BlueIris Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Definitely consult an attorney. At minimum, I’d want a clause that provides for changes if the two of you have children. Actually, I’d want a clause that the division of assets is inapplicable once a child is born. He will need to understand that if the prenup doesn’t protect you both, you will need to spend more time earning money and accumulating wealth than being supportive of his career, and being flexible and accommodating within the marriage. Just look at all the posts from folks that are upset that their spouse is working too much or is too absorbed in work. That’s what his prenup proposal does. It forces you to focus on career first. That’s fine, but he won’t have much right to complain later if you have to work when he wants to travel, or you have to work when the child is sick. You always have every right to say “no” unless the prenup protects you in all contingencies. You’re never compelled to capitulate to another person, spouse or not. Link to post Share on other sites
TiredFamilyGuy Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Cuppa The issue is, what is fair. My view on a practical level is that marriage a marriage is a partnership, usually for bringing up children together. If people bring very different levels of assets into the partnership, then I can concede the fairness of keeping ownership of that. But once inside it is my firm view that further fortunes are common and that any other view shows a distrust and lack of commitment that would make me question the relationship. There are many reasons for this. You are already investing in this relationship - your time, your existence, your willingness to have a child with him. It is usual for one partner to spend more time with the children than the other - if it is you will the agreement give you a greater share of *them* or compensate you for the knock to your career caused by maternity? You say " He offered a compromise that our savings our separate but our income is common.". So he will always be the rich one and have power and control in the relationship because the major assets are his. I would counter propose that for each year of the relationship a further 10% of all assets are pooled until ultimately 100% are common. You are investing too- your life - and if he is too distrustful to see that he is no fit spouse, whatever his other virtues. If you stay and then refuse to commit your time and energy to the marriage - he will have created for himself, what he evidently fears. I say, his attitude stinks. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Cuppajoe Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 I showed to my husband this thread. He said I omitted some info. He asked, "How can you not save if we do 70-30 or that when you are jobless, you will have half of my income? So that will still give you the opportunity to save. I just want to protect my savings in case this doesn't work while you can save yours." He continued "What if you don't save and when we divorce, you get half of what I have saved." Is this fair? He said I should be able to save given that we have our budget account, where all child and house expenses will be drawn. Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I showed to my husband this thread. He said I omitted some info. He asked, "How can you not save if we do 70-30 or that when you are jobless, you will have half of my income? So that will still give you the opportunity to save. I just want to protect my savings in case this doesn't work while you can save yours." He continued "What if you don't save and when we divorce, you get half of what I have saved." Is this fair? He said I should be able to save given that we have our budget account, where all child and house expenses will be drawn. What's all this 'mine and yours' business? You are married! When you are married you save together! Then you split the savings between you if you get divorced. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Cuppajoe Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 What's all this 'mine and yours' business? You are married! When you are married you save together! Then you split the savings between you if you get divorced. The thing is, if the clause is added, we will have separate savings and these individual savings will not be touched in the event of a divorce. Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The thing is, if the clause is added, we will have separate savings and these individual savings will not be touched in the event of a divorce. As I said before, unless your roles in the relationship are very unequal and you are lazing around doing very little (ie a lady of leisure - and that means no children) while he is working his socks off, then what is his justification for having 'mine' and 'yours' savings? To me, his attitude is very worrying. If he wants to keep all his money for himself then he shouldn't have got married! As TiredFamilyGuy says, your husband has all the power because his 'earnings' are higher, and he clearly thinks that he should retain all the power - that's not how a healthy marriage should be. I'm really shocked and I feel for you OP. Red flags all over the place as far as the eye can see! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eivuwan Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I don't think your husband understands what a marriage is. If he's going into it worrying excessively about protecting himself in the event of a divorce, then there is no marriage to speak of. A marriage is an equal partnership. He's treating this relationship as if you guys are still in the dating stage. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
clia Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I showed to my husband this thread. He said I omitted some info. He asked, "How can you not save if we do 70-30 or that when you are jobless, you will have half of my income? So that will still give you the opportunity to save. I just want to protect my savings in case this doesn't work while you can save yours." He continued "What if you don't save and when we divorce, you get half of what I have saved." Is this fair? He said I should be able to save given that we have our budget account, where all child and house expenses will be drawn. His concern is crystal clear. You are both in your 30s and he's a saver. Given that you don't have any savings, pension, or anything else and you are in your 30s, you do not seem to be a saver. It's the story of the ant and the grasshopper. I think the two of you need to address this issue. Financially, he doesn't trust you. I absolutely agree that if you have to take time off work to raise a family that you should not be penalized for that and should be entitled to something. However, aside from that issue...what's wrong with both of you having your own savings accounts? If the marriage works out, it's a moot point anyway, isn't it? If it doesn't work out, you take what you've saved and go your separate ways. Just playing Devil's advocate... Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 His concern is crystal clear. You are both in your 30s and he's a saver. Given that you don't have any savings, pension, or anything else and you are in your 30s, you do not seem to be a saver. It's the story of the ant and the grasshopper. I think the two of you need to address this issue. Financially, he doesn't trust you. I absolutely agree that if you have to take time off work to raise a family that you should not be penalized for that and should be entitled to something. However, aside from that issue...what's wrong with both of you having your own savings accounts? If the marriage works out, it's a moot point anyway, isn't it? If it doesn't work out, you take what you've saved and go your separate ways. Just playing Devil's advocate... The OP was a student prior to the marriage, and continued with her studies after her marriage - that's what I understood by her post. It's pretty difficult for anyone to start accumulating either money or material assets until they are in employment. Perhaps any money she has earned has been put back into paying for her studies, which is an admirable way of spending in my view. Unless the OP is actually struggling to pay her debts, I don't see that her husband has any reason not to trust her financially. Having their own savings accounts is still a 'mine' and 'yours' mentality, and there is no way a marriage is going to survive if even one partner thinks that way. Cuppajoe, it's a shame this wasn't discussed before the wedding because it seems to me you're going to be the underdog in this relationship for as long as it lasts. Link to post Share on other sites
lucy_in_disguise Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Is there a chance he is planning to divorce you soon and is hoping to get this post nup set up to facilitate that? His view of marriage definitely differs from most peoples interpretation of the concept. Link to post Share on other sites
CarrieT Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I showed to my husband this thread. What did he say about you getting legal representation? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
clia Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The OP was a student prior to the marriage, and continued with her studies after her marriage - that's what I understood by her post. It's pretty difficult for anyone to start accumulating either money or material assets until they are in employment. Perhaps any money she has earned has been put back into paying for her studies, which is an admirable way of spending in my view. Unless the OP is actually struggling to pay her debts, I don't see that her husband has any reason not to trust her financially. And that's your opinion. My point is merely that her husband doesn't trust her financially -- either to save or to consistently work. That's what is driving this new postnup clause. She needs to talk to him to find out why he feels that way. Obviously it's great to spend money on education. But that is a lot of years that she has been spending money on her education and he has been saving his money. If you are a saver and earning good money it is possible to have quite a nest egg built up by your 30s. I can honestly understand why he might feel worried at her lack of savings at this point. Having their own savings accounts is still a 'mine' and 'yours' mentality, and there is no way a marriage is going to survive if even one partner thinks that way. I don't know about that. I know plenty of married people who keep separate savings accounts. I think the dynamics change when the married couple is older so they individually have assets accumulated and/or both partners are professionals making good incomes. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Cuppajoe Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 I got my education on a scholarship. Since I live in another country, I have to find ways how to support myself. I've worked as a dish washer, cleaner, delivering news papers at 3 in the morning to make ends meet. Now that I'm done, I'm hoping to find a good paying job. My husband proposed that we should have equal savings every month even though I earn less. Whoever has the higher income compensates for the person's monthly savings so that we will have equal savings after common expenses. We are trying to find a solution that is fair to both parties. We plan to go to a lawyer next week for legal advice and so that we can move on. Link to post Share on other sites
LittleTiger Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 I got my education on a scholarship. Since I live in another country, I have to find ways how to support myself. I've worked as a dish washer, cleaner, delivering news papers at 3 in the morning to make ends meet. Now that I'm done, I'm hoping to find a good paying job. My husband proposed that we should have equal savings every month even though I earn less. Whoever has the higher income compensates for the person's monthly savings so that we will have equal savings after common expenses. We are trying to find a solution that is fair to both parties. We plan to go to a lawyer next week for legal advice and so that we can move on. If one of you is going to subsidise the other's savings account so that you have equal savings, how is that different from a joint savings account that you split equally if you divorce? In fact what is the point of separate finances if he's now agreeing to ensure that you're going to share all the money 50/50? None of this makes any sense. I would advise you to get your own lawyer, separately from your husband. You need someone working independently for your best interests. This is way more complicated than you seem to think. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Eivuwan Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 If one of you is going to subsidise the other's savings account so that you have equal savings, how is that different from a joint savings account that you split equally if you divorce? In fact what is the point of separate finances if he's now agreeing to ensure that you're going to share all the money 50/50? None of this makes any sense. I would advise you to get your own lawyer, separately from your husband. You need someone working independently for your best interests. This is way more complicated than you seem to think. Yeah this makes no sense Link to post Share on other sites
TiredFamilyGuy Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 (edited) Cuppa Trying really hard, I can just about see the potential workability of the 50:50 pooled income idea. Maybe. Provided it includes all income from every possible source, all reasonable expenses are entirely shared, and it is not just a way to cut you out of any good fortune (an ugly thought, very ugly - but that's what this is about, distrust and ugly thoughts). Will this mean all purchasing decisions then become tedious negotiation as to whether they are common expenses? "You want to do some gardening or decorating? That's your budget. Medical expenses too. And travel. And lunch.....". Only you can judge whether that is the case. Actually you make him sound like a pretty straight up guy in this respect. It does sound like, he may think you will burn through your budget so he needs a firewall against what another poster called "The Grasshopper and the Ant" scenario. Some people are indeed spendthrift like that (my brother's wife! She shops for leisure. It drove him nuts!). Excuse the query, but is there an issue to divulge here where your husband thinks you spend too much on shoes, on gifts or some such, or is it just that he sees his needs as being few compared to yours ( excepting the occasional international scuba)? Or does he regard it as a way to avoid conflict, because he does not like having budget discussions? " He said I omitted some info. He asked, "How can you not save if we do 70-30 or that when you are jobless, you will have half of my income? So that will still give you the opportunity to save. I just want to protect my savings in case this doesn't work while you can save yours." He continued "What if you don't save and when we divorce, you get half of what I have saved." That last sentence, I can see I think where he is coming from. He is afraid you will take him for a ride. You are now also afraid that he will protect his interests so very well, that he will risk nothing in this marriage and so will not be invested in it, while you would bear any children. Following that line of thought, if you break up and there are children, what then? Would they not deserve a share of the family home to establish a separate home with? Hard question. Obvious answer is yes. How then would this be provided for? Not a nice thing to consider, but you would need an answer to this. Clearly, you must both feel equally at risk, in order to have a marriage worthy of the name. For him to raise this now, *after* your marriage with a pre-nup already, means he is super-distrustful and it is hard to see what you have done to merit that. Marriage is *all about trust*, created by communication in pursuit of a common enterprise- the creation of a mini civilisation. I would accept 50:50 only with great reluctance. 70:30? Sorry but that is just a negotiation for advantage too far. Motherhood is not unemployment even in Copenhagen. Danes are a free pragmatic people. I hope you develop a fair trusting and committed marriage. He is no doubt a splendid fellow in many respects and we do not know his entire mind. Good luck to the both of you. Edited April 26, 2014 by TiredFamilyGuy 2 Link to post Share on other sites
CarrieT Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 We plan to go to a lawyer next week for legal advice and so that we can move on. You misunderstand. He must have a lawyer to protect HIS interests and YOU must have your own lawyer to protect your interests. The two lawyers negotiate between themselves. Not a single lawyer representing both of you; it won't work that way. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
TiredFamilyGuy Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Cuppa - I draw your attention to the "Newlyweds merging finances" thread in the same forum. One last thought, it is broadly a good thing for the partners in a marriage to have equal or near equal power over the finances, not for one to hold an advantage over the other. It is good for the marriage, not just the individuals. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Cuppajoe Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 Damn, I just wrote a long response and it's gone. We have been talking over and over again about the issue and most of the time, we end up fighting. We agreed not to decide as of now and to call for a truce. We will talk to a lawyer together. I availed one of those free legal counsel provided by non-profit org. What the lawyer said me sad. He said: "Why did you two get married? Marriage is all about the willingness to support each other." He explained that prenups are common in DK but this clause isn't. Upon hearing this, I thought to myself, "wow, my husband is asking to much." The lawyer said I should get me a lawyer before I sign anything. But I reckoned, both my husband and I should talk to one so that we BOTH hear what the lawyer has to say. I told him, I will only make a decision if we have a legal mediator. During our intense arguments (or fights), I offered divorce but he said no. I told him it would be the practical thing to do since we have not invested much into the relationship and to the house. He said no. This is also how we differ in thinking. This clause for me is a close-to-separating issue while it isn't for him. He said, we will have more serious discussions e.g. the religion of the child, where the child goes to school, where we live. During our heated arguments, I told him "Imposing the clause would mean you can get out of this marriage easily, considering how your assets are protected." And he answered, "I sold my house so that we can meet halfway and live here. I paid a huge guarantee money (for Danes married to foreigners). If we buy a house (we are currently renting an apartment because we cannot decide if where to buy a house due to work locations for him and me), I will take money from my savings for the downpayment. And you tell me it will be easy for me to get out of this marriage?" You probably will not believe this but , we love each other. We truly do. My husband has paid for my trips to home and most of our travels. And about me, my husband knows for a fact that I'm cheap. My computer is 6 years old and I've never bought a cellphone thinking that somebody will soon get rid of their phone to buy a new one. I only love clothes (and well, sandwiches) but I don't go shopping galore and I don't have lavish hobbies, like most Danish women do. In that sense, my husband has no reason to believe I will squander our money. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Cuppajoe Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 Sometimes, I asked myself it is possible to love someone and yet, not share his/her finances (or savings) to the other person. The 70-30 is an agreement that while I am receiving benefits for my unemployment, I will only pay 30% of the monthly contribution for monthly expenses. If I don't have a job, then he pays 100% which he has done for 4 months before I get my benefits. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Cuppajoe Posted April 26, 2014 Author Share Posted April 26, 2014 Marriage sucks. When I asked the lawyer if he was married, he said no. And then I told him, "take your time." 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Tayla Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Cuppajoe- may help to know that your contract may well NOT be enforceable under contract law. Take it to a lawyer for review , without your spouse! Unlike others here, I co-existed in a relationship that very much kept finances earned in separate accounts. It worked out splendidly! Realisitically its not about Trust, its about protecting your well fair. Which even in a marriage, it still remains. Co-mingled funds often leaves an imbalance in contribution....and an imbalanced anything is going to need corrected...IMHO Your husband and you can get thru this, he and you both have reasonable arguements and with that a reasonable solution can be had. Seek counsel. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts