Your thoughts on Pre-Nups?

[tresqua]

I would go so far as to say that if the nonmonied spouse to be has a big problem with a prenuptial agreement, that's a huge red flag right there and good reason to rethink the entire marriage before entering into what is really just another glorified business deal with a lot of emotions mixed in.

[FarthestEdge]

I would go so far as to say that if the nonmonied spouse to be has a big problem with a prenuptial agreement, that's a huge red flag right there and good reason to rethink the entire marriage before entering into what is really just another glorified business deal with a lot of emotions mixed in.

 

Ouch..Now THAT's a jaded view......

[Huntress0527]

So, ah...marriage is about money?

 

I didn't marry for money. I married to build a future together, which we have done for 17 years. And what we built together is ours, well and truly, and what was ours individually beforehand, we can choose to share, or protect for our children. I don't see what's so horrible about that.

 

A prenup doesn't make the marriage any more about money than it already is. It simply draws a line in the sand that identifies the financial starting point of our life together.

 

I think it's great that your marriage is still going strong!! A lot of them don't make it for that long.

 

All in all though pre-nups will always have a negative connotation surrounding them because it's about his and hers and not ours. A marriage is about ours and if someone has to question whether they can trust me or not or worry so much to protect themselves in the event of a divorce then I don't think they should be getting married in the first place. Just my .02.

[Seraphim]

I think it's great that your marriage is still going strong!! A lot of them don't make it for that long.

 

All in all though pre-nups will always have a negative connotation surrounding them because it's about his and hers and not ours. A marriage is about ours and if someone has to question whether they can trust me or not or worry so much to protect themselves in the event of a divorce then I don't think they should be getting married in the first place. Just my .02.

 

I whole heartedly agree.

[Fudgie]

As a generalisation, those with money or standing to gain money appear to want prenups, and those that don't don't. Seems pretty obvious to me that there's a simple issue of protectionism there. Personally I wouldn't dream of signing one or suggesting it.

 

I think that's a fair generalisation overall, yes. Can't blame them either. It also happens more often when one person is making more than another. Don't have to be rich but a guy/woman who is making something like 40/50k a year and the other partner is stay-at-home with no income, well, I could definitely see them getting it.

 

I plan on getting a pre-nup whether I have money or not. I do have some assets in my name and should get a big inheritance in the future and I would want that money in my name so I can use it as I see fit.

 

Haha I think I decided against joint accounts too when my sister tried to convince me we should get one (we own a house together and split bills). But she's just a mooch.

 

Lol, yeah me too. My parents didn't get joint accounts. I believe they too got a pre-nup. They BOTH had money. They have been married for years so I don't think having a pre-nup means that you're doomed. I think I would have one joint account that we both could put in money just for household bills and large purchases, but I don't like the idea of one BIG account.

 

This can breed resentment. When you have one big account and pool all your money, well, then you each have to spend from it. So to hold each other accoutable, you tell each other "well, we'll consult for big purchases because it's OUR money". Well, sometimes the husband may want to buy a fancy new $50 video game...or maybe the woman wants to buy $200 shoes. They may not necessarily agree with the other buying it, and that's fine! But the resentment comes from "Well he bought this and that with OUR money and I don't agree..."

 

I'd rather just keep the incomes separate and being responsible for one's own income and discretionary spending. I'm more of a saver so I definitely wouldn't want to pool my money with a hubby that is a spender. If he's going to spend up the wall, he can do it with his own income and then suffer the natural consequences that comes with spending too much. But I won't have to suffer.

 

Vic, I think it's fine if you want to risk your wallet. Many who do decide to marry do not sign a pre-nup for the reasons you've stated and as long as they are fine with the inherent risk, then that's fine. But I don't think the willingness to take such a risk is a sign of a strength of a relationship or a sign of how long you'll last. It's just a choice. For me, it's not worth it. For others it is.

[lavenderdove]

I am older than a lot of people on this board and see this from another perspective.

 

The truth is that more than half of all couples will divorce, and i have seen way too many cases of very well intentioned people being stripped of all these assets (both men and women) in very unfair ways during a divorce.

 

And even if people THINK they know their future spouse well, in many cases they are blinded by new love and make choices that they later regret for all kinds of legitimate reasons.

 

Let's take a case of where someone does indeed marry for the money, and a few years down the road, decides they want a big chunk of it and don't want to be married anymore. They marry for the money, behave badly, then intend to depart with a big chunk of it in a divorce. People with significant assets are frequently prey to sociopathic types who know how to manipulate and disguise their true selves until after they've stripped the person of their assets.

 

And let's say someone has an affair, and decides they want the affair partner AND the nicer lifestyle their richer spouse gave them. So they betray their spouse and run off with a lover and take a big chunk of the innocent spouse's assets with them to support themselves and their new lover. I have known several people who have had this happen, and it is the most bitter pill in the world for an innocent spouse to have to enrich a betraying spouse and their lover in the divorce because they had no pre-nup and the spouse is entitled to take half with them when they go, regardless of the fact that they intiated the divorce and betrayed their spouse in an affair.

 

But there are multiple ways to handle this. You can take all your multiple pre-marital assets and put them into a trust that you control that isn't part of marital assets. You can also set up an LLC where the money from the trust flows into the LLC (or vice versa), and hence is not marital assets. So you can protect your assets without a pre-nup if you are willing to set up a trust and/or an LLC that incorporates those assets to manage the money that flows from those assets. A good attorney can help you set this up.

 

If you control the trust, you can withdraw money as desired to support yourself and your new husband, but he won't have direct access to it in a divorce. So you can avoid the whole pre-nup issue if you want if you get a good attorney and set up trusts/LLCs that you control, where your spouse is not a party to them and does not directly inherit from them (unless you want to specify that he does in a will, that you can change at any time based on the circumstances). Estate planning is a VERY good idea for anyone who has assets.

[DN]

Moderator Note: please do not engage in personal arguments.

[DN]

I also am an older member and agree with landenderdove.

 

The fact is that everyone who marries has a pre-nup whether they are aware of it or not. It is a default pre-nup written for you by the laws where you marry and/or divorce and administered by a divorce court judge. So writing your own is merely adjusting what other people (legislators and judges) have decided or will decide on your behalf.

[Seraphim]

So then if it is a business arrangement( non joint accounts and you both directly pay half from your account) and your partner gets sick or looses their job and can not pay their half do you then "loan" them the money which they repay you later, or do you boot them out the door because they are not adhering to the arrangement?

[lavenderdove]

btw, a trust/LLC is not a pre-nup. He doesn't even need to know about it, and certainly doesn't have to sign anything if you set them up before you marry. If he's not after you for your money, he won't care in the least if you set up trusts etc.

 

That might be the best way to handle it. Trusts and LLCs are also good ways to manage tax issues too, so if you have significant assets, you should look into them, regardless.

[lavenderdove]

Trusts can be set up in all kinds of ways... as in X dollars every month flows out of the trust and into the joint marital account such that if you are incapacited, the money still goes into an account the spouse can access.

 

There are always trustees also appointed in the trust, usually yourself and someone else like a lawyer or a parent or sibling who have the right to write checks in your benefit if you get ill or incapacited. There are very strict laws governing trustees where they can't muck with the money without going to jail for a long time.

 

Trusts are just excellent ways to manage money in general, whether it is a family trust or a trust set up on behalf of an individual or children etc. Trusts protect money from taxes and creditors as well, so anyone with significant assets should investigate them.

[Day_Walker]

Just like any other document, a pre-nup can be pretty much what you want it to be. The way I see it is that a pre-nup is just like insurance, its just there in case something happens, just like car, homeowners or life insurance.

 

A pre-nup may not be necessary, depending whether the OP is in a community property state or a common law state, I would consult an attorney. An attorney can explain the law to you or you can do your own research if your assets will become "community property" or marital property" upon marriage.

[tattoobunnie]

My mom has one set up to protect everyone from my dad going on gambling sprees. Thank you Lavenderdove. I'll ask my lawyer about this.

[tresqua]

btw, a trust/LLC is not a pre-nup. He doesn't even need to know about it, and certainly doesn't have to sign anything if you set them up before you marry. If he's not after you for your money, he won't care in the least if you set up trusts etc.

 

He would need to know about it during the "discovery" stage of divorce. And yes, I agree, if your future spouse is not after you for your money, they won't care in the least if you set up trusts or a prenup or whatever, assuming they see the 'tough reality' of it.

 

 

Let's take a case of where someone does indeed marry for the money, and a few years down the road, decides they want a big chunk of it and don't want to be married anymore. They marry for the money, behave badly, then intend to depart with a big chunk of it in a divorce. People with significant assets are frequently prey to sociopathic types who know how to manipulate and disguise their true selves until after they've stripped the person of their assets.

 

I see you've met my exwife..lol

[FarthestEdge]

I think it's great that your marriage is still going strong!! A lot of them don't make it for that long.

 

All in all though pre-nups will always have a negative connotation surrounding them because it's about his and hers and not ours. A marriage is about ours and if someone has to question whether they can trust me or not or worry so much to protect themselves in the event of a divorce then I don't think they should be getting married in the first place. Just my .02.

 

I think that's a broad generalization that you cannot substantiate. The fact of the matter is you DO have a life BEFORE you are married, and you will have one after your marriage ends (if indeed it does). For DH and I the prenup had no negative connotation whatsoever. It was signed and forgotten about, only mentioned in discussions like this and when legal circumstances warranted a review of it. If anything, I viewed his response as MORE proof that I was marrying the right man. He knew I wanted to honor the wishes of the person who left me an inheritance with a specific goal in mind, and he agreed that as long as we were on our journey together, it would be treated as OURS, but should we part ways, that gift was never intended for him, and as such, should remain with me.

 

How does that cast a dark cloud over my marriage?

[FarthestEdge]

Many who do decide to marry do not sign a pre-nup for the reasons you've stated and as long as they are fine with the inherent risk, then that's fine. But I don't think the willingness to take such a risk is a sign of a strength of a relationship or a sign of how long you'll last. It's just a choice. For me, it's not worth it. For others it is.

 

Well said Fudgie!

[blackhawks1287]

Pre-nups are only about his and hers if there were to be a divorce, and that is how it should be...

 

Who is to say you can't share whatever discretionary wealth with your partner while you two are married, or build up wealthy together.

 

PEOPLE ARE INHERENTLY SELFISH, granted we all do things selflessly, we are selfish and no one can argue with me on that. So essentially in the fine print it is all about his and hers even through marriage but it is the choice to share and be selfless that counts, but we have our OWN reasons to want to share our lives with that person and vice versa.

 

So when it comes down to it, you either want to share you life with A for the right reasons, or you move on to someone else. People change and you have to prepare yourself in whatever way you feel is necessary whether it be dumping everything you own and will own into the sanctity of marriage or simply preserving what you and your family worked hard for.

[Huntress0527]

It works for you because you both had the same view on it. Just like OG pretty much stated people that are for it can easily sign together just as people that are against will go in the marriage as together not caring about assets or not having any to even have to worry about a pre-nup.

[FarthestEdge]

It works for you because you both had the same view on it. Just like OG pretty much stated people that are for it can easily sign together just as people that are against will go in the marriage as together not caring about assets or not having any to even have to worry about a pre-nup.

 

Ideally, yes. But in many cases, one is for,the other against. Then what?

 

My feeling is that like insurance, it's far better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

But again, we all make our own choices and take our own risks. EVERY choice has it's risks, we all just need to choose which ones we are willing to take...and then accept whatever consequences come of that choice.

 

But to say that just having a prenup weakens the marriage is a baseless argument, in my view.

[Seraphim]

Ideally, yes. But in many cases, one is for,the other against. Then what?

 

My feeling is that like insurance, it's far better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

 

But again, we all make our own choices and take our own risks. EVERY choice has it's risks, we all just need to choose which ones we are willing to take...and then accept whatever consequences come of that choice.

 

But to say that just having a prenup weakens the marriage is a baseless argument, in my view.

 

That is because both you and your husband agree FE. I think what Huntress and I are saying is IF one person does not agree then it is not a baseless argument because it DOES weaken the marriage because the person who is now insulted feels that the person who suggested the pre nup has dishonourable intentions from the beginning.

[DN]

It can also weaken the marriage if one person doesn't agree because the other will then have suspicions about why they won't agree. If someone doesn't intend to take the other person for all they can get in a divorce why would they object to a pre-nup? It's a two edged sword.

[Seraphim]

It can also weaken the marriage if one person doesn't agree because the other will then have suspicions about why they won't agree. If someone doesn't intend to take the other person for all they can get in a divorce why would they object to a pre-nup? It's a two edged sword.

 

This is true. That is why like should marry like.

[FarthestEdge]

But then it's not the prenup weakening the marriage. The pre-existing conflicting viewpoints are present with or without the prenup. Opening the conversation about a prenup may expose an existing weakness in the relationship then, but it does not cause it.

[DN]

But then it's not the prenup weakening the marriage. The pre-existing conflicting viewpoints are present with or without the prenup. Opening the conversation about a prenup may expose an existing weakness in the relationship then, but it does not cause it.

Yes, this is true.

[Seraphim]

But then it's not the prenup weakening the marriage. The pre-existing conflicting viewpoints exist with or without the prenup. Opening the conversation about a prenup may expose an existing weakness in the relationship then, but it does not cause it.

 

I guess that is true. It is how someone views it. People should share the same deep values if they are going to marry, and they can not successfully stay married when either person is going to be thinking 1. this person wants a pre nup so they can divorce me at any time and the other person thinking they are only marrying me for money.