Rincewind Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Heard on the news there are plans to allow agreements on how assets would be divided at the same time as the marriage. Is this a good idea? Never been in a marriage so can't really comment. Think it will mainly affect big earners and those who may inherit a huge amount. But they were saying because legal aid is stopping for divorce even at the lower end divorce will cost 5-10k. Would it be OK to say to each other I will love you forever then say but on the other hand if we seperate you are not getting your hands on my dosh? Will it make couples less likely to work through the ups and down and just walk away when they have an argument or two? This already goes on in the US and parts of Europe. You can agree here but the documents are not legal binding and can be challenged in court. A poll maybe?
Zingari Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 the mrs has already told me i can keep all my collections of city programmes and german bier steins if we split up . she want to keep the sentimental value stuff such as the house and the car . it's all amicable in Zingari towers , no need for pre nups
Jon the Hat Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I don't get it. If you dont expect your relationship to last or dont trust your partner is marrying you for love then why would you marry them in the first place?
Zingari Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I don't get it. If you dont expect your relationship to last or dont trust your partner is marrying you for love then why would you marry them in the first place? The same reason they put rubbers on pencils . We all make mistakes , and love makes us blind to logic. I think it's quite a sensible move really , especially if there is an enormous imbalance in wealth . it never really made much difference in my marriages , we were all pretty evenly broke
MooseBreath Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 50% of marriages end in divorce in this country. Plenty of them will have been perfect hollywood relationships at some stage. But nobody knows what's going to happen in the future. Things and people change. That's the truth, and if you're unable to talk frankly about uncomfortable subjects with your partner, maybe you shouldn't be getting married indeed. Ultimately the question still remains though, what is the point of marriage in the modern day? Not that not getting married will save you though, I've heard that women can get their mits on your loot even if you're not married but have been living together.
purpleronnie Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 50% of marriages end in divorce in this country. Plenty of them will have been perfect hollywood relationships at some stage. But nobody knows what's going to happen in the future. Things and people change. That's the truth, and if you're unable to talk frankly about uncomfortable subjects with your partner, maybe you shouldn't be getting married indeed. Ultimately the question still remains though, what is the point of marriage in the modern day? Not that not getting married will save you though, I've heard that women can get their mits on your loot even if you're not married but have been living together. There's plenty of people who see marriage as a committment to each other, and of course there is the religious aspect of marriage for some.
Alf Bentley Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 50% of marriages end in divorce in this country. Plenty of them will have been perfect hollywood relationships at some stage. But nobody knows what's going to happen in the future. Things and people change. That's the truth, and if you're unable to talk frankly about uncomfortable subjects with your partner, maybe you shouldn't be getting married indeed. The case well and succinctly put, Moose. Although not 100% legally binding, trust deeds are an alternative if, say, one partner has capital to put up for a house, while the other has zero capital but is the main income earner. If my marriage split up now, I'd own about 1/3 of the house, I think. Maybe a small legal transaction at the outset (prenup/trust deed) can avoid a legal dispute costing countless thousands at the end, if things do go wrong....
Bellend Sebastian Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 50% of marriages end in divorce in this country. I always remember this when a politician, dozy twat on twitter etc comes out with the statement 'marriage works'. Should be more like 'Marriage works some of the time, for some people, often temporarily'. Doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Don't come to me for catchy soundbites
Zingari Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 men have no need for pre nups , just find a women you hate and buy her a house.
cityfanlee23 Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I don't get it. If you dont expect your relationship to last or dont trust your partner is marrying you for love then why would you marry them in the first place? I think in quite a few situations, money can change everything... Look at duncan valentines divorce, or even Roman abramovich (Although romans didnt even make a dent) duncans almost ended him, £350m it cost him, and his wife is laughing with half of the estate HE earned.. She hasn't had to work since he made it... If I was worth say £2m, and I met a woman, and married... Told her I could support her, She didnt work or lift a finger for 10 years... During that 10 years, I've amassed a net worth of £200m Why the hell should she be entitled to say "Right i've sat on my arse for 10 years, I've met another bloke and I am leaving you and taking half of your money" Sod that. Obviously you don't marry unless you think it could be forever, However situations change massively when big sums of money amass. A bloke I know has been married 47 years... Never had a problem, One day she comes downstairs, sits on his lap and says "I love you but I need to leave you, I've met someone else" The house is in her name.... He's now having to move out because she's decided to sell the house. Even though she has moved in with another bloke. He will recieve a sum of this. but it won't buy him another house will it. Those examples are extreme, but show the value and importance of pre nups, if you own a vast amount.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Let's be honest its 50% odd now because people often geenrally give up rather than work at things. Not to mention idiots like my mate who got married three months after meeting the first bird he ever copped off with. I do agree with JTH's orginal status, I'd never get married and have one of these things put in, I wouldn't do it if the thought crossed my mind.
Zingari Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 when one of my marriages ended we split the house 50/50 . she got the inside and i got the outside
Smudge Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 when one of my marriages ended we split the house 50/50 . she got the inside and i got the outside Pre nups are pretty common in the US, especially with second marriages. Works for both sides as maintains some or all of the estate for the children of the first marriage.
Zingari Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Pre nups are pretty common in the US, especially with second marriages. Works for both sides as maintains some or all of the estate for the children of the first marriage. call me an old cynic , but i think it'll only work for women who are the wealthier in the partnership , , i doubt if many men will be walking away with the sort of huge settlements women have got when things turn nasty.
Smudge Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 call me an old cynic , but i think it'll only work for women who are the wealthier in the partnership , , i doubt if many men will be walking away with the sort of huge settlements women have got when things turn nasty. I don't follow, that's whole point of having one. A pre-nup agreement is a binding contract. The only debate is what assets are accrued after the marriage.
Zingari Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I don't follow, that's whole point of having one. A pre-nup agreement is a binding contract. The only debate is what assets are accrued after the marriage. are you sure ? i thought the courts still decided and had discretionary powers to overturn them. you may be right though , but i still think it will be wealthy women that sensibly will be asking for prenups and getting them, while men will be shamed into not doing so.unless it's to guarantee women will get a huge payout . i doubt if it will be very effective protecting wealthy men
Alf Bentley Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 are you sure ? i thought the courts still decided and had discretionary powers to overturn them. According to the BBC lunchtime news, you're right - they're not binding currently, but consideration is being given to legislating to make them binding.
Webbo Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Smudge was talking about america where they are(I think)
Smudge Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 are you sure ? i thought the courts still decided and had discretionary powers to overturn them. you may be right though , but i still think it will be wealthy women that sensibly will be asking for prenups and getting them, while men will be shamed into not doing so.unless it's to guarantee women will get a huge payout . i doubt if it will be very effective protecting wealthy men According to the BBC lunchtime news, you're right - they're not binding currently, but consideration is being given to legislating to make them binding. I was speaking of the financial side of the agreement as it pertains the the US. I assumed wrongly that was the idea for Britain. If it's not legally enforceable what's the ****ing point??
Alf Bentley Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I was speaking of the financial side of the agreement as it pertains the the US. I assumed wrongly that was the idea for Britain. If it's not legally enforceable what's the ****ing point?? Fair enough if you were talking about the US. If a prenup is anything like a trust deed, it is legally admissible as evidence of intent, but not binding. That's what the solicitor told us when we took out a trust deed. We were in the odd situation of buying a house together at a time when my then partner, now wife, had inherited some money to put towards the house purchase but only worked part-time, while I had sod-all capital but was the main breadwinner. Seemed fair to both of us, so technically I have a mortgage with the Bank of Missus! We're both skint now!
Smudge Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Fair enough if you were talking about the US. If a prenup is anything like a trust deed, it is legally admissible as evidence of intent, but not binding. That's what the solicitor told us when we took out a trust deed. We were in the odd situation of buying a house together at a time when my then partner, now wife, had inherited some money to put towards the house purchase but only worked part-time, while I had sod-all capital but was the main breadwinner. Seemed fair to both of us, so technically I have a mortgage with the Bank of Missus! We're both skint now! Well according to the recommendations of the Law Commission today it states Our recommendations The final report was published on 27 February 2014. The report sets out and explains our recommendations for reform, which would: Clarify, through the provision of guidance by the Family Justice Council, the law relating to “financial needsâ€. This would ensure that the law is applied consistently by the courts and reinforce judicial best practice. Guidance will also give people without legal representation access to a clear statement of their responsibilities and the objective of a transition to independence that a financial settlement should achieve. Investigate the possibility of whether an aid to calculation of “financial needs†could be devised. We envisage that formulae, if developed, would take the form of non-statutory guidance and would give a range of outcomes, in figures, within which the separating couple might negotiate. Introduce “qualifying nuptial agreementsâ€. These would be enforceable contracts, which would enable couples to make binding arrangements for the financial consequences of divorce or dissolution. In order for an agreement to be a “qualifying†nuptial agreement, certain procedural safeguards would have to be met. Qualifying agreements could not, however, be used by parties to contract out of meeting the “financial needs†of each other and of any children. I assume this is what Rincey was on about
Rincewind Posted 27 February 2014 Author Posted 27 February 2014 My mum and step dad never bothered with agreements but they were older, in their forties. Now though he is in a care home and my mum has had her will changed which would have gone to him. Her money would be no use to him as he would still be looked after as long as it takes. My two brothers have been married around forty years. My elder and missus share the money when they go out. He has the notes she has the change. If they have seperate bank accounts it would be for financial purposes as my brother looks for the most profitable way to make use of their money. The only one who has had a problem marriage is my sister. Her husband never had much so she never ained. She is getting married again in June. He is in her 60's and she owns her own business. They seem happy together;
Alf Bentley Posted 28 February 2014 Posted 28 February 2014 Well according to the recommendations of the Law Commission today it states Our recommendations The final report was published on 27 February 2014. The report sets out and explains our recommendations for reform, which would: [...] Introduce “qualifying nuptial agreementsâ€. These would be enforceable contracts, which would enable couples to make binding arrangements for the financial consequences of divorce or dissolution. [...] Fair enough, but I'm not sure why you're quoting me in saying that. I already said that my understanding (which might be wrong) is that they're trying to make prenups, which already exist, fully enforceable, which they're not at the moment. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/27/pre-numpial-agreements-legally-binding-divorce-law-commission http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568969/He-gets-cat-gets-car-Couples-make-pre-nuptial-agreements-DIY-divorces.html
Guest Col city fan Posted 28 February 2014 Posted 28 February 2014 50% of marriages end in divorce in this country. Plenty of them will have been perfect hollywood relationships at some stage. But nobody knows what's going to happen in the future. Things and people change. That's the truth, and if you're unable to talk frankly about uncomfortable subjects with your partner, maybe you shouldn't be getting married indeed. Ultimately the question still remains though, what is the point of marriage in the modern day? Not that not getting married will save you though, I've heard that women can get their mits on your loot even if you're not married but have been living together. Good post Moose..
Smudge Posted 28 February 2014 Posted 28 February 2014 Fair enough, but I'm not sure why you're quoting me in saying that. I already said that my understanding (which might be wrong) is that they're trying to make prenups, which already exist, fully enforceable, which they're not at the moment. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/27/pre-numpial-agreements-legally-binding-divorce-law-commission http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568969/He-gets-cat-gets-car-Couples-make-pre-nuptial-agreements-DIY-divorces.html I don't know either
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.