What do you think?

B**r the money! Does she really love him for himself or not?
That should always be the issue otherwise she is just a gold digger.
She could just end up unhappy but rich.

Was that comment directed at me, Fairydoll?
I have read the whole thread. In fact, I was the second to comment. I haven't changed my mind. I think that if she has to ask these questions, and he is keeping secrets from her, there is no trust for marriage.

Elegran

I don't think she has a moral right to know the details of his inheritance, though I do believe that it is more healthy for a couple to be open about their finances. I don't believe she has a right to have access to his business account, either moral or any other right. A business is a unit of its own, and it is probably a private or a public company. The fewer people who have access to the account the more secure it is.

I suppose it depends what she means by "access". I have assumed she means access to the money in it, but perhaps she just means she wants to know how much it is worth. It sounds very much like a Victorian papa enquiring into a suitor's prospects to make sure he can keep his daughter in the manner to which she would like to become accustomed.

I don't know, dj - they seem to have a common interest in money. He has lots and she would like access to it.

I wish posters would read the WHOLE thread before they comment....

But they are not married yet, so divorce doesn't come into it.
It doesn't look to me that they should get married.
Not much common ground in it.

The original idea in starting this thread was to canvas opinion on whether someone - in this case the fiancée - had a moral 'right' to know the details of her fiance's inheritance and also access to his business account.
Despite what the law says on division of marital assets on divorce, judges don't always follow the 'rules' absolutely. I remember my brother being given specific legal advice by his solicitor about how his financial hearing with his ex wife would probably proceed, but it turned out completely different. His solicitor was 'surprised.'
So, googling the law isn't always helpful when it comes to division of marital assets!

I don't think they're always enforceable though, Elegran - again a lot depends on the view of the particular Court or Judge.

Many problem page letters are composed by editorial staff I believe.

Well , in Cheltenham, at least.

My quote above was from the page we have both been reading, ana - a solicitor in Cheltenham, so they must be legal in this country.

" . . . [In a certain case] the wife sought an equal division of the total assets of the marriage worth in the region of £15 million. The husband’s position was that [a prenuptial] agreement excluded the sharing of particular pre-acquired assets and that the wife should be held to the agreement she signed. It is therefore of upmost importance if, you wish to consider protecting assets acquired prior to a marriage, to consider preparing a pre or post-nuptial agreement to make clear your understanding as to how pre-acquired assets ought to be treated in the instance of divorce. "

Are they legal/recognised in this country, roses?

Elegran, I love the reply I've seen somewhere (maybe on here) 'Remember, Google is your friend...'

" . . . the overriding principle is that the fruits of the marriage are shared equally. Matrimonial assets, not just limited to the marital home, can include land, businesses, shares and stocks, and antiques etc that may have been brought into the marriage or civil partnership by one party, but because of the course of dealings during the relationship, these may or may not become a marital asset."

I think he needs to get her to sign a pre-nuptial agreement

Good old Google! (I do sometimes feel like replying to a question on here from a poster with "Have you never thought of searching online yourself? Is is very easy" )

It is in this respect that pre-acquired assets or inherited assets, or even on some occasions assets acquired after separation, may be considered wholly or partially within the remit of the Court to be considered fruits of the marriage to be shared by both parties.

Exactly.

Yes, I think we must have read the same article, Elegran!

Ana "The overriding objective of the Judge is to determine a division of assets which best achieves a fair outcome for the parties. . . . . includes the financial needs and obligations of the parties to the marriage or civil partnership. It is in this respect that pre-acquired assets or inherited assets, or even on some occasions assets acquired after separation, may be considered wholly or partially within the remit of the Court to be considered fruits of the marriage to be shared by both parties. There is no simple formulaic or mathematical approach. It is a broad consideration as to the value of the assets and the financial needs of the parties, with the Judge exercising his or her discretion as to what he or she believes is fair. "
www.hughes-paddison.co.uk/news/matrimonial-finance-upon-divorce.aspx

So she would be better not to count his chickens too soon - and I can see why he is being cagey on saying too much about his finances!

I think the way assets are divided by the Courts (if no agreement can be reached between the parties) can vary greatly. It certainly isn't the case that any money acquired before the marriage is not counted.

I would think the length of the marriage is taken into consideration as well, so if she is a gold-digger she'd better be prepared to stay the course for a while at least!

He inherited the money before they knew each other. My understanding is that it is assets acquired during the marriage which are divided up?
Having said that, I have read of women marrying rich men, ditching them after a brief marriage and ending up being awarded vast sums to enable them to continue to live in the style to which they had (briefly) become accustomed.

I agree with you that expecting to have access to his business bank account, before they're even married, is a bit much! Why would she expect it?

I think he's wise not to give too much away at the moment, and the fact that she's actually written to an Agony Aunt about it is strange...

Elegran, she would have a claim on his inheritance if they divorced, as it would be lumped together with the rest of his assets.

He has no reason to allow her access to his business bank account. Why should he, unless she is to become a partner in the business? Does he take a regular income from the business? Being open about that is one thing, but giving free access to a business account is not something for him to lightly consider - his auditors would not be pleased to hear that. And what if the business should fail, and her access to the account made her liable for losses and debts?

As regards his legacy - she has no claim on that, and will never have, as he received it before he knew her. Disclosing the amount is up to him, too. It may be that she feels that he doesn't trust her enough to be open - but then on the other hand perhaps he feels that she may just be "after his money" Maybe he has had his fingers burnt previously? Maybe he feels she will expect to live high on the hog and have it all spent on her?

If they marry and live together, then they will need a joint bank account for those things that they buy together. What each contributes to that needs to be discussed.

I don't think she should take advice from anyone else on this. she should rely on her own gut instinct. Is he mean with his money? Is he secretive about other things? Would she have been happy to marry him without this legacy? (which seems to be causing more trouble than happiness) Why did she consult an agony aunt, it sounds as though she is not sure whether she really wants to marry him?