World

More couples signing pre-nuptials

by generaldecay | September 26, 2009 at 02:53 am

74 views | 24 Recommendations | 4 comments

Family lawyers say they have seen a tenfold increase in recent years in couples signing pre-nuptial agreements on dividing their assets after divorce. Resolution, a group of 5,700 lawyers, says the number has doubled in a year, a BBC Breakfast investigation found.

I've always thought that pre-nuptial agreements are about the least romantic thing in the world. I mean, who wants to have a 'So, if/ when we get divorced, here's what will happen' conversation before they get married?! But, recently, I've started to think that they're perhaps a sensible measure to guard against messy and protracted divorce proceedings; particularly if children are involved.

It seems that others may be agreeing.

Lawyers say the increasing number of independently wealthy women, coupled with greater numbers of people marrying later in life with complicated family arrangements, has increased their popularity. Resolution's David Allison said: "There's been a tenfold increase in 'pre-nups'. I'm doing considerably more now than I have ever done before and that experience is mirrored around the rest of the country. "People are doing it because they want to be able to sort this stuff out now rather than later on."

That said, 'pre-nups' are not legally binding everywhere in the UK, but that may well change soon. It wouldn't be massively difficult for Westminster to push this legislation through, if it wanted to.

The agreements are enforceable in Scotland but not in England and Wales, although courts are paying more attention to them in their rulings. The Law Commission is to consult on their use in England and Wales. The Tories say they should become binding - but critics say people may feel pressured into signing them.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Pythiian1

at 07:11 on September 26th, 2009

I think although it might be unromantic, but practical when one party earns more than the other at the time of their union, and some people have chosen the 'insurance' to protect their original assets.

generaldecay

at 07:25 on September 26th, 2009

Pythiian1, you're right indeed. I find the importance of protecting one's interests from your chosen life partner depressing but I can absolutely see why it is so.

Thanks for the recommendation and comment.

Amy Judd

at 07:22 on September 26th, 2009

I think they are quite sensible, despite being miserable, but if I had lots of money (which I don't) I would want to protect it.

generaldecay

at 07:28 on September 26th, 2009

Amy, 'miserable' is exactly the word for it! And, yes, I don't think I will ever have enough money to need a 'pre-nup', but I can see why others may find it necessary. Sometimes it's good to be poor!

Thanks for the recommendation and comment. :)