# Pre nup agreements - legal?



## user123456 (11 Apr 2007)

Are these legal in Ireland? Can a party to such an agreement go to court to have it declared void as it is contary to the law?


----------



## ajapale (11 Apr 2007)

I think this topic has been raised here already. Try searching.


----------



## user123456 (11 Apr 2007)

I did thanks. Found nothing of use to me.


----------



## ajapale (11 Apr 2007)

Im sure there is one I just cant find it.

In any case Im sure that these agreements have no standing either in the Republic or in the UK.


----------



## Z100 (11 Apr 2007)

user123456 said:


> I did thanks. Found nothing of use to me.



There's some discussion about pre-nuptials here 

Also found this on an Irish solicitor's website:

*Pre-nuptial Agreements *

Agreements between two people about to get married which outlines who gets what if a marriage ends have become popular, mostly in the United States. However, there is no legal basis in Irish law for such agreements. 

These agreements may be seen as similar to an agreed contract between two parties and based on this, it may have a basis in law. In the event of a marriage breakdown, one party can go to court and sue for breach of the contract (i.e. the pre-nuptial agreement).

*PS*

(1) "However, there is no legal basis in Irish law for such agreements". 

(2) "These agreements may be seen as similar to an agreed contract between two parties and based on this, it may have a basis in law".

Is this not a contradiction?


----------



## ajapale (11 Apr 2007)

Also some discussion 
*Married Couple division of bills - Page 3 - Askaboutmoney.com*

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php


----------



## woods (11 Apr 2007)

I think that Case Law may come in to play here and all it will take is for one person to go in to court and have it accepted.
This may be possible if it does not deprive the other party of their basic rights and protection under the law and that the kids have been catered for.
I think that someone should chance it (as a favor to the rest of us).


----------



## bond-007 (11 Apr 2007)

There are still 6 years to run on mine. I still think they can be enforced if there are no childeren and everyone is agreeable.


----------



## rebeller (11 Apr 2007)

user123456 said:


> Are these legal in Ireland? Can a party to such an agreement go to court to have it declared void as it is contary to the law?



 As the law currently stands? No.  Pre-nuptial agreements are contracts. The courts will not enforce certain contracts which are against &quot;public policy&quot; (i.e. contracts that are immoral, illegal etc.).  Because of the special status afforded to marriage in our constitution any agreement/contract that purports to restrict or otherwise interfere with a person's right to marry or that devalues the institution of marriage itself will likely be struck down by the courts (i.e. they will not enable you to enforce it).  Pre-nup agreements are concerned with what will happen when a marriage breaks down. The fact that the agreement is made in contemplation of the break down of marriage (i.e. marriage is not being viewed as a lifetime commitment) will lead the courts to view such agreements as contrary to public policy.  However, since the intro of divorce in 1996 (Family Law Divorce Act 1996) it could be argued that the institution of marriage has already been diluted to a certain extent so that it is only a matter of time before the courts here enforce pre-nups. A number of recent family court decisions have suggested that the courts may be more favourable to the idea.   IMHO it's only a matter of time.


----------



## woods (11 Apr 2007)

rebeller said:


> Because of the special status afforded to marriage in our constitution any agreement/contract that purports to restrict or otherwise interfere with a person's right to marry or that devalues the institution of marriage itself .


It could be argued that the lack of a pre nup acts as a dissencentive to marriage and therefore against the constitution.
Why would anybody who has spent a number of years building up assets get married when the partner can trade them in for a younger model after 2 years and take half of what they have worked hard to get.


----------



## bond-007 (11 Apr 2007)

You have to look at the situation of say a sucessful business man who has substantial assests who gets married to a woman of no means. Say 2 years later she gets fed up and has an affair with another man, husband finds out. To get rid of her, he is going to have to give her everything even though he is the injured party. Not right from a legal or even a moral standpoint. The law should protect people against such carpet baggers.


----------



## Dreamerb (12 Apr 2007)

(1) Pre-nuptial contracts are not currently recognised in Irish law. See following link for some background information:

[broken link removed]

(2) The Tánaiste has appointed an expert group to examine the specific issue.

(3) Contrary to suggestions here, family law in Ireland does not require a 50:50 division of assets: however, spouses in divorce cases and children of the marriage must be appropriately provided for. 

Indications in some of the "big money" cases are that (a) behaviour of either spouse can have a bearing on settlements reached, and (b) that the origin of the assets may have a bearing on the courts' decisions. 

They are not enforceable contracts as stand, but if (and only if) a divorce is amicable there is no reason the parties should not choose to use any pre-nup as a model for final settlement. A party to such an agreement is not, however, currently bound by the terms of the contract, which is superceded by the marriage itself.


----------



## woods (12 Apr 2007)

bond-007 said:


> You have to look at the situation of say a sucessful business man who has substantial assests who gets married to a woman of no means. Say 2 years later she gets fed up and has an affair with another man, husband finds out. To get rid of her, he is going to have to give her everything even though he is the injured party. Not right from a legal or even a moral standpoint. The law should protect people against such carpet baggers.


You have to look at the situation of say a sucessful business woman who has substantial assests who gets married to a man of no means. Say 2 years later he gets fed up and has an affair with another woman, wife finds out. To get rid of him, she is going to have to give him everything even though she is the injured party. Not right from a legal or even a moral standpoint. The law should protect people against such carpet baggers.


----------



## bond-007 (12 Apr 2007)

Of course it should work both ways. 

I am a firm believer that the offending spouse should pay. Why should the injured party have to pay for the sins of the other. The current divorce system is nothing short of a carpet baggers charter.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 May 2009)

Any update on the wisdom of Pre-nups? 

I have always advocated people who buy a house together should have an agreement in place beforehand. 

I would have thought it even more important for people getting married. A solicitor told a friend of mine that a pre-nup was worthless. My view is that there is no disadvantage to a pre-nup.

Brendan


----------



## mf1 (13 May 2009)

In my view, many people entering into the marriage contract do not consider that what they are doing is essentially entering into a contract to care for each other - in all ways, including financially. A lot of people find it distasteful to talk money when romance is in the air. Considering that disagreements about monetary issues are one of the biggest sources of discord , this is really quite remarkable. 

I am a great believer in getting it all out there in the open - in advance of the wedding day out. Talk about money, kids, family, future. 

And I agree with Brendan that there is no (legal) disadvantage to a pre-nup. But it is not a romantic concept. 

mf


----------



## Brianne (13 May 2009)

I think that as marriage is a legal contract which in the event of breakdown has potentially serious implications for not only those directly involved but also the greater society, there should be a legal requirement that a prenuptial agreement be part of the process. 
When you think of the legalities that are involved in buying a house, one would imagine that surely the more serious contract of marriage would have more legalities attached. 
As a lot of people aren't that interested in the serious legalities of Church marriage, maybe if the legal side of marriage had more emphasis, it would concentrate the mind.
The present situation is ridiculous and suits nobody. It should be more equitable and the family courts should be open to more scrutiny.


----------



## NicolaM (13 May 2009)

Mf1,
There may be no legal disadvantage to a pre-nup, but if it isn't currently enforceable under Irish law, there is no advantage either, as there would be no legal protection offered by it.

Does anyone know the current legal status?

Nicola


----------



## bond-007 (13 May 2009)

No change. 

They are not worth the paper they are written on.


----------



## NicolaM (13 May 2009)

Ergo...

Actually as unromantic as this sounds, I would have issue with 50%  of my (solely, hard earned, even if now, sadly, in negative equity  ) asset(s) belonging to someone else on signing a marriage register

Nicola


----------



## mf1 (13 May 2009)

NicolaM said:


> Mf1,
> There may be no legal disadvantage to a pre-nup, but if it isn't currently enforceable under Irish law, there is no advantage either, as there would be no legal protection offered by it.



I suspect that they will become more used and I think that the legislators should look at making them enforceable BUT, until that happens, having one would at least concentrate peoples minds on the long term issues when entering into a marriage. 

Brianne
"The present situation is ridiculous and suits nobody. It should be more equitable and the family courts should be open to more scrutiny."

You have to give three months notice of marriage. That is enough time for anyone to consider what they are doing. Human nature resists it though - always has, always will. 

Our marriage break up laws are actually very good and very fair. Most cases settle - allowing the parties themselves to regulate their break up. Often, settlement comes only after a lot of very unrealistic expectations are buried by the parties' lawyers. I am a practising family lawyer and the only issue I have  are the waiting times. None, I repeat, none of my clients want their private affairs opened up any more publicly than is necessary in a Family Law Court. So I'm not sure what you mean by more scrutiny - who would do that?

mf


----------



## dereko1969 (13 May 2009)

Brianne said:


> As a lot of people aren't that interested in the serious legalities of Church marriage


 what are these serious *legalities* of Church marriage? Impacts on Canon Law? They don't have civil law implications but State marriage does.


----------



## bond-007 (13 May 2009)

Was there not be an agency that would report on family law cases with all names removed etc? 


> Our marriage break up laws are actually very good and very fair.


Would you not agree that the current laws are a carpet baggers charter? An adulterous spouse can get away unpunished and take 50% of the innocent persons processions. Hardly fair now.


----------



## mf1 (13 May 2009)

bond-007 said:


> Was there not be an agency that would report on family law cases with all names removed etc?
> 
> Would you not agree that the current laws are a carpet baggers charter? An adulterous spouse can get away unpunished and take 50% of the innocent persons processions. Hardly fair now.



The rule is proper provision. That is not a carpet baggers charter. Most cases I see involve people who have been married for a long time. Short marriages/ no kids are entirely different to the long term ones. 

I've never gotten the idea of "punishing" - it does not change anything. The marriage will still be over. We have a "no fault" system of marital break up law. In 25 years of practice, I have  never seen someone " take 50% of an innocent persons possessions".  I've seen plenty of guys who want to keep everything, claiming that  their wives just sat at home doing nothing ( forgetting the child rearing and provision of home life which enabled them to acquire assets), women who made their husbands lives miserable and wonder why he left them, control freaks ( both genders), mental illness, physical illness,  selfishness, greed, self absorption, and, equally, situations where the marriage was never a good idea and separation is the only answer. 

One other thing, I have a view that people behave in break up the way they behaved in the marriage. So, if they were lazy, feckless and idle...........it won't change in the break up. 

mf


----------



## Faultless (13 May 2009)

I myself obtained a fault divorce in New York a few years back. 

The advantages are that it dispenses with all the waiting periods and attempts at reconciliation that no fault requires. I simply got the divorce on the grounds that  she was an adulterous. The best thing about this was that despite her having very little assets of her own I did not have to give her one penny in alimony, that is the punishment for her behavior. 

Also fault divorce stops the carpet baggers from stealing a persons assets where they intentionally  break up a relationship to get money out of the other spouse. 

It is about time the laws in Ireland were changed.


----------



## bond-007 (13 May 2009)

Faultless said:


> The advantages are that it dispenses with all the waiting periods and attempts at reconciliation that no fault requires. I simply got the divorce on the grounds that  she was an adulterous. The best thing about this was that despite her having very little assets of her own I did not have to give her one penny in alimony, that is the punishment for her behavior.


Good man yourself. What was her reaction?



Faultless said:


> Also fault divorce stops the carpet baggers from stealing a persons assets where they intentionally  break up a relationship to get money out of the other spouse.


Indeed. Something the legal profession here seems to disagree with.



Faultless said:


> It is about time the laws in Ireland were changed.


Again, the legal profession are not too keen on that.


----------



## mf1 (13 May 2009)

"Also fault divorce stops the carpet baggers from stealing a persons assets where they intentionally break up a relationship to get money out of the other spouse."

Yeh, I know. Jayze, the poor sucker who freely gets married to someone who is so patently setting it all up to rip him off. There really should be a law against that. 

And Bond, I have yet to see any case anywhere where there were not, in fact, two people involved , both of whom shared  a great deal of responsibility for the marriage and the break up. One of the biggest issues is actually staying with someone and allowing the marriage to perpetuate long after the best reasons to separate have surfaced. 

mf


----------



## bond-007 (13 May 2009)

Fair enough mf1.


----------

