The prenuptial agreement: a conversation you don't have to lose

“Dad says it would be sensible for us to sign an agreement before the wedding. Because of the company.”

The sentence drops on a Saturday morning, over coffee and a conversation about which relatives to invite. The person who says it tries to slip it in casually, as if it were just another item on the list, somewhere between the cake and the music. The person who hears it falls silent for a moment. Then says: “Oh. Of course.” And for the rest of the day something in the flat feels different.

A prenuptial agreement is a legal document. But the conversation about it is almost never a legal conversation. It is a conversation about trust, about security, about how much we are one and how much we are still each our own. And about who else is sitting at the table when a couple makes decisions about their life together — even when, physically, there are only two of them.

This post is not legal advice and cannot replace it. What an agreement can contain, how it is made and what it means for you are questions for a lawyer or a notary. I write about the other part: the emotions the conversation stirs up, and how to have it so that you don’t come out of it further apart than when you went in.

Why this conversation hurts so much

A wedding is a promise that we will be together. A prenuptial agreement, at least at first sight, talks about what happens if we are not. These two messages find it hard to meet in the same week, let alone in the same sentence.

That is why the person proposing an agreement often feels guilty before saying anything at all. They put it off, wait for the right moment that never comes, and in the end raise the subject too late or too abruptly. The person hearing the proposal often feels rejected: “So you don’t trust me. So you’re already thinking about the end.” In that moment both feel hurt — and neither knows how to say so without hurting the other.

In his research, John Gottman found that around 69 per cent of the problems couples have are perpetual: they stem from differences in personality, values and needs, so they are never finally “solved”. Couples who do well don’t eliminate them; they learn to talk about them. A different relationship to security and wealth is often exactly this kind of perpetual difference. The conversation about an agreement is therefore less a question of who is right and more an opportunity for the couple to meet, for the first time, how differently they each experience security.

It is often also one of the first big decisions a couple makes together in which their interests are not automatically the same. Until then they have decided about holidays, a home and friends, where a middle ground could be found. Here, for the first time, it becomes clear that each has their own history, their own family and their own fears — and that they will have to live with these inside the marriage too. The way they approach this conversation is often a forecast of how they will approach other difficult decisions later on.

One piece of paper, two meanings

When I talk to couples about a prenuptial agreement, it almost always turns out that they are looking at the same document but reading two different stories.

For the person proposing it, the agreement may express a need for order and predictability. Perhaps as a child he watched his parents fight over every piece of furniture for years during their divorce, and promised himself he would never go through that again. Perhaps he is part of a family business that is not his alone, and feels responsible towards his siblings or parents. Perhaps he has been married before and has children he wants to protect.

For the person hearing the proposal, the agreement may be a sign that love is not unconditional. If they grew up in a family where they had to work for belonging, where they were a “guest” rather than at home, the proposal can strike exactly where they are most vulnerable. I write about how old wounds shape our reactions in relationships in the knowledge base entry on vulnerability.

Neither of these stories is wrong. Both are true. The trouble begins when each sees only their own and attributes the worst intentions to the other.

What is actually possible in Slovenia

In Slovenia, the prenuptial agreement was for a long time more a feature of foreign films than of everyday life. Since 2019, when the Family Code came into force, future spouses and spouses have been able to arrange their property relations by an agreement concluded in the form of a notarial deed.

This is where my part ends. What such an agreement can cover, what it cannot, how it is amended and how it affects particular assets are questions for a notary or a lawyer — and when the assets are substantial or complex, it is wise for each partner to have their own. What matters to me is simply that the legal side does not replace the emotional one. An agreement can be legally flawless while the couple who signed it are further apart than ever.

When there is a third party in the conversation

In wealthy families, the conversation about an agreement is rarely just between two people. It is often set off by a father, a mother, the family lawyer, or the fact that the wealth belongs “to the family” rather than to an individual. Then the question is twofold: what do the two of us want — and how much room do we give the family in our decision?

In relational family therapy, in which I am training, we pay a lot of attention to this question. When a couple forms, each partner has to find a new place between loyalty to their family of origin and commitment to the new one. Christian Gostečnik writes about how unresolved relationships with parents enter the partnership — including through questions that seem to be only about property. If a partner hears, “My family insists,” they will probably also hear, “My family doesn’t trust you.” And if the one proposing it doesn’t know whether it is he or his parents who want the agreement, it will be hard for him to speak honestly.

That is why one of the most important questions the proposer can ask before the conversation is: Do I want this? If the answer is “yes”, say why. If the answer is “I don’t know” or “actually, no”, the conversation needs to happen first with your own family, not with your partner. Setting boundaries with your family of origin doesn’t mean rejecting them. It means saying clearly which decisions belong to the two of you — and standing by them even when your family disagrees.

When and how to raise it

The worst time for this conversation is just before the wedding, when the invitations have gone out and the pressure is at its highest. Then the person hearing the proposal feels they have no choice — and a decision made under pressure tends to come back later as resentment. It is better to start the conversation months earlier, while you are still talking about getting married, or when you are deciding to live together.

How you begin also matters. The sentence “Dad says we have to” puts your partner up against a wall. The sentence “Something worries me and I’d like to talk to you about it, because you matter to me” invites them in. The difference is not in the content but in whether the other person is treated as an opponent or as someone to talk with. I have written more about how to say what you think without burning the bridge in How to say what you think without the relationship falling apart.

How the conversation might sound

This is how the conversation might sound for a couple who decided to try a different way (composite, not a real person):

“When you mentioned the agreement, I spent the whole day thinking only that you don’t trust me.”
“I know. I could see it. And I was sorry I’d said it so offhandedly.”
“Why does it matter to you?”
“When my parents divorced, I was twelve. They fought over the house in court for three years. I don’t want us ever to become that.”
“I didn’t know it was such a big thing for you.”
“Neither did I, until I tried to say it.”

Nothing legal happened in this short conversation. Neither gave in and neither won. But something else happened: a subject that had been a threat became a story the two of them can carry together. Only from here is it possible to talk about what the agreement should contain, and whether they want one at all.

If such a conversation seems impossible to you because it turns into an argument every time you try, that is important information. Perhaps it isn’t about the agreement but about the way you argue. I have written about how a couple learns to argue safely in How we argue safely in couples therapy.

Sometimes it helps not to discuss the prenuptial agreement separately from other questions about money. How you will handle shared costs, who will decide on larger purchases, what happens if one of you leaves work because of the children — these are all questions about power and security in the couple. I write about them in Money and power in a couple: when one partner earns most.

Exercise: the conversation before the conversation

Before you raise the subject of an agreement, each of you should do this exercise on your own. You need half an hour and a sheet of paper.

1. Write down what worries you when you think about the agreement. Not the reasons you would give your partner, but what genuinely worries you. It might be the fear of losing what you have built. It might be the fear of being left without security.
2. Write down where this worry comes from. Where in your life have you already seen or experienced something similar? What did you learn at home about money and marriage?
3. Write down what you are afraid your partner will hear. When you say it, what might they misunderstand? What might hurt them?
4. Write one sentence you will start with. Let it begin with “I”, not with “we have to” or “my family says”. For example: “Something matters to me and I’m afraid I’ll hurt you with it.”
5. Ask yourself: what would it mean for the conversation to succeed? Not that your partner agreed. But that after the conversation you are still on the same side.

Once you have both done the exercise, read each other your first and third answers. It often turns out that you were worried about the same thing: staying together without losing yourselves.

When it is not a conversation but pressure

Everything I have written applies to couples in which both partners are free to say “yes” or “no”. That is not always the case.

If your partner or their family threatens that there will be no wedding unless you sign, and doesn’t give you time to think it over or to consult your own legal adviser, that is not a conversation. It is pressure. In that case the first step is a conversation with a lawyer who represents you, not couples therapy. If the pressure is part of a wider pattern of control — over money, over your contacts, over your decisions — you can seek help in Slovenia from the SOS helpline for women and children victims of violence on 080 11 55, and in an emergency call 113 or 112 (in Slovenia).

The reverse is also true. Sometimes an agreement is simply sensible and carries no deeper meaning: one partner has a company with business partners, children from a previous relationship, or assets that must be managed separately because of other obligations. Then it is a pity if the subject turns into a test of love. Not every pragmatic proposal is a sign of mistrust. And not every couple who doesn’t sign an agreement is more in love than one who does.

What couples therapy can offer

Research by Scott Stanley and colleagues on a large random sample of American households found that couples who had taken part in any kind of marriage preparation before the wedding reported greater satisfaction and less conflict, and were less likely to divorce. This is not proof that preparation itself prevents divorce — perhaps the couples who take part are already more committed. But the message is clear: talking about difficult subjects before the wedding is not a bad sign. It is an investment.

In couples therapy we don’t draft agreements, and I don’t advise whether to sign one. I help you hear each other: what security means to each of you, what you each brought from your family, and where your fears meet. Once that has been said, you can go to the notary or lawyer as a couple deciding together — not as two parties negotiating.

If you are thinking about starting couples therapy before marriage or moving in together, read Couples therapy before things get hard. When help makes sense later on, I describe in When to start couples therapy. Beneath all of this lies one thing: trust is not built by avoiding difficult subjects, but by talking about them and finding that the relationship survives.

I also work with English-speaking couples, in person in Ljubljana. If you are facing this conversation, you are welcome to write to me.

What to remember

• A prenuptial agreement is a legal document, but the conversation about it is emotional — about trust, security and belonging.
• Partners often read the same piece of paper as two different stories. The conversation shifts when each tells their own.
• Start in good time, with “I” and your own reason — not with your family’s demand.
• Leave the legal questions to a lawyer or notary, ideally one each.
• If there are threats and pressure, it is not a conversation — seek help for yourself.