Your thoughts on Pre-Nups?

[OptomisticGirl]

The only pre nup thing I ever considered was for custody of future kids. I was watching this special about how this guy had children with an Italian woman and she was able to take the kids back to her home country and not let him see them, even though he had custody here in the States. Me being from here and moving there, it's not something I would ever do but I could see how it could be a fear for some. So I tossed the idea of doing a pre nup ONLY for the future kids - no money - stating I couldn't just up and leave the country with them and my fiance quickly shot that down. In the end I agree with him but that's the closest we have ever came to even discussing it past the 'do you believe in pre nups? Nope? Good. Next question."

[avman]

That's actually the one thing you can't do in a pre-nup. Custody is something always open to change based on circumstances and the best interest of the children. No prenuptial agreement with custody type issues in it would hold up if challenged based on the grounds of a child's interests.

[OptomisticGirl]

Hm. I never knew that.

[avman]

Yep, prenups are for property/asset type things only.

[Brittney2008]

My boyfriend and I have been together for 3 1/2 years and have talked about marriage in the future. He said he wanted a prenuptial agreement (he has a large collection of guitars-wasn't really about $). I'll admit the idea of it made me feel weird. I think for some people prenuptial agreements are a good choice but I would rather not have one. I wouldn't put up a stink though if he was set on it.

 

We do have a joint account now and I love it. It makes life so much easier. We pay all the bills from it and it is viewed as our money. If one of us wants something we get it, granted we can afford it. It works out nicely.

[petite]

I absolutely see both sides of the argument. Since we are all very different, we each decide what is best for us and our relationship. As long as the person willingly agrees to not having a pre-nup they must know in the event of divorce they stand to lose what they owned before the marriage. It a risk some individuals are willing to take. I don't see marriage as a business deal and emotionally it doesn't sit well with me.

[Alezia]

If the person has considerable assets such as in your case, I think it is reasonable to draw up a pre-nup. Although, it's not highly romantic, I would be understanding since I loved the person. I suppose the best case is if you inherited a large sum of inheritance, but you don't have any major source of income. In your case, you will probably have a continued source of high income for the rest of your life. You may lose some money in the divorce, but you will always be able to make more and live the same lifestyle.

 

In the case where the man has a normal job with normal assets (ex: makes 90K a year, has a home and a car in his name), then I would be highly suspicious. I'd be wondering what kind of history he is hiding from me.

[DN]

If someone hides relevant information when drawing up a pre-nup, in most jurisdictions it would invalidate the prenup.

[henryfirst]

Prenuptials are very important...because without it divorces can end up pretty messy. As someone once said to me: "I know the person I am marrying but I don't know the person I could be divorcing". In other words, people change and when a marriage goes bad you don't know how nasty the other person is going to get. Consider a prenuptial agreement as an insurance policy. You are insuring yourself in case there is a marriage disaster.

 

Very well said. But generally speaking you must be ''really'' wealthy in order to go to the trouble of making a prenup.

[DN]

Very well said. But generally speaking you must be ''really'' wealthy in order to go to the trouble of making a prenup.

Not necessarily - it could be something as simple as someone protecting a house that they bought themselves before the relationship even began. It is even more necessary when there are children from prior relationships involved.

[Day_Walker]

That's actually the one thing you can't do in a pre-nup. Custody is something always open to change based on circumstances and the best interest of the children. No prenuptial agreement with custody type issues in it would hold up if challenged based on the grounds of a child's interests.

 

Actually that isnt true, it is very common for pre-nuptial agreements to have custody arrangements and are valid. What you cant do with a pre-nuptial agreement is make the document so one-sided that the terms actually encourage divorce. A pre-nuptial agreement is a contract and it could address a variety of issues, including distribution of property, custody, marital property (or community property) that doesnt mean those issues couldnt be revisited at a later time.

[DN]

Actually that isnt true, it is very common for pre-nuptial agreements to have custody arrangements and are valid. What you cant do with a pre-nuptial agreement is make the document so one-sided that the terms actually encourage divorce. A pre-nuptial agreement is a contract and it could address a variety of issues, including distribution of property, custody, marital property (or community property) that doesnt mean those issues couldnt be revisited at a later time.

I don't think you are correct about child custody for obvious reasons. Circumstances may change and the interests of the child are always paramount.

[Day_Walker]

Just because a pre-nup determines child custody doesnt mean that the court must honor that provision. Essentially the court will determine if that provision does not violate public policy (i.e. in the best interests of the child). However, that determination is completely separate from the agreement itself. A provision relating to custody would only be unlawful if the judge determined it was, they are given a lot of discretion in that regard.

[DN]

I think that is splitting hairs but never mind.

[hopelesssucks]

Since I have a large amount of assets, my mother was advising me yesterday about getting a pre-nup.

 

Does everyone think it spells doom or taking precautions?

 

I think it's a great idea. a prenup protects both of you and if your other half isn't digging it, perhaps there are some trust issues brewing. I think all couples should do a pre-nup, not because of "in case this fails" but rather "I'm serious about you." IMHO. to each his or her own. I understand that it's security to some and threatening to others.

[Fudgie]

tattoo,

 

I think if your guy really cares about you, he'll agree to the pre-nup with the thought "You have your own assets and I want you to keep what is rightfully yours if we split. I care about you to want what is best for YOU even if we end in divorce."

 

That would speak volumes to me.

[Seraphim]

I don't think it is a sign of how much someone loves or cares if they will sign or not.

[DN]

I don't think it is a sign of how much someone loves or cares if they will sign or not.

I think it can be. Certainly if I had a lot of money and someone refused to sign a pre-nup I would question their motives in refusing to sign. It's one thing to share when married but a totally different thing to be forced to share prior assets as a result of a divorce.

 

Let's be real here - if it were not for the prevalence of divorce there would be no need for pre-nups.

[avman]

Actually that isnt true, it is very common for pre-nuptial agreements to have custody arrangements and are valid. What you cant do with a pre-nuptial agreement is make the document so one-sided that the terms actually encourage divorce. A pre-nuptial agreement is a contract and it could address a variety of issues, including distribution of property, custody, marital property (or community property) that doesnt mean those issues couldnt be revisited at a later time.

 

I'm afraid you are incorrect Day_Walker. Look at the laws for your own state of California. Only property issues can be included in a pre-nup. Look at sections 1610-1617 of your state code. Custody and child support provisions are not enforceable nor valid. The best interest of a child always takes highest priority.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

Very well said. But generally speaking you must be ''really'' wealthy in order to go to the trouble of making a prenup.

 

Not necessarily. Prenups are not just for the wealthy. It is protection so that you don't get cleaned out if there is a divorce. People with modest incomes have been left without much money because of a greedy ex.

 

Regarding joint accounts...lots of stories of marriage failures where the greedy person cleans out the joint account and leaves the other person with nothing.

[lady00]

I think it would be very wise for you to seriously consider a prenup. I second 100% everything Shes2Smart said about a prenup being similar to insurance.

[DN]

link removed

 

Be this fella wishes he had thought of a pre-nup.

[metrogirl]

My boyfriend and I discussed this a couple of months ago. He has more money than I do, much more and I was the one that suggested a pre-nup should we ever get married. I'm not interested in his money, I don't want half of his 401K nor should he be entititled to mine if we were ever to divorce. I would like to think that we could leave the marriage with what we came in with and not. Does it sound like I am automatically predicting divorce, NO but I am a realist and poo happens.

[Day_Walker]

I'm afraid you are incorrect Day_Walker. Look at the laws for your own state of California. Only property issues can be included in a pre-nup. Look at sections 1610-1617 of your state code. Custody and child support provisions are not enforceable nor valid. The best interest of a child always takes highest priority.

 

I am familiar with Fam. Code Section 1612, but there is an important provision namely 1612(a)(7) allows for any matter to be included in a premarital agreement, subject to two conditions, which states " Any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty." Additionally according to Dunkin v. Boskey (2000) 82 Cal. App.4th 171, 188-190, California courts will enforce a premarital agreement that concerns "child custody".

 

I am not saying that the best interests of the child do no matter but the Family Code, namely 1600 et seq., allows parties to include any provision they wish in a premarital agreement. A child custody provision (just like any other provision) could be found to violate public policy and would not be enforceable but a child custody provision is not illegal.

 

Family Code 1600 et seq. is the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act" which essentially means that it would appear in other states as well, as it was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1983. 27 states have adopted the Act, so a majority of the jurisdictions in the United States would also allow for a child custody provision to appear in a premarital agreement.

[avman]

Day Walker that case you cited refers to an artificial insemination agreement. Not a pre-nuptial agreement. That is a completely different matter.