Prenups / postnups

[Ionysis]

Having just posted in another thread where this came up it made me think it would be an interesting one to start a discussion on.

Many PSers have enviable collections of incredible jewellery, some of it also very valuable. What are your thoughts on preserving your amazing collections in the unhappy event of separation / divorce?

When I first married I had more in assets than my husband but not such a large differential that made a pre-nup a consideration. And frankly not such a massive value that made it worthwhile.

A while back we ended up separating and one of the conditions of us reconciling was to put a post nup in place so that everything was set out clearly and agreed in the event we ever divorced.

Personally I feel WAY better knowing that I have full clarity on what would happen in the event we divorced. In particular I know my beloved jewellery collection, which I have paid for 100% myself and spent years designing, refining and building up will never be the subject of an ugly battle over asset splits.

So what are the opinions of PSers on post or prenuptial agreements? Who has them and any? If you don’t think they are ever something you would consider, why is that?

 

[chrono]

We came into the union with nothing so no pre and post nups. I know it sounds strange given that we both chose to have separate finances. In the event of a divorce, that's why we have separate accounts, etc and it is up to us individually to save up for a rainy day, sudden event. etc.

 

[Mekp]

I don’t have one but I understand why others do.
I've been married to the same man twice (!!). It was actually because of how he handled separating the marital assets when we divorced that I even considered getting back together with him after he had cleaned himself up. He put me and the kids first financially and took full responsibility for the marital breakdown (it was completely one sided). I didn't get a prenuptial the second time because I know he won't screw me over financially.

 

[Ionysis]

We came into the union with nothing so no pre and post nups. I know it sounds strange given that we both chose to have separate finances. In the event of a divorce, that's why we have separate accounts, etc and it is up to us individually to save up for a rainy day, sudden event. etc

Because a judge might….

What if you had both come into the marriage with nothing but one of you had spent the entire marriage working two jobs and doing everything that needed to be done wit the house and kids while the other played WoW and ate takeaway on your dime while refusing to work (just as a hypothetical situation).

Would you then think an equal split of assets would be fair after, say, a15 year marriage?

Because a judge might…

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

We aren’t married yet but I personally like the idea of a prenup/postnup. In India however, where I’m from (though currently I don’t live there) they are not legally enforceable. If we decide to move to India after getting married we will probably draw up a document that details how we would like to split our assets (probably having both of us keep whatever assets we enter into the marriage with; and whatever individual savings/purchases/gifts we obtain during the marriage; while evenly splitting joint assets/property/Investments).

 

[wildcat03]

When my husband and I got married, I was the higher earner but had debt (student loans and a mortgage). He earned significantly less (about 1/2 of what I did at the time) but had no debt. We maintain semi-separate finances - we divide household expenses according to who is already paying what, but our financial future is very much shared and we have the same goals. He is self-employed and doesn't pay himself all that regularly (uses his paycheck to pay taxes and then cuts himself a check every quarter). I am employed and receive a paycheck every 2 weeks. Over our marriage, I've accumulated jewelry and he bought some real estate that he runs as part of his business so if we ever got divorced I think things would balance pretty evenly between the two. The appreciation of the real estate is probably far more than the jewelry is worth. A prenup never really made sense to us since neither of us had huge premarital assets, and my understanding is they generally don't protect anything that is earned during the marriage.

 

[Ionysis]

my understanding is they generally don't protect anything that is earned during the marriage.

They do. If earned separately.

 

[Dancing Fire]

We have nothing to prenup. As for our jewelry... this granddaughter had already claimed her grandma's E-ring, diamond bracelet, opal pendant and grandpa's diamond ring.

 

[Austina]

Pre-nups weren’t a thing when we got married. I’ve never had any doubt that if we parted ways, everything would’ve been split 50/50. My DH would hate the thought of money being gobbled up by lawyers in a fight over assets

 

[Sprinkles&Stones]

We have nothing to prenup. As for our jewelry... this granddaughter had already claimed her grandma's E-ring, diamond bracelet, opal pendant and grandpa's diamond ring.

She is cute as a button @Dancing Fire !!! I want to squeeze her!!

 

[ringbling17]

I did not sign a prenup when we got married but we were both young and broke. Now we are both old and broke! I imagine if we got divorced I would be able to keep my jewelry. My husband doesn’t even know half of it exists.
My sister did sign a prenup when she got married. She came into the marriage with nothing (and a lot of student debt) and he came from an wealthy family. She didn’t want to sign it at first (she was marrying for love after all) but his family insisted she have a lawyer look into it and so she did.
I obviously don’t know all the details but she did tell me that if she stayed married for at least 8 years and then they divorced, she would automatically get 5 million dollars. She’s been married since 2008 so of course it’s been longer than 8 years now.
She has never worked or contributed financially since they’ve been married and they have homes all over the US and in London. I recently came from Fisher Island where I stayed with them at their condo. I actually hobnobbed with some extremely wealthy and famous people and they were pretty down to earth, although I did feel funny telling everyone I was a nurse and I lived in De.

As far as jewelry, she doesn’t have too much, but my sister has never really cared about those things. She has two engagement rings. The first one is a green emerald she received when they first got engaged. He had a family friend design it and gave it to her as a temporary engagement ring until he purchased her a diamond. He bought her a cushion engagement ring later. Not crazy big- 1.5 carats in a Harry Winston like setting also made my the family friend. She wears the emerald as a right hand ring. She also has diamond studs. She has the opportunity to
buy whatever she wants (they just sold a portion of their company for 40 million dollars) but she is happy with what she has and doesn’t want anything. She prefers to travel.
I think if they were to get divorced he would let her keep whatever she wanted.
Maybe not all the properties but definitely the jewelry.

 

[Lookinagain]

Yes, I had a prenup and that was back in the mid 1970's. We were both young and had no assets but one of us stood to inherit a fair amount of money. We eventually divorced and it was amicable so there was no need to rely on the prenup as neither of us asked for anything from the other, but that could have turned out differently. Common legal wisdom is that you should have a prenup when entering a marriage whether you have any assets or not. You never know what the financial or marital future will bring. So many couples have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney's fees fighting over assets should the marriage come to an end. A prenup should (at least theoretically) help avoid an expense like this.

 

[Ionysis]

I was reading an article this morning where the wife of a convicted rapist and murderer was saying, totally gobsmacked, that she had no idea at all that he had had these violent fancies. After a 22 year marriage.

Just goes to show you never know what life may throw at you. Be safe

 

[missy]

We have neither pre or post nup.

We both came to the marriage with assets. I owned an apartment in a very desirable neighborhood and Greg owned a house. We both had other investments. Greg earned a lot more than I ever did but I did pretty well before I met him because I was a good saver and investor.

I guess we are both idealists when it comes right down to it because we didn't even think to do this.

I am not against them per se and it depends on the individual couple involved. I think they are a smart thing to do in many cases.

As for jewelry our wills spell it out. My nieces get everything regarding my jewelry.

I can state with complete certainty that my DH is 100% trustworthy and no matter what happens I have zero doubts about him. I know you cannot always say that about people but I can say that about my DH. There will not be any surprises in that department.

But I do agree with Ionysis that you can never know what life will throw at you. That is the truth.
It is always better to be safe than sorry.

 

[LLJsmom]

No, none. We came in broke, and have contributed pretty evenly. Everything is intertwined and we're fine with it. There are no guarantees in life, but knowing what we know, we're both taking the risk.

If it were my kids, I would need to rethink it.

 

[pearlsngems]

We didn't have either a prenup or postnup but I am inclined to think that it might be a good thing if prenups were routine. The fairest division of assets seems more likely to be decided if the decision is made while the individuals are still in love.

 

[MamaBee]

No prenups or postnups. My husband is the most honorable person I know. He also trusts me completely. We would split everything equally without mediation or lawyers.

 

[MamaBear]

I giggle a bit as I think back to how broke we were when we married! 26 years later and a lot has changed financially, but we’ve never felt inclined to do a postnup. I’ve stayed home to raise our children for the past 23 years and my role taking care of home, kids and now puppies (!!) is a good fit for us. It allows him to pursue his career, knowing that I’ve got his back on the home side of things. Our kids are older now but he has said he values my role at home. He will support me if I choose to look for a job, as long as it makes me happy. He has always included me in financial decisions for our family and he tells me it’s “our money” when I voice concern over not contributing financially. He doesn't’ want me to feel I need to. He’s a wonderful husband and dad, loves, provides and cares for us. He is my best friend and I am his (he’s told me so!). He is a man of integrity and I am completely comfortable with this.

 

[Ionysis]

I don’t mean to be rude at all but I wonder how anyone can claim to be “raising children” for that number of years. My own mum was a “stay at home” but even she managed to find something to occupy her and contribute to the family financially outside of the home when I turned 12.

 

[MamaBear]

I don’t mean to be rude at all but I wonder how anyone can claim to be “raising children” for that number of years. My own mum was a “stay at home” but even she managed to find something to occupy her and contribute to the family financially outside of the home when I turned 12.

I wanted to be home while our kids were through high school. That was important to both of us.

 

[Elizabeth35]

I wanted to be home while our kids were through high school. That was important to both of us.

Yes, and it depends on how many kids and how far apart they are spaced. If you have 4 kids over 12 years--at year 18 you have a 6 year old.
And running a household, raising kids CAN be something to occupy you, if that is what brings you joy.
Not all contributions are financial.
I would hope we are past judging women on paid employment.

 

[dk168]

The chances of me getting involved with another gent to form a meaningful relationship is less than zero.

In the event a special someone does come along, I would not hesitate to have a prenup, stating what are mine to start with, will stay as mine in the event we part company.

I had been conned in the past, had lost some money, not a lot, however, it still hurt as my trust was betrayed.

Hence I would rather be on my own as I don't have to worry about being conned again.

DK

 

[MamaBear]

Thank you, @Elizabeth35

 

[LLJsmom]

I don’t mean to be rude at all but I wonder how anyone can claim to be “raising children” for that number of years. My own mum was a “stay at home” but even she managed to find something to occupy her and contribute to the family financially outside of the home when I turned 12.

Speaking for myself only, I find staying at home and "raising children" much more challenging than the work I do professionally (accounting and finance). Both my DH and I work outside the home, but he takes on more of the home duties than I do. When I look back, I wish that I stayed home with the kids, although I know that doing that would have been way more difficult for me than going to the office everyday.

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

I kind of worry when I die that the diamonds I set aside for my son will be sold by my DIL. But I guess that is just the way it goes.

I hope to die before my DH because I really don't want to live in a world in which he isn't by my side. And if I get my wish I also wish he finds a nice lady who will be a good companion for him. I have talked to him about this and told him in the event it happens he needs to understand he is hot property. Good looks, nice house and a great jewelry collection. He can choose the cream of the crop so don't settle.

 

[Elizabeth35]

I giggle a bit as I think back to how broke we were when we married! 26 years later and a lot has changed financially, but we’ve never felt inclined to do a postnup. I’ve stayed home to raise our children for the past 23 years and my role taking care of home, kids and now puppies (!!) is a good fit for us. It allows him to pursue his career, knowing that I’ve got his back on the home side of things. Our kids are older now but he has said he values my role at home. He will support me if I choose to look for a job, as long as it makes me happy. He has always included me in financial decisions for our family and he tells me it’s “our money” when I voice concern over not contributing financially. He doesn't’ want me to feel I need to. He’s a wonderful husband and dad, loves, provides and cares for us. He is my best friend and I am his (he’s told me so!). He is a man of integrity and I am completely comfortable with th

Thank you, @Elizabeth35

lol--no worries. I have worked and I have been an at-home mom. They are both valid choices.
You should never have to justify not working for pay outside the home if it works for your family.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, and it depends on how many kids and how far apart they are spaced. If you have 4 kids over 12 years--at year 18 you have a 6 year old.
And running a household, raising kids CAN be something to occupy you, if that is what brings you joy.
Not all contributions are financial.
I would hope we are past judging women on paid employment.

Thank you for saying that, Elizabeth. I consider there is nothing more important than the job of taking care of a family and running a household. I am 100% in favor of a wife and husband deciding what is best for their family. My husband was fine with me staying home or working, so it was always my choice. He certainly made more money than I ever did, but I consider my value to the family to be equal to his at least!!! A person's value is never determined by how much money they make or contribute to the bank account.

I stayed home with the kids when they were small and went back to teaching part-time at first, full-time for awhile, and my last several years I worked (80%) four days a week to balance my time better as I still had a child in school. I was lucky to have a job where I was home every summer with them. I quit when the youngest went to high school because there was no way I could take her to her new high school and get myself to my job in another part of the county.

I don't think pre-nups, etc. were around when we got married or else we had not heard of them at age 21. But we went into marriage with the expectation of staying married so we would have never even considered it. Looking at those who've posted on this thread who have been married maybe 25-50 years, it sounds like not considering pre-nups worked out pretty well for us.

Yes, I realize people do divorce who don't expect to and some may benefit from paperwork. One thing I can say for sure is that my jewelry is mine and there's zero way he'd even think about wanting it (and he has his toys, as well)! I'll just add that my husband is generous and never greedy. He'd probably give me most everything, to be honest.

 

[Jambalaya]

I have a question about prenups: How far do they hold up if a couple's circumstances change a lot over the years? For example, what if the prenup says that the person who has more keeps it in a divorce, which is fine at the time because the less wealthy party intends to keep working and make their own money. But then someone unexpectedly gets pregnant and the baby has special needs. The former career partner has to give it up. They divorce 10-20 years down the road. Does the prenup still stand?

This is just one example, but life can twist and turn in a myriad of ways, so I'm not sure how a pre-nup made on marriage can remain fair and relevant over many years.

They seem very unfair in a traditional scenario where the man has significantly more than the woman and they go on to have a traditional marriage where they have, say, three kids and she stays home to raise them.

Here's my basic question: In the scenario above, why would anyone sign away the rights that marriage gives them? I read over and over that women's standard of living drops significantly upon divorce while the man's rises, so I don't think it's mostly true that the SAHM runs away with the assets. There are many loopholes available to divorce lawyers, such as "You didn't steward the portfolio so he deserves more" etc.

I think prenups were traditionally to protect the assets where both parties had a lot to lose.

 

[Elizabeth35]

I had no prenup for my first marriage as they were not around then and we also were young and broke.
Second marriage, in our 50's--still no prenup.
I asked DH to have one because he had so much more $$ than I did. But he didn't want one. We have handled this via trusts and wills and open communication.
We won't divorce so that is not a concern at all.

But we know many people who do have pre-nups to protect family money, huge inheritances and businesses. You do what works for you.

 

[Elizabeth35]

I have a question about prenups: How far do they hold up if a couple's circumstances change a lot over the years? For example, what if the prenup says that the person who has more keeps it in a divorce, which is fine at the time because the less wealthy party intends to keep working and make their own money. But then someone unexpectedly gets pregnant and the baby has special needs. The former career partner has to give it up. They divorce 10-20 years down the road. Does the prenup still stand?

This is just one example, but life can twist and turn in a myriad of ways, so I'm not sure how a pre-nup made on marriage can remain fair and relevant over many years.

They seem very unfair in a traditional scenario where the man has significantly more than the woman and they go on to have a traditional marriage where they have, say, three kids and she stays home to raise them.

Here's my basic question: In the scenario above, why would anyone sign away the rights that marriage gives them? I read over and over that women's standard of living drops significantly upon divorce while the man's rises, so I don't think it's mostly true that the SAHM runs away with the assets. There are many loopholes available to divorce lawyers, such as "You didn't steward the portfolio so he deserves more" etc.

I think prenups were traditionally to protect the assets where both parties had a lot to lose.

That's something that each persons representation needs to negotiate. Attorneys are pretty good at working out every possible scenario.
But you raise a good point. Pre-nups, in my opinion, are not ironclad, especially for sort of regular people.
If you are say, Tom Cruise or Donald Trump, then yes your prenup is fairly solid.

Most of us do not need a prenup, and really the benefit is to the attorneys being paid to draw them up. And then they make more money if they are contested.
I say draw up wills and trusts that work for your situation.