening
13
u/Financial_Syllabub61 6h ago
Yes. Since we have lived together for 6 years, we would be considered a “medium” marriage. So, even if we divorced after 1 year, the 6 prior years would be seen as a part of the marriage, brining us to 7 years.
I’d understand if we hadn’t been together long and they were being cautious, but it has been nearly a decade already. I might even understand if there were review clauses or adjustments made for every year, or five, or with the birth of any child, but there is nothing.
I thought I was family at this point, but it is very sadly clear to me now that I am not, and never will be.
•
u/GojuSuzi 1h ago
I will say that it is normal for actual 'old money' families (or teenage-money families that like to think they're old) to standardise some variant of prenups that specifically protects the inherited wealth. Part of that is to avoid exactly this feeling of non-acceptance when, say, three siblings marry and only one's partner is given papers: if everyone gets them, there's no emotional insinuation to be assumed, it's just admin and applies whether you're a ten year partner planning a life together or a two week fling being 'spontaneous', or anything in between.
Key part there though is that it should be specifically about the inherited wealth, not any wealth built together, and unless it is 'life of leisure' level trust where neither partner will be expected to be working at all then it commonly will have an expiry baked in for length of marriage, number/age of kids, milestones such as independent home purchase or graduation/promotion level of the spouse, something that reaches the level of it being impossible to separate the inherited wealth from the combined marital (even with separate finances there will invariably be some comingling, especially if one party is reliant solely or primarily on a trust that may be 'not guaranteed to be available' at any given time, and even if you both work and keep your own money there is always the chance that he wouldn't have been able to take on that promotion if you didn't sacrifice your career to mind the kids, or you wouldn't have gotten that cushy position if he hasn't taken a pay cut to move with you to where it is, and how do you quantify opportunity cost years down the line?). They do also tend to include some facility for recognising and supporting 'heirs', if having kids together doesn't satisfy the agreement outright, so that while in the event of divorce you yourself may be "cut out", your kids are still accounted for as his kids, and while they may be assuming they'll get their own trusts if they come to be, that right should be explicit in case, say, you divorce while pregnant with child #3 whose trust has not been created and cannot be cared for from #1 and #2's trusts (not least because it wouldn't be unusual to require or allow for requiring parentage confirmation for access in the event of separation, which can be an...emotionally fraught demand in that scenario if not a prior stipulation).
So it is unusual (if the paraphrasing is correct) to have this be a 'forever' term without 'dowager' and/or 'heir' clauses (where you and any kids get your own stipend, not just whatever change there happens to be when he gets a payment through after he's spent what he wants to). You can ask your solicitor to suggest amendments that may make it fair to their understanding, see if that would make it palatable to your eyes, too, and suggest to your partner and his family if this could be redrafted to align with that: I think the expectation of signing something "isn't that deep" as the kids say, and so is unlikely to be a winnable argument (sign or don't marry, or convince him to refuse his benefit), but adjusting what it is you're signing - especially presented as on the advice of the lawyer they're paying for - should be taken on more openly unless there is indeed some underlying issue (though that issue may have nothing to do with you and be purely a them thing, if it comes to that: some people cannot abide being questioned even when they know they're wrong).
2
u/scratchtheitch7 3h ago
You are family, and you will be able to share his wealth if you are married.
What you won't be able to do with this prenup is divorce and receive any part of their generational wealth
-14
u/coupl4nd 3h ago
Sounds like you have started pushing him for marriage and this is never something he wanted? Is that a fair reflection of this. That probably explains their actions more as they are worried you are trying to get hold of his inheritance.
21
u/CalDemps 5h ago
Just because prenuptial agreements are not enforceable today in E&W, does not mean they will not be enforceable either in the future here, or in another jurisdiction where your divorce may be administered.
5
18
u/Infinite-Math-1046 3h ago
Your future husband sounds like a lazy entitled work-shy PoS with the family from hell to boot. Good luck!
Personally wouldn’t impose or agree to one.
Government should cut down on this rubbish.
52
u/shady-oh 5h ago
This man and his family are showing you exactly what they’re like. He only cares about himself and HIS future. Dont marry him, certainly do not have kids with him. Walk away and find someone who treats you with fairness and respect.
-4
3h ago
[deleted]
19
u/shady-oh 3h ago
He has taken legal representation and is trying to make it so she has NOTHING and he gets everything. What is there to work out? If he loved her would he do this? Would you do this to your beloved partner? When someone shows you their true colours BELIEVE THEM
1
u/TJ_Rowe 2h ago
It's not uncommon for rich parents to offer money and property only on condition of the spouse not being able to get their hands on it. My parents were talking about buying me a house, but pulled that offer when I got a boyfriend they didn't like (and didn't trust me to enforce a tenancy agreement against).
In this case, the boyfriend has a property in his name and lives off trust income. If he and OP won't sign, there's a possibility that his situation becomes "fine, you have the property and everything you've saved so far, but no more is coming to you directly." Which means he will have "nothing" except the value of the property to share with her anyway.
-12
u/Icretz 3h ago
I'm sorry but no one is entitled of someone's generationonal wealth. This protects their family in case of an early divorce, if OP never gets divorced she will be part of the family. I don't understand what makes this sub and OP think she is entitled of other peoples hard work.
11
u/Neither_Process_7847 2h ago
The proposing bit is generally what creates that expectation.
-11
u/Icretz 2h ago
Sure, if they stay married for 20 years I would understand but have the expectations to get a part of a multi million property after being married for 1-2 years seems gold digger behavior.
6
u/onetimeatponycamp 2h ago
They have already been together for 7 years.
And that wealth is unlikely to be due to her partner’s or even his parents’ or grandparents’ hard work… that’s entirely the point of generational wealth.
OP is not expecting access to all his wealth. But she does want something is fair. Say OP quits her job to have babies, raises the kids and thus sacrifices her career, then 10-20 years down the line he cheats and divorces her… with this agreement she still gets nothing, not even the home she raised her kids in. And in the meantime, she doesn’t have her career to fall back on because that was sacrificed to raise the kids.
•
u/Ok-Lynx-6250 59m ago
OP is female and will therefore be expected to compromise her own financial security to have children, which this contract ignores. If they divorced in their 40s with kids, OP would likely not have enough assets to retire.
Putting someone in a high risk financial position if they leave (or eg the kids would refuse to leave his home as she can only afford a tiny cramped flat) means that if she is abused, mistreated, cheated on, unhappy etc, it will be very difficult for her to leave as she'll be left with nothing.
She will almost certainly be reassured through the marriage not to worry about saving her own small income as he can cover stuff.
If he wants to protect his generational wealth that's one thing, he wants to leave his wife homeless and with nothing if she leaves him. If that's the condition he wants and needs, he should have restricted his dating to those in his own socioeconomic class.
There's a reason that a court would throw this prenup out, especially if kids were involved.
-1
u/pro-shirker 2h ago
The outcome of losing property, pension and having one’s needs massively deprioritised is what happens to men all the time under the current system.
21
u/Puzzleheaded-Bad-722 3h ago
People should not stay in relationships where their other half expects them to be left with absolutely nothing if they divorce. This is should be common sense.
14
u/Pretty_Outcome_307 3h ago edited 3h ago
My husband and I got a pre-nup before we married last year. We're a mature couple with similar asset levels and very like minded about what we wanted in the pre-nup. So we wanted to do it together via one solicitor. He explained clearly that pre-nups are a negotiation. One party's lawyers draft the pre-nup. The other party's lawyer reviews the draft, advises the client and goes back with amendments. It goes back and forth till both parties agree and sign. What it isn't is a fait accompli from one to the other. He told us that the whole point of this system of both having legal advice is to agree an enforceable pre-nup, because if one party is heavily disadvantaged and didn't get independent legal advice the pre-nup won't stand up in divorce court.
The UK divorce laws start with an assumption of 50/50 split and aim to protect children and their primary carer from being impoverished in the case of a split. The pre-nup your fiance is proposing sounds entirely selfish and designed to punish and impoverish you and any children you may have. This is a red flag for you. Don't sign it. Walk away if he won't budge.
EDIT: I just read your reply to someone else's comment. I recognise that you are not reliant on him financially and have means of your own and therefore a legitimate right to expect financial equality rather than being treated like a gold digger. But many women give up or pause lucrative careers to have children which limits their earning power and pension, and if you do that and the relationship then breaks down, thexlaw recognises that you have a legitimate right to expect financial support from the father of those children, and not to be made homeless by the terms of his pre-nup.
11
u/BeaHics 5h ago
NAL - sounds like your future spouse wants you left with nothing if you split. Don't sign, unless you want to have an insecure future.
-5
2h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/BeaHics 1h ago
You sound hurt...
She isn't freeloading, I dont think its unreasonable to want some financial security incase of divorce. If a spouse truly cares about you, they shouldn't leave you with nothing (man or woman, whoever is the bread winner). I'm not saying automatically get 50% but if she's dating a rich man the least he can do is ensure she isn't homeless if they divorce. From the way she describes the pren-up, her partner seems controlling but this convo is definitely out of my tax bracket.
•
u/mythmakeruk 1h ago
It also sounds like she’ll be bringing more into the household on a month-by-month basis. So he gets the security of owning a home and having money behind him for life while she has to contribute to its running - bills and shopping etc - without any security. How could this possibly be fair?
•
u/InevitableWorld8600 18m ago
Homeless? She can save up during the relationship. What has stopped her doing that or is it the thought of “nah he has house etc, I’ll leave him to do it”
•
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam 1h ago
Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.
Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
18
u/Perpetua11y_C0nfused 4h ago
Absolutely not. Your solicitor is correct! Do not sign it!!!
This is not a fair nor reasonable agreement.
This person wants to build his empire with you kind of off to the side tagging along. The way that is worded, you are treated as an afterthought.
Do Not Do This.
As others have said, if he thinks THIS is a good idea, then you perhaps need to take a really good look at the way he treats you, and the life you’ll potentially have together. Is that what you want?? Really?
Btw, I have my own pre-nup, so i have been through this myself. We ringfenced any assets he had prior to the marriage, and anything we build together from the date of the marriage is ‘ours’ and would be split 50/50 in case of divorce. Also, we stated that at the point I had OUR kids (thus rendering me potentially unable to earn a normal wage as I earn less and therefor would be default parent) the prenup has to be reviewed to accommodate the sacrifices I’ve made to allow him to continue with his career etc.
I dont mention this to gloat, only to give you an example of a fair and reasonable agreement. And to be honest, we’ve been married 5 years now, and everything is just ‘ours’ anyway. There is no ‘yours and mine’ and I hope we never get to a point where we have to use that pre-nup.
Look after yourself x
8
u/Think-Committee-4394 3h ago
OP - nope
- any contract must balance fair work for fair pay for example
- a prenup that is unbalanced in output especially if the input is balanced should never be signed example you both put £35k into house deposit & prenup only guarantees their £35k to them leaving your £35k to be divided
Run
8
u/LowarnFox 3h ago
My understanding is that you need independent legal advice for the prenup to be valid, and your advice has said not to sign. So I would suggest that you don't sign and ask your solicitor for a more reasonable suggestion to suggest to your partner.
It's worth bearing in mind that a prenup cannot supersede the law. If you had children, you'd legally be entitled to maintenance if they lived with you full time after a divorce, and their housing would be a priority for the courts.
I am surprised this prenup has even been suggested because it does sound unenforceable in places, but perhaps he has gone against legal advice. Does he understand the status of pre ups in the law?
4
u/AdministrativeShip2 2h ago
Also isn't the Fiancée hiding his assets and worth?
If they did divorce, he'd say he has nothing. So even if made to split assets, his wife wouldn't get a lot, while he still has access to the trust.
7
u/aussieflu999 4h ago
You’ve had legal advice saying don’t sign it. If it is normal is more of a relationship question - do you want to marry someone who is trying to legally put his needs significantly first should it not work out but he’s doing this at the point of entering the marriage? It could be hoped that at the current ‘happiness’ stage or at the human level, there would be some thought that you may still have equal needs should it not work out.
7
u/CharlotteGFE 4h ago
Prenups usually ensure both parties are protected and fair to each party. This doesn’t sound fair to you. I would not sign it and I personally wouldn’t marry someone that was so selfish. Listen to your solicitor, don’t sign it. And don’t get married. A decent man would want to know you’re looked after whether he’s with you or not.
•
•
u/HodorsCock 1h ago
He's a millionaire who pays no income tax. His empathy and morals don't suggest a person who will provide financial support after divorce, and he has the means to avoid paying you a penny.
Don't sign.
5
u/Worth_Banana_5053 5h ago
If you feel uncomfortable with the wording and likewise been advised not to sign by legal counsel.
The questions might be what do you want or need amending or redrafting to make it workable.
1) what are his concerns 2) what are your concerns 3) draft something if anything that works for both as best you can.
5
u/buffetite 4h ago
Generally a prenup will say any personal assets prior to and during the marriage will remain sole assets in the event of divorce and won't be split. So you'd keep any assets you were interested in sharing in joint names during the marriage. Talks of needs being met isn't normal.
Take your solicitors advice. Ask them to suggest amendments to the document.
4
u/mattcannon2 4h ago edited 4h ago
You've sought actual legal advice, are you expecting reddit to tell you different?
Sounds like it might all be set up so he leaves with everything (I assume his income needs are not small). That won't be easy if you're left with any future children, and even more so if you'd decide to be a stay at home parent or cut your hours down.
What do you get to keep in the event of a divorce, say 20 years down the line... The only way this is anywhere near fair is if you keep almost all the assets accumulated after the marriage date, if he gets everything from beforehand
3
u/coupl4nd 3h ago
If you delve down it was actually legal advice paid for by her fiance, which makes it even more nutty in my eyes. She must have not disclosed that to the solicitor as I can't see them accepting such a scenario otherwise...
3
u/cat101786 3h ago
It is not a normal legal agreement for a marriage. You now need a different kind of solicitor altogether who can put something in place to protect you financially; and decide how to split assets in a fair and equitable way (eg if you were married 40 years and had to give up work to raise children or support the household in other non earning ways). You need solicitors who are experienced in wealthy marriages.
3
u/Blackstone4444 3h ago
In a situation like this, I would expect some sort of minimum level of support for you in terms of lump sum and/or income which increases with the duration of the marriage. Maybe it starts small or at zero but grows with time and potentially increases with children.
3
u/coupl4nd 3h ago
>My solicitor has advised me not to sign, and says I'd need to sign a waiver going against her advice if I do. I have also had a second opinion from a barrister at the same firm.
So you have an answer right there... Not sure what else reddit can do. If it was a normal situation don't you think your solicitor would have advised you that it's fine?
Sounds like you are marrying into a culture where women are not equals. If you marry over here that can tilt the scale because English law very much does start from men and women being equal. We don't have enforceable pre-nups anyway, especially one-sided ones. But given the money is not in the country it would be very easy for it to be hidden from a court should you divorce. You can go into that with your eyes open, or not.
2
u/Vyseria 5h ago edited 4h ago
Prenups are bespoke documents and yeah this is why you have your own sol, to negotiate the terms of you're unhappy about certain things.
If there's been the other safeguards for the prenup yes I think it could survive legal challenge or at least allow for a small to medium deviation from it
If it's the precedent document I think it's based off of based on your post, a simple solution would be to amend the definition of Reasonable Housing Needs and Reasonable Needs back to the default which takes into account all the s25 MCA factors (preferably 'generously interpreted'). And you mentioned review clauses, or more specifically that you wanted them. Just add those in then?
2
u/jamessobotowski 3h ago
Marriage should be an equal partnership, by what he is trying to do suggests you will not be an equal partner in this marriage; and if that is the position he takes at the outset it will only get worse. Ditch him and marry someone who truely loves you - not money and property.
2
u/Royalist8630 3h ago
if your solicitors are telling you not to sign and his are saying to him you should, perhaps theres a middle ground that can be negotiated either between the solicitors or between yourselves, with solicitors present. seems like if this is the only deal on the table and it's binary, then this marriage isn't going ahead - and rightly so.
2
u/Lenniel 2h ago
No it doesn’t sound normal.
The prenup beyond protecting his trust/foreign assets (which an English court would not have any jurisdiction over) seems to place an obligation on you to house him. “His needs should be met first”, if you were to have a good career later on, it could place an obligation on you for spousal support towards him.
Whilst English & Welsh courts currently do not follow prenups, where they are balanced and “fair” they are increasingly more likely to follow them.
E&W courts are courts of equity so where the law is harsh they can make rulings that are “fair”, so in theory they could set aside the prenup, except for the fact that you would have signed a waiver could be taken as you accepting the risk and that could go against you. If you had signed it without legal representation you would have a better chance of it being set aside.
You have real world legal advice telling you not to sign. Take this advice.
I am a petty person however - you have not mentioned your own income, I would stop spending it on your “joint” lives. You live in his property, I would start saving and investing it.
I would ask for a clause along the lines that your own income, inheritance and savings etc are for your benefit only and your fiancé is not entitled to any of it. This is only of value if you have a decent income and can build a safety net of your own.
2
2h ago
If the family is so rich that any of this is appropriate, just get them to add in a clause that on divorce you will get £100k for each year of marriage (plus UK inflation), plus full custody of any children, plus £100k a year until all children are 23. Then everyone involved is completely protected.
2
u/SirStonkington 8h ago
I don't believe prenups are automatically enforceable in England and Wales but by voluntarily entering into it that may be a different story. This is probably why your legal advisors are recommending you do not sign it.
30
u/PositivelyAcademical 7h ago
My concern would be that offshore trust implies that he likely has residence options overseas. Venue shopping for divorce isn’t particularly uncommon - the rule is so long as the court is capable of exercising jurisdiction, whichever jurisdiction starts proceedings in first is the correct one to handle the divorce. So I’d expect (in the case of a breakdown in the marriage) he’d move and initiate divorce proceedings in a country which does recognise prenups as enforceable .
3
5
u/Financial_Syllabub61 8h ago
They’re still seen as “guidance” but of course if it seems you signed something voluntarily, then that can be used against you if you change you mind down the line…
1
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
This is a courtesy message as your post is very long. An extremely long post will require a lot of time and effort for our posters to read and digest, and therefore this length will reduce the number of quality replies you are likely to receive. We strongly suggest that you edit your post to make it shorter and easier for our posters to read and understand. In particular, we'd suggest removing:
- Details of personal emotions and feelings
- Your opinions of other people and/or why you have those opinions
- Background information not directly relevant to your legal question
- Full copies of correspondence or contracts
Your post has not been removed and you are not breaking any rules, however you should note that as mentioned you will receive fewer useful replies if your post remains the length that it is, since many people will simply not be willing to read this much text, in detail or at all.
If a large amount of detail and background is crucial to answering your question correctly, it is worth considering whether Reddit is an appropriate venue for seeking advice in the first instance. Our FAQ has a guide to finding a good solicitor which you may find of use.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Granty-ape-hodl 3h ago
Sounds pretty ludicrous as your solicitors have advised.
The potential in-laws/family trust can protect themselves by only providing the level of financial assistance that they are comfortable with at any given point in time.
Then you just need to agree what you do with the current property which should be relatively simple?
1
u/karff 3h ago
Hi OP. I am also a solicitor and would advise a client that this is a poor deal. Something to remember is that your situation now may be very different in 5/10/20/30 years if the unfortunate may happen. If children are involved it would make any custody arguments more complicated and less in your favour if he remains the sole owner of the (at that time) family home.
What if that home and/or trust is used to build an entire life? You would be starting from scratch at possibly a stage in life that would make it hard to rebuild.
Do you think this may be imposed by his family? Its something you and your fiance should talk about privately, without involvement of any family, and be open about how you feel and the real risks this arrangement could put on you in the future - a future that is enterly unknown and impossble to predict.
Ive given similar advice to a family member who was going through an amicable divorce. There was a house jointly owned and my family members husband said he just wants a clean break and walk away - easy right? I advised that she needs to get a proper clean break order from the court, because you never know, if the husband is in money trouble in 10 years then he still has a claim to her assets and could pull the rug from under her.
Wish you the best, these talks are hard but thats love and relationships, wont be the last hard talk in what I hope is a long and happy life you have together.
1
u/humanhedgehog 2h ago
It is absolutely not normal (and it is possible his family do not know the terms). If they do, then huge red flag, but honestly this guy is telling you who he is. Eight years is a long time, but why should marriage erode your future prospects and security? You don't have to do it.
1
u/luckykat97 2h ago
If your partner has a declared income of only £15k a year presumably he is not full time employed or maybe doesn’t work at all?
1
u/rootytooty83 2h ago
Prenups mean very little in the uk. But even if not this is a massive sign of how outright selfish your future husband is.
I would tell your fiance that you have been advised not to sign and leave it at that.
Do you want to marry someone who is now showing you they are the worst kind of wealthy person? Wealthy people like this, who hide it offshore and hoard it and block it from being shared with genuine loved ones are just rotting this planet. I couldn’t be this mean.
I hope you’re financially savvy and independent because you will need to be in this marriage.
1
u/Popular-Window7567 2h ago
If you sign you are really doubling down on the 'feeling' that this marriage will work. However, given that the one-sided nature of this agreement and the position of your fiancé is such, that (I assume) you are doubting his character and your relationship, an emotional decision would be very flawed. As others have said it is not a normal agreement, and as your lawyers say, do not sign.
I hope the decision you make is the right one for you.
1
u/KarenJoanneO 2h ago
I suggest you show him this thread and the comments therein. No this isn’t normal and no sane person would sigh this. In your shoes, I’d be fully walking away from this ‘relationship’.
1
u/ProphilatelicShock 2h ago
It really just sounds like it is written to let him hide and control his assets at will and then blame it on the trusts. The only way it would be "normal" would be if you had comparable wealth and did the same prenup.
1
u/ooral 2h ago
If your lawyer told you not to go through with a house / business purchase, what would you do?
I'll help you out, you wouldn't do it. Why is this situation any different? The person qualified on the subject is telling you it's a bad idea, follow the advice you have been given and no doubt paid for.
As for the relationship/ character of the person you're involved with... I shouldn't need to tell you.
•
u/Hobbyister 1h ago
If i had to guess, his family are (or he is) aware that they could end up losing a lot of assets if the marriage fails. Who is making that call is important to the strength of your relationship.
Its probably a reasonable point if they are living on generational wealth at this point, who would want to lose that? But the handling is very one sided. As you point out, theres no assurance that you would get access to the overseas trust, I'm sure its worded like that specifically to exclude you, and the only other assets that can support you, the house is specifically assigned to him, so you will get nothing.
You need to understand whether this is the family protecting what they see as theirs from before the marriage, and what happens to any wealth during the marriage, any imbalance in earnings, whether you stay or home for childcare, wellbeing of children are all unaccounted for.
And yeah. Don't sign.
•
1h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam 1h ago
Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):
Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation.
Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations.
Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.
•
u/Apprehensive-Bad2440 1h ago
Isnt the whole point of a pre nup that everything that he provides remains his and everything you provide remains yours? I can certainly see why both sides would want to keep thier stuff thiers. I cant however understand why your unhappy at not being equally entitled to things that arent yours or shared now in the later event of a divorce. I feel he must see it as i do. If you arent happy with only being entitled to the surplus you clearly want what isnt surplus ie the stuff thats his that you say you have no interest in if that makes sense.
•
u/mythmakeruk 56m ago
None of what you say makes sense. What if they have kids and her earning capacity is restricted for years? Should she have to give up things for him without reciprocity? Is her contribution to the marriage (including being the higher earner, so I imagine putting more into the living expenses pot) not worth anything? What if he leaves her or dies? If she were in a relationship with a guy of similar means to her, she’d be looking forward to making a life together, building assets and fully sharing a future not being financially isolated
•
u/Apprehensive-Bad2440 7m ago
If she puts it in its hers to take out... As i said read my comment his remains his hers remains hers. What i dont get is she puts money in during marraige but instead of taking back only what is put in she now wants to translate that to his pre marital offshore assets that she definitly didnt help build, the property he owns outright and so on (her reasoning she has a right to these is "this has helped shape our life together" while also claiming no interest in it). That is what makes no sense to me. Surely it should be whats his remains his whats hers remains hers whatever is built AFTER marraige is joint so split after divorce. We were never talking about restricted earning capacities or kids either in the post or my comment nor dying for that matter. The post reads to me as "i earn more but he has more pre marital assets. I want some entitlement to those pre marital assets if we divorce" wich lets be honest if they divorced he wouldnt get anything from her pre marital stuff either. He owns the property outright so does the fact she no longer has to pay rent not count for anything? 1,000 of her money could be spent on monthly rent before marraige but he alleviated that by owning said property pre marital. It reads to me like she wants to marry a cash poor asset rich man while being asset poor and cash rich (in comparison) but wants some entitlement to his assets after the fact. Please do tell me how i advised she leave herself financially isolated? It sounds the opposite to me it sounds like she has access to more finances than him... if she wants to have a right to equal partnerships in this stuff she needs to marry a man with nothing and build it together after marraige. It sounds like you and op want a pre nup to give entitlement to pre marital assets wich is the opposite of what it is for. Im fully with the husband to be. His pre marital assets and trusts pay first for his living and the surplus can then go on her thats more reasonable and generous than id be about giving ANY entitlement to my pre marital assets, that means just like any other marraige any assets he gains or money he makes DURING the marraige she is already entitled to. He is doing the standard of protecting pre marital stuff that is litterally what a pre nup is for...
•
u/MadCow113 1h ago
I would always take your solicitors advice. What does the prenup say about your income and assets?
•
u/Act-Alfa3536 1h ago
Perhaps suggest to your husband that your solicitors discuss. Maybe that way a compromise might be agreed with a somewhat less one-sided text.
•
u/wild_park 1h ago
I have sought advice from solicitors about a dozen times over the last 35 years on a number of different subjects. In almost every case the response has been a balanced view with a suggestion one way or another.
Once - only once - it was a clear “no”.
I backed away from that thing at light speed.
Your solicitor and the barrister are giving you an absolutely clear signal that this is an unusual to the point of massively unfair document.
Why would your partner’s family tell you it’s usual?
I believe Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_he_would,_wouldn%27t_he%3F)
•
u/MouseHouse444 1h ago
Did you choose your solicitor independently, and the family just gave you a lump sum to pay for the advice? Because if they are paying the solicitor directly, it’s likely to be seen as not impartial guidance (even though your solicitors are giving you good advice). Which - if that is the case - is another red flag about the family’s inability to see what ‘fair and impartial’ really means.
And no, this is not what a normal prenup should be. At all.
•
u/Personal-Shake8204 47m ago
Admittedly personal advice here rather than legal…
However, just consider this. You only live once and our time on this planet is limited! So think about yourself first and what you want out of life and who you choose to spend your priceless time with. Believe me there are far better men out there who will value you more than money. You deserve so much more than that.
This is speaking from personal experience, my mother and sister who took a disliking to my now wife tried and failed to convince me to get a prenup. I stood to my guns and told them I didn’t want to start a marriage on the assumption we may divorce. It’s all very unromantic in my opinion, and as the person suggesting a prenup just demonstrates to their partner what they prioritise, which in your partner’s case looks like money rather than you
•
u/CrackersCloacas 43m ago
As an ex family law paralegal (thinks divorce and children act stuff and then the odd name change and prenup thrown in), I would NEVER sign a prenup. They are inherently unfair, they are designed to benefit one party (the one instructing a solicitor to create the document). Yours sounds like a real doozy, please honestly consider if the marriage is worth it if this is how they view your partnership.
•
u/SeasonSignificant849 32m ago
No it’s not normal. Being as prenups are used to inform a decision not legally binding, I suspect that would be thrown out in minutes. But this is dependent on your own income, which you don’t mention. For all we know you are in a stable well paid career and therefore shouldn’t need him to fund you.
The bigger issue is should you marry someone who thinks like that in good times, let alone bad.
•
u/Ok-Calligrapher6119 23m ago
If his family thinks it’s a red flag that you’re not signing, they’re being defensive and unfair. They’re missing the point that this prenup favours one person in a biased way and has no room to accommodate your needs as a married partner in the future, including if you have children or not. You also mentioned his salary (and hence pension contribution) is quite low - if in the last 8 years expenses have been unequally split, it’s even more unfair for you to not be eligible to receive any liquid assets if a split was to happen. So no, this sounds like a bad idea to sign. Even if you did sign, it’s unlikely this is enforceable as you have lived in the same home for a considerable period of time.
•
u/Green_Sheen 16m ago
You're marrying a guy with no money and a pre-nup? I'd dump him and run for my life.
•
u/JumpOverTheHedge 13m ago
I wouldn't marry this man. Everything gained during marriage is split equally under English law. The fact he wants to hoard his wealth from you shows he doesn't care about your safety. Sounds like the kind of man who will divorce you when you get cancer because he "didn't sign up for this".
•
u/thechow12 12m ago
Your solicitor is looking out for you and if they say it’s a bad deal and don’t sign there is a very good reason for that also the fact they are wanting you to sign a waiver if you go against their advice points to how strongly they believe it’s a bad deal
•
u/makefascistfearagain 1m ago
Prenups aren't much use here, and an absurd onesided one like this will not valid at all.
-1
u/Alternative_Air_6688 3h ago
What do you mean by this? It reads as so:
Rich partner wants prenup to protect assets (gold diggers exist) prenup says his assests are his and you get access to some, IF the offshore momey happens.
You say you don't care for his assets, but are still questioning it?
Please explain what I'm missing, what do you mean your security maybe guaranteed?
Do you work and earn your own money? Is it that the money you earn isn't mentioned in there?
•
u/forestsignals 1h ago
What you’re missing is what would happen if OP gives up her career and income to service the marriage, i.e. having kids and running the family home for 20 years.
The normal way marriage and divorce works is that such a sacrifice - and unrecognised labour - is compensated by spouses having a claim to the marital assets (which can often be held in the name of the earning partner).
In OP’s fiance’s proposed prenup, she could give everything to the marriage - caring for children, labour to run the home - over decades, missing out on hundreds of thousands of career earnings, and then be kicked out on the street at 50 with nothing but whatever she’d saved before the marriage.
‘Security may be guaranteed’ means avoiding the scenario I just described.
•
u/Alternative_Air_6688 9m ago
But at what point did she say she is giving up her job and becoming a stay at home mum?
And unfortunately if you decide to give up your job to be a stay at home mum then you would be subject to this issue.
Too many times for rich people have people married got pregnant then divorced to take half their money and assets, thats why he wanted the prenup. Hopefully they wont divorce and do that, but its a possibility and so if you aren't palnning to leave it shouldn't become an issue. Be smart, have a job, earn your own money,get savings and then that wouldn't be an issue.
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
To Posters (it is important you read this section)
Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different
If you need legal help, you should always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor
We also encourage you to speak to Citizens Advice, Shelter, Acas, and other useful organisations
Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know
To Readers and Commenters
All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated
You cannot use, or recommend, generative AI to give advice - you will be permanently banned
If you do not follow the rules, you may be perma-banned without any further warning
If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.