|
IN ADDITION to sorting out the traditional last-minute wedding details, Michelle Smith is squeezing in a few other arrangements before her big day. Tomorrow, between her dress fitting and the writing of her vows, the 32-year-old sales director will pick up her husband-to-be and they will iron out the final creases of their prenuptial agreement.
"It hardly has the romance of Romeo and Juliet, I know," says Michelle, laughing as she flicks through Brides magazine. "But then, Shakespeare is a work of fiction; life's not like that."
After a painfully drawn-out divorce from her childhood sweetheart more than 10 years ago, the Glaswegian set herself two golden rules: never marry again and always be self-sufficient. She might have happily failed on one count but just one month before her second marriage to Richard, a financial broker with whom she has lived for six years, Michelle is far from apologetic about her hard-headed decision for a prenup.
"I was lucky," she explains. "Richard is in his late 30s and like me has accrued his own wealth both in a flat and in personal savings. It took him a while to understand my desire for a prenup but now he agrees that it has only helped the relationship to get the financial baggage out of the way early on."
The arrangement is nothing to be ashamed of, she insists. "Few people want to carry their partner financially these days. It's about being bold and realising that life can sometimes let you down. What it doesn't mean is that I love Richard any less or want to imagine my life at any stage without him."
The couple represent a growing breed. Increasingly, the realities of modern life are leading people to enter into marriage with a contingency plan in hand. The signing of a prenuptial agreement - once the preserve of Hollywood actors and rock stars attempting to protect fortunes - is becoming ever more common among the financially independent middle classes.
Rising personal wealth, complex pension arrangements and soaring property values have combined with the trend of marrying later in life and often more than once to set a tariff on true love in the 21st century.
For better or worse, not everyone is quite so calculating in their approach to matrimony. The very public demise of Sir Paul McCartney's short-lived marriage to Heather Mills has led to feverish speculation about how much it will cost the former Beatle in the divorce courts.
Mills revealed last week that she had offered to sign a prenup but McCartney, 63, who earned more than £50m last year alone, rejected the idea as unromantic. For his views, he will pay dearly: legal experts suggest Mills, 38, could claim up to £200 million of her spouse's £825 million fortune, a staggering £1 million for each week of their four-year marriage.
Divorce lawyer Alan Kaufman was quick to balk at what he saw as McCartney's sentimentality: "I advise all my clients to get one [a prenup], particularly if they are on their second marriages. It would certainly have given Sir Paul a much better shot and I bet he's bloody sorry now he didn't have one."
More and more people are taking Kaufman's view. A new survey by financial advisers Grant Thornton found 99% of matrimonial lawyers reporting rising or stable levels of demand for pre-nuptial agreements in 2005. Many believe high-profile divorces are the reason, along with celebrity prenups such as the one agreed by actors Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas. Some 35% of matrimonial lawyers also reported significant business in 'living together' or co-habitation agreements.
The divorce courts are changing. It is now the norm rather than the exception for family wealth to be divided equally between husband and wife, regardless of who earned what during the marriage. Grant Thornton found that the number of divorces in which family wealth was split 50/50 rose to 63% in 2005, more than doubling the previous year's 30%.
That has prompted warring partners to try to hide the extent of their wealth - last year it is estimated that 16% of divorcing couples hid financial assets from their spouse. People are also becoming craftier at finding ways to strengthen their case in the courts: 18% of divorcing couples used a private investigator when they suspected their spouse was being unfaithful. Surprisingly, given that in 86% of cases last year it was the men who were being petitioned for divorce on the grounds of adultery, almost as many husbands as wives hired investigators.
Andrea McLaren, a specialist in financial settlements from divorce at Grant Thornton, said: "Couples attempt to hide assets from one another to avoid them becoming part of the 'pot of wealth' which is to be split. If conduct becomes a consideration factor in splitting the family wealth, the phenomenon is undoubtedly set to become more frequent."
Despite the fact that pre-nuptial agreements in the UK do not bind the hands of the courts, they can carry a great deal of weight. "In the UK, especially when children are not involved, judges will regard prenups as a guide to the couple's original intentions of splitting assets in the event of a divorce, but they are not bound to follow them to the letter," McLaren said.
Legally binding or not, it is right that the actions of couples change with the times, according to one Scottish family and child law specialist, Alasdair Docwra. "Prenups have become a far greater part of what we do," he said. "More and more marriages are taking place a little later on, meaning that people are coming into a marriage with property to consider. Often too, they are getting married for a second time and may have been privy to a bad experience.
"It's not all about being negative. It's about an increasing awareness that sometimes things are not forever. When we deal with divorces, our closing advice is always: "In the future, if you remarry, you should continue a prenup."
A greater understanding of the well-publicised fragilities of modern marriage has contributed to the current climate. In short, people are going into it with their eyes open. Four in every 10 first marriages are likely to fail, rising to seven out of 10 second marriages, according to the charity Marriage Care. Even more startling is that the Office of National Statistics has calculated the duration of the average marriage to be just 11.3 years.
It is likely these statistics will deteriorate further. Between the ages of 45 and 54, the proportion of people married is projected to fall from 71% in 2003 to 48% in 2031 for men, and from 72% to 50% for women. Since 1997 alone the number of single-parent families in Scotland has soared by 24% - from 140,000 to 174,000.
With such gloomy figures, it is little wonder that young couples, and not just wealthy older men with trophy second and third wives, are developing a cool-headed approach to the business of marriage.
Jacqueline Fitzgerald, of legal firm Lee & Pembertons, which includes matrimonial and family law among its specialist areas, said: "People are savvier now than ever before. Many people have had their fingers burned when a first marriage failed and want to protect their assets the second time round. Even those marrying for the first time are taking an interest because they generally leave it later in life to get married and typically bring more accumulated wealth to the marriage or have inherited prosperity they want to protect."
A need to protect individual property bought before the union is a big factor. Almost one in five single people have bought property in the past two years. Paul Cooper, head of mortgages at Alliance & Leicester, said: "The fact that single people look set to play a big part in the property market reflects the times we live in."
Research last year revealed that more British women than men would like to safeguard their property and cash in case their marriage should break down. And while many couples set up joint bank accounts, a survey of 100,000 customers found that nearly half of them also chose to maintain separate accounts to maintain some individual control of their cash.
"People look at marriage through a romantic haze, but it's actually a business contract," said clinical psychologist Kathleen Cox. "Couples need to look beyond the big day and the meringue dress and the honeymoon in an exotic location."
Not everyone takes that view, however. Andrea Grey, 29, is getting married for the first time next year, to her partner Paul, and is horrified by the rise in prenups. "It may be the glory ticket of celebs but to me it stabs at the heart of what true love is about," said the Aberdeen charity worker. "Of course no one walks into marriage with their eyes closed these days but equally there has to be a level of faith. I am absolutely for the 'what's yours is mine' philosophy. I don't expect it to be a bed of roses but if it all crumbles I will pick up the pieces in my own way, without the help of lawyers. It doesn't mean I don't have my own individual assets to bring to the marital table, but at the end of the day, a prenup is about dealing in goods, not emotions - that's not right."
Terry Prendergast, chief executive of Marriage Care, which counsels couples on coping with the strains of wedlock, agrees. "Of course a number of high-profile cases hit the headlines, but this is certainly not something that we would support. The very suggestion of a prenup means that the inference is on an impending breakdown of some sort. We're not in the habit of advocating that. It's not our view and it's certainly not our belief that people should go into a marriage thinking like that: it shows a total lack of belief in what marriage should be about. It's our job to give people the skills to get through their problems without that, and many of them do."
Ultimately, different people will take different views. Michelle Smith believes the growing trend in prenups signifies an important shift. "My generation is often referred to as the 'Bridget Jones generation', flailing around looking for something - or someone - to save us. The reality couldn't be more different. Both singletons and those in a relationship are more independent than ever before. Of course people are getting married later and divorce rates are still high but that's no longer shrouded in taboo: it's simply something for us to take on board and deal with accordingly."
Andrea Grey disagrees: "I would have been absolutely devastated if my partner had suggested it to me. I can't imagine anything more unromantic. In fact if he has suggested it, I would have turned him down flat for both the prenup and the wedding."
| 
