PreNups

[TiredMan]

What do people here think about signing a prenup before marriage? I am all for it.

 

If one person makes significantly more money than the other, why is it so wrong to have the other person sign one? People argue that it's love not a business deal, but when marriages fail, it usually DOES become a business thing so why not protect oneself?

 

I see professional athletes getting divorced all the time where the wife gets half of his money. I'm like "do YOU have the talent or did he?"

 

I personally believe that if one person makes significantly more than the other, then it should be law that a prenup has to go with the marriage.

[chai714]

It's marriage insurance. Only a fool would enter into any contract without some kind of insurance or backup plan. Love has nothing to do with a pre-nup.

[AwdreeHpburn]

I don't see anything wrong with at all.

 

I can't find one single reason in my puny mind where that would be a bad idea.

[hosswhispra]

I see your point Tired Man from a practical point. But on an emotional level/subconscious, having to sign a prenup may insinuate that the marriage isn't going to last. It's one of those gray areas.

[arwen]

On a rational view you are completely right, TM. I guess it is the emotion of love that blocks people from wanting to sign that sort of contract.

 

This is actually one of the few reasons I am happy that I have a partner who is as 'poor' as I am. We have the same income (far too little for the crazy days we have), neither of us has money of any significance in the family. So we will just become rich by winning the lottery and then have these problems I guess

 

Arwen

[RayKay]

What do people here think about signing a prenup before marriage? I am all for it.

 

If one person makes significantly more money than the other, why is it so wrong to have the other person sign one? People argue that it's love not a business deal, but when marriages fail, it usually DOES become a business thing so why not protect oneself?

 

I see professional athletes getting divorced all the time where the wife gets half of his money. I'm like "do YOU have the talent or did he?"

 

I personally believe that if one person makes significantly more than the other, then it should be law that a prenup has to go with the marriage.

 

I am actually in agreement that they are not a bad idea; some people do not like them as they feel it dooms things before they start; but I really don't believe that personally. I don't think being realistic and practical means you are not in love; nor do I think it is a bad thing to lay out your finances, and so forth beforehand to know what is happening. In fact, I am unsure how signing a prenup shows anything but marrying for the "right" reasons, when you are setting out those details in advance. To me it says; look I love you, want to be with you. I do not want your money. And I also care enough about you and us, that if things WERE to not go as planned in the end, I want us to have some basis/grounding to limit the chances of a long drawn out battle.

 

I definitely plan on my first marriage being my only & last marriage; and a prenup for me is not showing I don't trust or believe in that! I take commitment and marriage VERY seriously and am fiercely loyal and committed to my partner & our relationship. However, I am sure most people do believe that and despite best intentions or hopes I have seen marriages fail and them end up in a bad situation because of not taking care of these things ahead of time.

 

For me, it not just about "money" though; I am willing to sign one even though I currently make less than my partner as I went back to school (we were equal before I returned, and after I am done I have potential for a higher income than him). I also know we would ultimately be quite equal in incomes overall though and so forth so the issue is not whom makes more and everything: prenups can include more than division of assets and can be more than "I get everything of mine, you get everything of yours". They can be as simple, or complicated, as you want them. For many, they are used to protect private business assets, children (i.e. agreeing to allow for more than minimum support), and so on.

 

A prenup really should not be all one-sided; it should be something you agree on together in my opinion. A woman whom used to belong here was told to sign it or leave by her fiance; but he also did not involve her in it at all, was very unfair to her and the fact she had helped support him for years and so on and it caused a lot of animosity. It should not be that way.

 

Again, I can understand why some people do not like them and feel it jinxes them; but I guess I am also not one to let romanticism do away with realities as well.

[TiredMan]

I see your point Tired Man from a practical point. But on an emotional level/subconscious, having to sign a prenup may insinuate that the marriage isn't going to last. It's one of those gray areas.

 

But it's silly to enter into something without insurance. It's like if you are on the pill but you use a condom for protection from STD's. You are kind of insinutating that the other person MIGHT have one. Anything can happen in marriage and divorce is rarely very pretty.

 

Is it better to go in blinded and then get burned badly?

 

Also lets not forget another part of it. People getting marriage IS a contract. Otherwise, just being together should be enough. But so many pressure into getting married (which is expensive with or without an engagement ring), so why shouldn't it work both ways? I think it should.

[hosswhispra]

But it's silly to enter into something without insurance. It's like if you are on the pill but you use a condom for protection from STD's. You are kind of insinutating that the other person MIGHT have one. Anything can happen in marriage and divorce is rarely very pretty.

 

Is it better to go in blinded and then get burned badly?

 

Also lets not forget another part of it. People getting marriage IS a contract. Otherwise, just being together should be enough. But so many pressure into getting married (which is expensive with or without an engagement ring), so why shouldn't it work both ways? I think it should.

 

You're right. Most likely, I will make a lot more money than my partner and I own my house--so I would be bringing a lot (to potentially lose) to the table--I guess it's just fear of not knowing how the other person will react.

[chloe09]

well duh if you're the woman you need get get a prenup. when you ditch the guy, you'll need to be able to keep yourself in dior until you find someone else

[Day_Walker]

I agree with the idea of having a prenuptual agreement. I do not believe that arguing over issues such as child support, spousal support and community property should be done when both parties are not upset with eachother. I think that it is a great idea but I know many people who do not believe in them. I feel it is necessary to the attorneys work out an agreement that is fair to both parties instead of getting the court system involved.

[TiredMan]

You're right. Most likely, I will make a lot more money than my partner and I own my house--so I would be bringing a lot (to potentially lose) to the table--I guess it's just fear of not knowing how the other person will react.

 

Yeah well this is marriage. Do you know how many couples get married because the woman gave him an ultimatum? I know of 4 couple personally where this has happened. Marriage is completely a contract. Otherwise living together SHOULD be enough. But many times it isn't.

[redpoppy99]

But it's silly to enter into something without insurance. It's like if you are on the pill but you use a condom for protection from STD's. You are kind of insinutating that the other person MIGHT have one. Anything can happen in marriage and divorce is rarely very pretty.

 

Is it better to go in blinded and then get burned badly?

 

Also lets not forget another part of it. People getting marriage IS a contract. Otherwise, just being together should be enough. But so many pressure into getting married (which is expensive with or without an engagement ring), so why shouldn't it work both ways? I think it should.

 

Perhaps people should not jump into marriage and go in "blinded" as you say. People do not take marriage seriously and don't seem to understand the contract part of marriage. There is a lack of responsiblity and ethics today and everyone expects marriage to be like a fairytale romance. Divorce is very ugly and it can ruin people, not only financially, but emotionally. And what about children who are involved? Perhaps that's why people jump into marriage now-a-days... They are so desperately looking for the love they missed out on during childhood when their parents were getting divorced. I can say for myself that ever since my parents got divorced, I have wanted nothing more than my own family- a family that I can love and that will love me. I'm not saying my parents didn't love me but we were far from happy.

[melrich]

I think prenups have a place especially where one person is bringing significant assets into the marriage and the other is not. Where I don't agree with them is if they relate to assets procured during the marriage (here it is not legally possible to have a prenup referring to assets built during the marriage but it may be elsewhere).

 

Otherwise I don't see anything inherently wrong with them.

[DN]

I bet Paul McCartney wishes he had had a prenup.

 

I tend to agree with Melrich about assets during the marriage but do feel there should be some sort of upper limit if one person has a special talent or skill that brings in a huge income. Generally assets acquired during the marriage are thought to be 'earned' as it were by both partners but I think that kind of breaks down when one person is obviously the one bringing in the megabucks and would do the same whether married or not.

 

In my own marriage, my wife and I have always considered the income we brought in 'our' income rather than 'hers' and 'mine'. But neither one of us earns huge amounts more than the other so that is a simple proposition.

[TiredMan]

I think prenups have a place especially where one person is bringing significant assets into the marriage and the other is not. Where I don't agree with them is if they relate to assets procured during the marriage (here it is not legally possible to have a prenup referring to assets built during the marriage but it may be elsewhere).

 

Otherwise I don't see anything inherently wrong with them.

 

Well you can't really tell the future about what will be gained during the marriage. But like professional baseball players. Why should the wife get from HIS talent. That Giants player, Michael Strahan. His wife got a HUGE settlement and they had a prenup. He should sue his lawyers. She just wants to live the lifestyle that HIS hard work creates. Let her go and play in the NFL.

[melrich]

Let her go and play in the NFL.

 

Can women play in the NFL? If she was the best woman baseball player in the world what would she earn? What would the best male baseball player in the world earn?

[TiredMan]

Can women play in the NFL? If she was the best woman baseball player in the world what would she earn? What would the best male baseball player in the world earn?

 

Ok if I married the top women's tennis played (Sharapova or whatever her name is) this year, do I deserve any of her tennis money? I wouldn't want it and I would willingly want to sign a prenup.

[melrich]

Look I don't entirely disagree. When you are talking McCartney or Sharapova there is such a phenomenal imbalance.

 

But I'll give you a more realistic example. When I met my partner we were both working and whilst she did not earn what I earn, she was in a high paid job and it was probably about 50%. So I would not consider that any sort of imbalance that needed to be addressed.

 

7 years later, I am one of only maybe 20 people in my country that can do what I do. I am not a sportsman but I am very well paid for my job. My partner retired from the workforce 5 years ago to have kids and look after them. The discprepency between our earnings is massive given she earns nothing. Would I want that to be taken to account? No way. I fully look at our relationship as a partnership and if it ever ended would feel no injustice at her getting half of everything, despite that fact that in the last 5 years we have purchased a farm, a beach house, a small vineyard and various other assets with money I earned.

 

To me that's just part of what a relationship is about. I do grant you though, if I were earning $100 million a year and she was earning nothing it would give pause for thought although even then at the end of the day, half of $100 million a year still allows you to live comfortably.

[TiredMan]

In the case you described, if she gave up her career to have the family, then she should be entitled to the money she gave up, not the money you make, in my opinion.

 

You make what you make because of what you do. She wouldn't be doing that. But you also mentioned that when you did get married, it wasn't the same as it is now.

 

I brought up the ballplayer example because I see it all the time. These athletes end up paying so much money. It also leaves them open to golddiggers and people just being with them because of money. Tyson/Robin Givens is a good example. Everyone knew what would happen.

 

I agree with those people who say prenup or no marriage. If I make that much that my SO, I would think the same thing. And vice versa.

[melrich]

You make what you make because of what you do. She wouldn't be doing that.

 

fact is I couldn't do what I do without her doing what she is doing. Look don't take at face value everything you see in the papers. Courts are not stupid and having been through a divorce I know they take into account fiscal contribution but they also take into account mitigating factors and that is what is rarely reported.

 

Celebrity bust ups always look spectacular because of the huge numbers involved. Mccartneys wife I think will get about $80 mil. Sounds a lot. But in effect it is less than 10% of his worth. That is fact of how these things are determined. A court will never give less than a figure around 10% and more usually not lower than 20%. If you see a 50/50 split understand that there are mitigating factors you do not know about (like kids or sacrificed career for the betterment of another). It is way too simple to look at the papers and say that is unfair.

 

In fact if you want to see the complexity of proceedings around Contributing Assets go to a site called scaleplus and read the 100s of transcripts. You will see all is not what it sometimes seems.

[TiredMan]

I know this is how it works. I just dont agree with it. Then again, the courts aren't always right. Anyone can sue anyone for anything pretty much. I mean people sued McD's because they were fat and wanted someone to blame. I mean did McD's come to your house and force you to eat that much stuff?

 

I just feel that if someone has an exceptional ability, the former partner should not benefit from it. A man making 10 million a year in a pro sports did it because of his talent. He could have the best wife in the world who was caring and supporting but his talent is what made him money.

 

I know why courts give the wives this, I'm not debating this. What I'm saying is that all marriage where one person makes a significan amount more than other (whoever it is) should have protection made for that person.

 

Heck if I was a famous musician or something, I would make groupies sign a waiver to come backstage lol.

[melrich]

What I'm saying is that all marriage where one person makes a significan amount more than other (whoever it is) should have protection made for that person.

 

Yeah I don't disagree with this. I do think pre nups have a place, especially as it relates to pre-marriage assets and post marriage earnings. But again the courts are not bad at determining that sort of thing themselves and the fact is here anyway, after about 5 years of marriage pre nups carry little to no weight anyway. But for the majority of people it is not of significant concern but case by case they have their place.

[Dako]

As a civil matter, I see marriage as a legal merger of assets and liabilities.

A prenuptial contract makes it a limited partnership.

I'd simply consider it something other than marriage.

Why bother with the charade, except for social or religious reasons?

 

If marriage is unfair, don't do it.

 

So romantic, aren't I?

[lusitana]

I can't really cry for a millionaire who is stupid enough to marry a pauper without a prenup. I think prenups are important for the opposite reason that TiredMan is talking about - due compensation for compromise. Divorce shouldn't be about screwing each other out of as much as possible. I saw it happen to a co-worker a few years ago. He tried to be reasonable but then she claimed that half his precious car was hers, and he started playing hardball! At least with a pre-nup, maybe the fighting wouldn't have been so bitter because people roughly know the deal they'll be getting, and if it's fair to all parties no one will be stuck in a marriage they want out of because of money.

 

A high-paying job isn't the only thing a person can bring to a relationship. Can you put a price on someone's devotion to give up their power career in order to live with you (particularly relevant to my own relationship someday)? Why does society not value children's caregivers at all? Anyways, issues like these are why I don't want to get married or even live with someone right now. It's just a logistical nightmare and I get apprehensive thinking about it. (Guess I'm not romantic either, Dako!)

[DN]

I think part of the problem is romantic idealism versus practical reality. I don't think people like to view a wedding as primarily a financial transaction but they do view a divorce that way - especially if they are involved in one. And since so many marriages end in divorce it is not unreasonable to be prepared for that eventuality if assets, earning power etc. are very disparate.

 

Of all the vows that are traditionally taken at a wedding the only one that is legally enforced beyond a divorce is the one regarding worldly goods.