[Kate!]

So if you were marrying into money would you be willing or not to sign a pre-nup? Reasons please.

Equally if you were minted would you want your partner to sign a pre-nup if you were to get married?

[Niamh.]

Yeah, I don't think it's fair that that person has to hand over half of their money if it was money they had prior to the relationship happening

[Kizzy]

Yep, think it's kind of the norm now or at least it will be with the introduction no fault divorce.

[Cherie]

Yes ...

[Liam-]

I don’t know, if someone asked me to sign one that would send signals to me that they have the intention to screw me over at some point and I have trust issues at the best of times

[bots]

i think any agreement should take into account assets brought in to the marriage at the beginning. I think the key word is fairness

[Alf]

Youtube video

[The Slim Reaper]

Absolutely not. I'd come to an agreement beforehand with the person, that would then be put into a legal contract, but either dictating terms or having them dictated without input is a pretty bad way to start a marriage.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I'd come to an agreement beforehand with the person, that would then be put into a legal contract

I mean, that is the basis of a prenup isn't it? Or it's supposed to be, anyway, it can have whatever both parties want in it. Obviously sometimes people will abuse that/set all the terms themselves/make ultimatums or simply say "it's sign this or no marriage" but TECHNICALLY it's intended to be a mutually-agreed contract.

From what I've read most of them don't really stand up to a good going over in court anyway; there are usually elements at play that weren't considered in the original contract and so plenty of "loopholes" for a good lawyer to exploit.

Of course the famous one in Alf's Liar Liar example, that she was actually younger than she said, and while she was old enough to get married at the time of the marriage and prenup, she wasn't old enough to sign a contract without a co-signature from a parent or guardian, making the marriage valid but the prenup invalid. Movie gold, obviously.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I mean, that is the basis of a prenup isn't it? Or it's supposed to be, anyway, it can have whatever both parties want in it. Obviously sometimes people will abuse that/set all the terms themselves/make ultimatums or simply say "it's sign this or no marriage" but TECHNICALLY it's intended to be a mutually-agreed contract.

From what I've read most of them don't really stand up to a good going over in court anyway; there are usually elements at play that weren't considered in the original contract and so plenty of "loopholes" for a good lawyer to exploit.

Of course the famous one in Alf's Liar Liar example, that she was actually younger than she said, and while she was old enough to get married at the time of the marriage and prenup, she wasn't old enough to sign a contract without a co-signature from a parent or guardian, making the marriage valid but the prenup invalid. Movie gold, obviously.

I think the general idea/opinion of a pre-nup is that someone prepares it in advance and expects the other person to sign on to it. Whilst you may be "technically" correct, no poor person marrying a rich person would, out of nowhere, ask that the rich person protects themselves by keeping all their assets away from them, which is why I said I'd work through it rather than have it presented.

[user104658]

On personal physical assets (right up to things like expensive cars/boats/etc.) yes, on "liquid" wealth and property no. If you have an issue with someone you intend to marry getting half of your wealth on divorce ... don't marry them. IMO who deserves what after several years of marriage becomes very murky, anything other than a 50/50 split is questionable in terms of fairness, because questions like "would partner A have been able to maintain this wealth without partner B's role in the relationship e.g. child-raising" strart to come up and are all but impossible to properly answer ... it's guesswork.

There should however be legal avenues that can be pursued when there's evidence of actual "love fraud" - i.e. the person was only EVER intending to marry and then divorce for financial gain, and had no intention of maintaining the relationship.

[Alf]

There isn't any incentive for men to get married these days.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

There isn't any incentive for men to get married these days.

Have you ever heard of affection, Alf

Would also point out that my wife now earns more than me

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Have you ever heard of affection, Alf

Would also point out that my wife now earns more than me

I'm talking more about the religious side of things. A wedding was traditionally a religious ceremony.

Obey and all that malarky

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alf

I'm talking more about the religious side of things. A wedding was traditionally a religious ceremony.

Not enough women on 4chan?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Not enough women on 4chan?

I get my information from Alf Garnett not 4chan.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Not enough women on 4chan?

I don't think there are ANY women on 4chan.

... ... ... ... .... ... . ..... ..... . . .... err... .... ... . unless... ... .. unless you count.. .... ....... no I'm not going there.

[Liam-]

For me to even consider it, there would have to be an infidelity clause included, cause if he cheats on me, I’m taking half of everything

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

For me to even consider it, there would have to be an infidelity clause included, cause if he cheats on me, I’m taking half of everything

Yes and I think that should work the other way too; if the person who came into the marriage with more assets is cheated on (or abused, etc.) then they shouldn't have to divide them. If it's the usual "irreconcilable differences" then I personally think assets should always be split and that should just be accepted as part of choosing to marry.

It's not really an issue for me any my wife, we got together at 21 and 19 and neither of us had **** to our names. Or careers of any kind. So literally everything we own and every aspect of each other's earnings is interwoven with other responsibilities/childcare etc... nothing to separate out at all. Though actually she has an old lamp she got from her aunt as a teenager that's worth a bit, and I guess I have some classic SNES games that would do OK on eBay .

[Niamh.]

It's only really going to be a thing if one person is hugely wealthy anyway, I don't think us normal folk will ever have to worry about it

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's only really going to be a thing if one person is hugely wealthy anyway, I don't think us normal folk will ever have to worry about it

Precisely, most of us go into relationships broke, I know we did