Protecting wealth before marriage ?
Discussion
So interesting conversation this morning over our breakfast meeting (when my team should have been working !!) !!! Is it possible to protect you finances ahead of an upcoming wedding ?
Basically I have a guy who works with us who is getting married, he's probably got assets of c. £4m and current girlfriend has nothing a small amount of cash but nothing by comparison.
So I know there are prenups but I am not sure if they are worth the paper they are written on etc etc
So any advice ?
Ps his girlfriend isn't an internet bride or 20 years his junior .... and no photos !!!!
Phib
Basically I have a guy who works with us who is getting married, he's probably got assets of c. £4m and current girlfriend has nothing a small amount of cash but nothing by comparison.
So I know there are prenups but I am not sure if they are worth the paper they are written on etc etc
So any advice ?
Ps his girlfriend isn't an internet bride or 20 years his junior .... and no photos !!!!
Phib
Get your friend (who obviously can afford it) to go see a good family law specialist who will tell them about where the law and everything is at currently with regard to Prenups and the like.
IIRC they are not binding but are highly persuasive atm, but only if both sides have had independent legal advice and full financial disclosure.
Then you have to remember that if one day children arrive all bets could well be called off.
IIRC they are not binding but are highly persuasive atm, but only if both sides have had independent legal advice and full financial disclosure.
Then you have to remember that if one day children arrive all bets could well be called off.
My understanding is that it's worthwhile having a pre-nup in these circumstances but that it shouldn't be relied on as giving cast-iron protection to the party with all the assets (particularly if they substantially increase in value post-marriage) and the other party will need independent legal advice as well.
Alternatively, approach it on the basis that the worst case scenario is it costs him 50% of everything and ask whether it is still worth it to proceed.
Alternatively, approach it on the basis that the worst case scenario is it costs him 50% of everything and ask whether it is still worth it to proceed.
I'm married and there's really no point except exposing himself to financial risk. He's better off spending the money from the future wedding costs on a lawyer to protect his assets from potentially splitting up with a long term partner.
Obviously trying to dodge the question as to why he does not want to get married from his partner maybe more difficult
Obviously trying to dodge the question as to why he does not want to get married from his partner maybe more difficult
Edited by TLandCruiser on Wednesday 26th April 14:27
Rude-boy said:
Get your friend (who obviously can afford it) to go see a good family law specialist who will tell them about where the law and everything is at currently with regard to Prenups and the like.
IIRC they are not binding but are highly persuasive atm, but only if both sides have had independent legal advice and full financial disclosure.
Then you have to remember that if one day children arrive all bets could well be called off.
Agree with most of this.IIRC they are not binding but are highly persuasive atm, but only if both sides have had independent legal advice and full financial disclosure.
Then you have to remember that if one day children arrive all bets could well be called off.
Except all bets are not off with kids, you are defining what partner will get should you divorce. What any children get (possibly via her) can be separate.
I got legal advice (actually in order to give my partner some protection under a co-habitation agreement, rather than protect myself with pre-nup though was advised about both).
Both parties need to get legal advice before signing, and terms of pre-nup must be reasonable, eg in my case of 7 year relationship if I got married tomorrow she could get 30-40%
Edited by Adam B on Wednesday 26th April 14:30
It is not as simple as 50/50.
In divorce if there's a dispute over finances then the court looks at the "needs" of both parties and then divides any assets and income to ensure both parties have their needs met by the outcome. There is no "what should be his vs what should be hers", the attitude is "how can we divide one households finances into two independent ones"
In the most extreme example where he is a successful educated man on very high income with multiple properties to his name and she is a penniless GCSE dropout being given primary care of their five kids, then the "family assets and income" will be divided to provide a property for the ex wife to live in (or enough cash to buy one) and his income will be partially diverted to support his poor abandoned ex-wife who gave up her career prospects to raise the family whilst he went from strength to strength in his own career with her home support; thus he has high future earning potential and she does not and therefore he should contribute on an ongoing basis.
The circumstances and reasons of the divorce do not matter, all they do is try to divvy up so two independent households can be made from one. In the vast majority of cases this is massively "unfair" to the bloke but c'est la vie. I don't see why any men would want to marry nowadays, it offers you nothing you can't get without, and at great personal risk.
In the example of the friend with 4m net worth, assuming the relationship lasted longer than about 5 years then I would assume in the case of divorce the ex wife would be awarded at least 500k-1m worth with which to find herself a new place to live, and either a lump sum or ongoing payments to support her, unless she herself had become fabulously successful with a high income by the time of divorce too. Add kids to the mix and probably double all those figures, at least.
In divorce if there's a dispute over finances then the court looks at the "needs" of both parties and then divides any assets and income to ensure both parties have their needs met by the outcome. There is no "what should be his vs what should be hers", the attitude is "how can we divide one households finances into two independent ones"
In the most extreme example where he is a successful educated man on very high income with multiple properties to his name and she is a penniless GCSE dropout being given primary care of their five kids, then the "family assets and income" will be divided to provide a property for the ex wife to live in (or enough cash to buy one) and his income will be partially diverted to support his poor abandoned ex-wife who gave up her career prospects to raise the family whilst he went from strength to strength in his own career with her home support; thus he has high future earning potential and she does not and therefore he should contribute on an ongoing basis.
The circumstances and reasons of the divorce do not matter, all they do is try to divvy up so two independent households can be made from one. In the vast majority of cases this is massively "unfair" to the bloke but c'est la vie. I don't see why any men would want to marry nowadays, it offers you nothing you can't get without, and at great personal risk.
In the example of the friend with 4m net worth, assuming the relationship lasted longer than about 5 years then I would assume in the case of divorce the ex wife would be awarded at least 500k-1m worth with which to find herself a new place to live, and either a lump sum or ongoing payments to support her, unless she herself had become fabulously successful with a high income by the time of divorce too. Add kids to the mix and probably double all those figures, at least.
Edited by Venturist on Wednesday 26th April 14:44
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff