Marriage - protecting pre-marital assets
Discussion
sambucket said:
JulianPH said:
has the same rights over the family home as if you were married (but no rights on any other personal assets you own).
I would strongly recommend you have a prenuptial agreement put in place in any event. You can call this by any name you wish (Financial Undertaking Agreement, for example) and cover what you seek to protect by 3 simple statements:
Julian would you advise a FU agreement (as you call it) has merit for an unmarried couple with a kid? For non property assets specifically?I would strongly recommend you have a prenuptial agreement put in place in any event. You can call this by any name you wish (Financial Undertaking Agreement, for example) and cover what you seek to protect by 3 simple statements:
Edited by sambucket on Sunday 28th April 15:00
Marriage (and even Engagement) are effectively deemed as legally binding contracts. This is what gives rise to one party being able to sue the other upon breach of contract (divorce, being the most obvious of the two, failure to complete being the other).
Cohabiting does not create any legally binding contract (at the time of writing!
)Child maintenance is a set formula regardless of whether the parents were/are married or not.
Basically, regardless of whether you are married or not you (rightfully) are responsible for your children.
If you get engaged, you are giving up half of your home.
If you get married, you are potentially giving up everything.
Adam B said:
JulianPH said:
It is also worth pointing out that if you are engaged then your partner already has the same rights over the family home as if you were married (but no rights on any other personal assets you own).
I do find this bit very weird law (not doubting you(So someone gets engaged and then decides to break it off the other party can get half your house despite (for example) never xo tribute fro its purchase or mortgage!
An engagement is a promise to each other so there can be financial consequences of breaching that promise, but as far as I know it does not extend to any rights you may have when married.
Unfortunately:
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970
(2)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, section 17 of the M2Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and section 7 of the M3Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 (which sections confer power on a judge of the High Court or [F1the family court] to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said section 17, as originally enacted or as extended by the said section 7, shall be made within three years of the termination of the agreement.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/33
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970
(2)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, section 17 of the M2Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and section 7 of the M3Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 (which sections confer power on a judge of the High Court or [F1the family court] to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said section 17, as originally enacted or as extended by the said section 7, shall be made within three years of the termination of the agreement.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/33
JulianPH said:
Unfortunately:
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970
(2)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, section 17 of the M2Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and section 7 of the M3Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 (which sections confer power on a judge of the High Court or [F1the family court] to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said section 17, as originally enacted or as extended by the said section 7, shall be made within three years of the termination of the agreement.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/33
You failed to quote the section preceding that:Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970
(2)Where an agreement to marry is terminated, section 17 of the M2Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and section 7 of the M3Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 (which sections confer power on a judge of the High Court or [F1the family court] to settle disputes between husband and wife about property) shall apply, as if the parties were married, to any dispute between, or claim by, one of them in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force; but an application made by virtue of this section to the judge under the said section 17, as originally enacted or as extended by the said section 7, shall be made within three years of the termination of the agreement.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/33
Engagements to marry not enforceable at law.
(1)An agreement between two persons to marry one another shall not under the law of England and Wales have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights and no action shall lie in England and Wales for breach of such an agreement, whatever the law applicable to the agreement.
(2)This section shall have effect in relation to agreements entered into before it comes into force, except that it shall not affect any action commenced before it comes into force.
JulianPH said:
It is not necessary for anyone unmarried (and importantly not engaged), regardless of kids. So breathe a sigh of relief!
Marriage (and even Engagement) are effectively deemed as legally binding contracts. This is what gives rise to one party being able to sue the other upon breach of contract (divorce, being the most obvious of the two, failure to complete being the other).
Cohabiting does not create any legally binding contract (at the time of writing!)
Child maintenance is a set formula regardless of whether the parents were/are married or not.
Basically, regardless of whether you are married or not you (rightfully) are responsible for your children.
If you get engaged, you are giving up half of your home.
If you get married, you are potentially giving up everything.
Julian,Marriage (and even Engagement) are effectively deemed as legally binding contracts. This is what gives rise to one party being able to sue the other upon breach of contract (divorce, being the most obvious of the two, failure to complete being the other).
Cohabiting does not create any legally binding contract (at the time of writing!
)Child maintenance is a set formula regardless of whether the parents were/are married or not.
Basically, regardless of whether you are married or not you (rightfully) are responsible for your children.
If you get engaged, you are giving up half of your home.
If you get married, you are potentially giving up everything.
I think you stick to peddling your financial products rather than giving misleading legal advice!!!
THE LAW RELATING TO BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE
CHAPTER 1
A THE PRESENT LAW
6.
Provide that where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest applies in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement to marry had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
This is from 1978.
I am not charging for my comments, just adding to the answers!!!
CHAPTER 1
A THE PRESENT LAW
6.
Provide that where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest applies in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement to marry had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
This is from 1978.
I am not charging for my comments, just adding to the answers!!!
JulianPH said:
THE LAW RELATING TO BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE
CHAPTER 1
A THE PRESENT LAW
6.
Provide that where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest applies in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement to marry had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
This is from 1978.
I am not charging for my comments, just adding to the answers!!!
Does that in any way state you give away half your home as soon as you get engaged?CHAPTER 1
A THE PRESENT LAW
6.
Provide that where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest applies in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement to marry had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
This is from 1978.
I am not charging for my comments, just adding to the answers!!!
Squiddly Diddly said:
JulianPH said:
THE LAW RELATING TO BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE
CHAPTER 1
A THE PRESENT LAW
6.
Provide that where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest applies in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement to marry had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
This is from 1978.
I am not charging for my comments, just adding to the answers!!!
Does that in any way state you give away half your home as soon as you get engaged?CHAPTER 1
A THE PRESENT LAW
6.
Provide that where an agreement to marry is terminated, any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest applies in relation to any property in which either or both of the parties to the agreement to marry had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as it applies in relation to property in which a husband or wife has a beneficial interest.
This is from 1978.
I am not charging for my comments, just adding to the answers!!!
I have seen many court cases whereby the lack of structure (or legislation) gives so much freedom for liberally minded judges to make perverse decisions. You would (rightfully) not believe most of it.
Squiddly Diddly said:
You failed to quote the section preceding that:
Engagements to marry not enforceable at law.
(1)An agreement between two persons to marry one another shall not under the law of England and Wales have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights and no action shall lie in England and Wales for breach of such an agreement, whatever the law applicable to the agreement.
(2)This section shall have effect in relation to agreements entered into before it comes into force, except that it shall not affect any action commenced before it comes into force.
Because Section 2 takes precedence over Section1.Engagements to marry not enforceable at law.
(1)An agreement between two persons to marry one another shall not under the law of England and Wales have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights and no action shall lie in England and Wales for breach of such an agreement, whatever the law applicable to the agreement.
(2)This section shall have effect in relation to agreements entered into before it comes into force, except that it shall not affect any action commenced before it comes into force.
Squiddly Diddly said:
Have you got a link for that reference, I can't find it via google.
Stupidly I haven't. I'll have a search and post it later.Cheers
Here it is:
https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%...
Edited by JulianPH on Sunday 28th April 19:58
imjustabigpistonhead said:
I have about £600k in net assets
My partner has about £5k in net assets (the difference is not a problem for me, she has valid reasons).
Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you have enough money to warrant even considering some form of financial pre-marriage agreement. My partner has about £5k in net assets (the difference is not a problem for me, she has valid reasons).
If you have found someone that you want to start a family with, your responsibilities are going to increase significantly, to the extent that the amount you could realistically protect isn't that great.
And you need to weight this against the effect it may have on your partner - after all, it could be perceived that you don't consider her to be your equal, or that you are making provision for how your marriage might fail. And even if this isn't an issue straight away, it could become a source of resentment in the future.
This last reason isn't sufficient to say a pre-marriage agreement is always undesirable, but it does need to be weighed carefully against the potential value of an agreement.
In my mind, you would need pre-existing assets in the low millions before it might be worth considering.
JulianPH said:
I couldn't peddle a pedalo!
I was only quoting the law, please don't shoot the messenger!
It doesn't state what you think it states though.I was only quoting the law, please don't shoot the messenger!
You stated unequivocally that upon engagement you are giving away half of your property. You are not. In fact, even marriage does not do that.
Squiddly Diddly said:
JulianPH said:
I couldn't peddle a pedalo!
I was only quoting the law, please don't shoot the messenger!
It doesn't state what you think it states though.I was only quoting the law, please don't shoot the messenger!
You stated unequivocally that upon engagement you are giving away half of your property. You are not. In fact, even marriage does not do that.
If during posts I said you 'are' rather than you 'can' then this was sloppy of me, as no one can know that the outcome for an individual case may be.
My focus was on the legal principle, not the amount awarded in any particular case, as I though this might be of interest.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff