PDA

View Full Version : Pre-Nuptual Agreements



shaunbhoy
26th October 2010, 19:17
Anyone else feel that if you think you need one of these in place, you are marrying the wrong person?
Just another Lawyer Cash Cow if you ask me.

Panel????

Paddy
26th October 2010, 19:21
Anyone else feel that if you think you need one of these in place, you are marrying the wrong person?
Just another Lawyer Cash Cow if you ask me.

Panel????

As you are from Devon; I don't think it applies to brothers and sisters.

TimberWolf
26th October 2010, 19:24
Statistics suggest most* people marry the wrong person. Though nature usually suppresses logic circuits in the early stages so something's already amiss if pre-nuptials and other logical reasoning is still intact.


* a lot anyway

shaunbhoy
26th October 2010, 19:26
As you are from Devon; I don't think it applies to brothers and sisters.

And as you are uglier than a warthog, the prospect of you finding a potential bride is such an unlikely contingency, it begs the question why even look at this thread?

Paddy
26th October 2010, 19:35
And as you are uglier than a warthog, the prospect of you finding a potential bride is such an unlikely contingency, it begs the question why even look at this thread?

http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.net/uganda/pics/elizabeth-np/elizabeth-np-0020.jpg

shaunbhoy
26th October 2010, 19:36
http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.net/uganda/pics/elizabeth-np/elizabeth-np-0020.jpg

You've lost weight........................and so has your nan!!

:laugh

cailin maith
26th October 2010, 19:37
:laugh Ok - so we've gone from the start of a debate to you pair :ladybags: in what 5/6 posts

Well done lads! :yay:

Peoplesoft bloke
26th October 2010, 19:46
I don't think it's too bad an idea where there's a big disparity - like that heiress bint recently. I'd have signed one prior to getting married (if I was marrying a rich woman) because I'd be happy to prove I was marrying for the right reasons and not being a golddigger. That said if you are both broke there's no need and no real excuse.

shaunbhoy
26th October 2010, 19:50
I don't think it's too bad an idea where there's a big disparity - like that heiress bint recently. I'd have signed one prior to getting married (if I was marrying a rich woman) because I'd be happy to prove I was marrying for the right reasons and not being a golddigger. That said if you are both broke there's no need and no real excuse.

But say you had £100M and you were "in love" with someone. Worst case, you end up going your own ways and might have to eke out an existence on £50M. Not that bad is it?
Why bother to get married at all if you would not be prepared for that possibility?

Peoplesoft bloke
26th October 2010, 19:54
But say you had £100M and you were "in love" with someone. Worst case, you end up going your own ways and might have to eke out an existence on £50M. Not that bad is it?
Why bother to get married at all if you would not be prepared for that possibility?

That's fine, but I am speaking as someone who doesn't have £100m and isn't likely to have.

shaunbhoy
26th October 2010, 19:58
That's fine, but I am speaking as someone who doesn't have £100m and isn't likely to have.

Me neither. However, I was just posing the question about the principle of these agreements, and stating that I see them as a bad thing.
That said, I'd be all in favour of some reality show in which they give me multiple millions and see how long I can make my marriage last!! :tongue

AtW
26th October 2010, 22:33
Anyone else feel that if you think you need one of these in place, you are marrying the wrong person?

No.

By taking a logical very reasonable step of having a prenup you ensure that the person you marry is doing so for other reasons than money.

In order to remove illogical senseless stigma prenups should have been LEGALLY required with key basic rules being that any money earned before marriage is not to be shared (unless all sides agree), capped payments to say £1 mln.

HTH

TimberWolf
26th October 2010, 22:37
No.

By taking a logical very reasonable step of having a prenup you ensure that the person you marry is doing so for other reasons than money.

In order to remove illogical senseless stigma prenups should have been LEGALLY required with key basic rules being that any money earned before marriage is not to be shared (unless all sides agree), capped payments to say £1 mln.

HTH

Or to a cache of acorns and walnuts?

AtW
26th October 2010, 22:37
Worst case, you end up going your own ways and might have to eke out an existence on £50M. Not that bad is it?

First earn £100 mln, then you'll be entitled to an opinion. I reckon chances are good your wife makes more money than you - saturday "call out monkey", you also got 5-6 kids and you reckon that if your wife is to insist on keeping them all then you'll be able to hang on to 100% of your fortune, all £100 of it.

HTH

AtW
26th October 2010, 22:40
Or to a cache of acorns and walnuts?

Don't get squirrels involved in a very serious business of getting married :eyes

shaunbhoy
27th October 2010, 06:19
No.

By taking a logical very reasonable step of having a prenup you ensure that the person you marry is doing so for other reasons than money.



No wonder you are stuck in a lonely bedsit on your tod, slowly going blind from frenetic potnoodling.

:laugh :laugh :laugh

shaunbhoy
27th October 2010, 06:36
First earn £100 mln, then you'll be entitled to an opinion.



In actual fact, in this country everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of wealth That is largely as a result of people like me standing up to your mickey-mouse Soviet leaders during the Cold War. They would probably have removed that choice from us had they got their way, and we might well all have ended up as brainwashed as you.



I reckon chances are good your wife makes more money than you - saturday "call out monkey"


No. Not even close. I occasionally choose to work on saturdays, and get well rewarded for doing so. Unlike you, who seem to be at work every weekend desperately trying to get this tedious SKA of yours off the ground. :laugh



you also got 5-6 kids and you reckon that if your wife is to insist on keeping them all then you'll be able to hang on to 100% of your fortune, all £100 of it.


Keeping them all as opposed to what? Sending them off to the Gulags?
My fortune is measured not in pounds sterling, but in the legacy I will leave behind. And unlike you, it will be something more tangible and relevant than a knee-high pile of w@nk mags with the pages stuck together. :laugh

hyperD
27th October 2010, 10:22
Having recently been on the receiving end of an acrimonious divorce, without going in to all the reasons on a public board, a prenuptial would have helped tremendously. When barristers cost £2,000 a time and the marital law "fair for everybody" is so far from the truth, I'm surprise people even risk getting married in the UK nowadays.

It is fine if the happy fairytale lives forever and ever, but when things do go wrong, it is catastrophic. There's an entire industry out there that is dead against simplifying the process of divorce purely for fiscal reasons and the old situation of the unfairness of women getting thrown out the marital home has swung so far the other way that I would recommend that nobody gets married until prenups are a prerequisite.

My case highlighted so many worrying issues that all the friends I have talked to have started to look into prenups and other legal vehicles for protection.

I know it defeats my argument somewhat about not going into details but it's too personal and revealing a case for here.

MaryPoppins
27th October 2010, 10:33
Having recently been on the receiving end of an acrimonious divorce, without going in to all the reasons on a public board, a prenuptial would have helped tremendously. When barristers cost £2,000 a time and the marital law "fair for everybody" is so far from the truth, I'm surprise people even risk getting married in the UK nowadays.

It is fine if the happy fairytale lives forever and ever, but when things do go wrong, it is catastrophic. There's an entire industry out there that is dead against simplifying the process of divorce purely for fiscal reasons and the old situation of the unfairness of women getting thrown out the marital home has swung so far the other way that I would recommend that nobody gets married until prenups are a prerequisite.

My case highlighted so many worrying issues that all the friends I have talked to have started to look into prenups and other legal vehicles for protection.

I know it defeats my argument somewhat about not going into details but it's too personal and revealing a case for here.

How sad. Sorry to hear that.

SupremeSpod
27th October 2010, 10:47
Having recently been on the receiving end of an acrimonious divorce, without going in to all the reasons on a public board, a prenuptial would have helped tremendously. When barristers cost £2,000 a time and the marital law "fair for everybody" is so far from the truth, I'm surprise people even risk getting married in the UK nowadays.

It is fine if the happy fairytale lives forever and ever, but when things do go wrong, it is catastrophic. There's an entire industry out there that is dead against simplifying the process of divorce purely for fiscal reasons and the old situation of the unfairness of women getting thrown out the marital home has swung so far the other way that I would recommend that nobody gets married until prenups are a prerequisite.

My case highlighted so many worrying issues that all the friends I have talked to have started to look into prenups and other legal vehicles for protection.

I know it defeats my argument somewhat about not going into details but it's too personal and revealing a case for here.

A word to the wise. If you're going through a divorce, do not get a solicitor. You do not need one and can fight your own corner.

When opposing solicitors get together over a divorce the only thing they're interested in is how much they're going to make.

Your interests are not their priority.

Hth.

hyperD
27th October 2010, 10:54
A word to the wise. If you're going through a divorce, do not get a solicitor. You do not need one and can fight your own corner.

When opposing solicitors get together over a divorce the only thing they're interested in is how much they're going to make.

Your interests are not their priority.

Hth.

In hindsight Spod, most of what you say is true. Unfortunately at the time it didn't seem to be an option when your mental state is a little off due to the betrayals and the flood of agressive letters and demands.

SupremeSpod
27th October 2010, 10:59
In hindsight Spod, most of what you say is true. Unfortunately at the time it didn't seem to be an option when your mental state is a little off due to the betrayals and the flood of agressive letters and demands.

Fortunately I can remain calm in a "crisis" and spent the whole of the proceedings talking not to my soon to be ex but to her solicitor.

That and the fact that the original Judge was a friendly chap.

minestrone
27th October 2010, 11:06
A word to the wise. If you're going through a divorce, do not get a solicitor. You do not need one and can fight your own corner.

When opposing solicitors get together over a divorce the only thing they're interested in is how much they're going to make.

Your interests are not their priority.

Hth.

With your personality one wonders why you would have to go through a divorce.

AtW
27th October 2010, 11:13
Use solicitor BEFORE problems happen ...

hyperD
27th October 2010, 11:53
Fortunately I can remain calm in a "crisis" and spent the whole of the proceedings talking not to my soon to be ex but to her solicitor.

That and the fact that the original Judge was a friendly chap.

My Judge was far from sympathetic. When there is such tautology in the logic of marital law where you can prove one situation but the Judge won't grant you the legal means to have it accepted in the court, words and barrister fees are not enough.

My case outgrew my solicitor. Unfortunately, my barrister's fees outgrew my dwindling reserves.

I wouldn't wish divorce on even my worse enemies.

SupremeSpod
27th October 2010, 11:57
My Judge was far from sympathetic. When there is such tautology in the logic of marital law where you can prove one situation but the Judge won't grant you the legal means to have it accepted in the court, words and barrister fees are not enough.

My case outgrew my solicitor. Unfortunately, my barrister's fees outgrew my dwindling reserves.

I wouldn't wish divorce on even my worse enemies.

Sorry to hear that you had it so tough.

Anyway, tomorrow is another day.

Don't let it put you off women though. Don't let HAB catch you in a moment of weakness, just tell him you were never "confused" :freaky:

hyperD
27th October 2010, 12:07
Sorry to hear that you had it so tough.

Thanks.


Don't let it put you off women though. Don't let HAB catch you in a moment of weakness, just tell him you were never "confused" :freaky:

:rollin:

No it hasn't thankfully. I'm just a little more wordly wise nowadays and certainly am conscious that I don't fall into one of those bitter and twisted types. As benes, you and many other kind folk here on CUK have said, this is a new start to enjoying life again with it's myriad of experiences, people, emotions, both happy and sad.

The hyperD will not be beaten, temporarily bruised maybe, but never, ever beaten! And will soar once more into the skies!

Lockhouse
27th October 2010, 13:04
I had a pre-nup for my 2nd marriage - the important thing to do is amend them if circumstances change over time during the relationship. I unfortunately didn't and got royally stuffed....

At least I got it right the 3rd time (so far...).

TimberWolf
27th October 2010, 13:12
Our flats management company once went to a firm of solicitors seeking advice, as a solicitor living in the block of flats was being awkward (bordering on insane actually), and they do know how to be awkward. First thing the solicitor asked was how large the company company funds were. We had a bit and he suggested that the solicitor had his eye on them. In the end, fearing huge legal costs (actually we went to small claims and won - he didn't even turn up to court, though he knew how to delay and obfuscate matters prior to that, creating a lot of work, but he still didn't pay), we just let the solicitor living in the block of flats do as he wished, which at the time was his not paying his maintenance fee and complaining about everything. It'll be some one else's job to collect the amount due if he ever moves.

Not So Wise
27th October 2010, 16:32
Anyone else feel that if you think you need one of these in place, you are marrying the wrong person?
Just another Lawyer Cash Cow if you ask me.

Panel????
Nope, i think they really should be mandatory (which would kill the lawyers cash cow).

Outside of the kids, by the time you hit the courts every part of a divorce is about money/possessions, basically a contract dispute where there is no written contract and a lot of negative emotions. Pre-nup is just basically putting that contract into writing, solving a lot of hassle/pain/stress/aggravation.

"Marrying the right person" is pretty immaterial, because odds are even if you do marry "the right one", you will still end up getting divorced within 20 odd years. People change over change and now that we live longer those changes can be even more pronounced, “one for me” today might be “your worst nightmare” in 20 years’ time

shaunbhoy
27th October 2010, 16:35
Nope, i think they really should be mandatory (which would kill the lawyers cash cow).

Outside of the kids, by the time you hit the courts every part of a divorce is about money/possessions, basically a contract dispute where there is no written contract and a lot of negative emotions. Pre-nup is just basically putting that contract into writing, solving a lot of hassle/pain/stress/aggravation.

"Marrying the right person" is pretty immaterial, because odds are even if you do marry "the right one", you will still end up getting divorced within 20 odd years. People change over change and now that we live longer those changes can be even more pronounced, “one for me” today might be “your worst nightmare” in 20 years’ time

What a cynical outlook. Are you divorced then?

alreadypacked
27th October 2010, 19:42
The hyperD will not be beaten, temporarily bruised maybe, but never, ever beaten! And will soar once more into the skies!

Sorry to hear that, but you seam to be getting over it.

But please tell me you have not taken up karaoke :tongue

hyperD
27th October 2010, 20:27
Sorry to hear that, but you seam to be getting over it.

But please tell me you have not taken up karaoke :tongue

:laugh

Rest assured alreadypacked, although as the guitarist in my old band, the guys ‘n’ girls were kind enough to give me a go on vocals for such songs as Basketcase and Teenage Dirtbag, there is absolutely no way I would inflict my untamed voice on an unsuspecting karaoke audience!

alreadypacked
27th October 2010, 21:18
:laugh

Rest assured alreadypacked, although as the guitarist in my old band, the guys ‘n’ girls were kind enough to give me a go on vocals for such songs as Basketcase and Teenage Dirtbag, there is absolutely no way I would inflict my untamed voice on an unsuspecting karaoke audience!

Mary Poppins I found another guitarist for you :music:

MaryPoppins
28th October 2010, 08:08
Mary Poppins I found another guitarist for you :music:

There's a lot of them about :laugh