Prenups / postnups

[diamondseeker2006]

That's another good point @Elizabeth35. I know of a widow who remarried a widower at age 80 last year!!!! They both had grown children and wanted to protect assets for the children because both of them had retirement income and could live fine alone when the other dies. So they each put all their assets into trusts for their children, and they share the normal living expenses with current income. That way all conflict is eliminated and everyone knows from the outset.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, and I just wanted to see how long I had kids at home. My first child was born in 1982 and the youngest graduated from high school in 2014. That's 32 years of raising children!!!!

 

[oakleaf]

I didn‘t have one, but I will encourage my children to have one.

 

[LLJsmom]

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.

Just pass it on to your grandkids. Skip your son and wife altogether if you’re worried about your future DIL.

 

[icy_jade]

Lol wasn’t rich enough to have a prenup and we went in thinking that marriage is for life. The bling and whatever other assets came later. Anyway knowing my husband, he won’t touch my bling collection - the jewelry are likely to go to our children anyway unless they have no interest at all.

 

[Elizabeth35]

That's another good point @Elizabeth35. I know of a widow who remarried a widower at age 80 last year!!!! They both had grown children and wanted to protect assets for the children because both of them had retirement income and could live fine alone when the other dies. So they each put all their assets into trusts for their children, and they share the normal living expenses with current income. That way all conflict is eliminated and everyone knows from the outset.

That works for those of us who marry older, and each with kids. You can also manage quite a bit with payable on death clauses on assets.
Pre nups have their value in certain instances and depending on your state laws. We know many people with family money and they don’t have pre nups, they simply handle it via trusts and titling property. And the is d Ne prior to marriage with clear communication.
We know lots of wealthy people who help their kids buy houses, and it s structured so that the property is in Their kids name (with a note).

 

[Elizabeth35]

Oh, and I just wanted to see how long I had kids at home. My first child was born in 1982 and the youngest graduated from high school in 2014. That's 32 years of raising children!!!!

Lol-you win! My time from birth of oldest to youngest turning 18 is only 29 years. 1987 to 2016.

 

[Ionysis]

That’s an interesting question Jambalaya. I think there can always be grounds to challenge or set aside a pre or post nup - like any legal contract. Post nuptial agreements tend to be viewed as more legally enforceable than pre nups in many jurisdictions I believe. I suspect it’s a good idea to review and refresh these agreements every five years or so to ensure they remain fair and viable. Or when your financial circumstance or asset position material changes. That’s my plan anyway.

 

[Ionysis]

On the “raising children” issue…

I think you are raising your kids whether you work or not frankly. The harder part of a stay at home parent role in places like the US or U.K. would be all the domestic admin and work that goes along with it. But where I live it is extremely common for people to have staff to manage most of that. Drivers, maids, nannys. It’s affordable here for most households not just the super rich as it would be in the west. Once the children are at school between 8am and 3pm what do you therefore have to do if you have zero housework, cooking, cleaning, shopping or driving kids around?

Certainly it’s beneficial for the children to always walk in from school to a parent waiting to help them with anything they need. But there is no fundamental reason why my husband couldn’t work now they are older, he just chooses not to. I choice I don’t get to make because someone has to keep a roof over all of our heads.

In those circumstances I have made a different choice. I have to work but if that’s the case then I also ensure I protect what I’m earning for the benefit of myself and my children. I suppose it’s possible (god forbid) for my husband to have a late life crisis and, at 55 years old, Trade me in for a 20 year old Slovakian air hostess, as happened to my mothers poor friend. But if he did so he would not be whisking her off into the lap of luxury funded by 50% of everything I’ve given my blood sweat and tears for whilst sacrificing time I could have spent with my children. Nor will my kids prospective inheritance be financing a second family or stepchildren.

Perhaps it all sounds very negative - planning for catastrophies or circumstances which may never happen. But I’ve seen too many ugly situations to take any risk. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I was thinking that when reading an article about a poor woman whose husband turned out to be a rapist and murderer. They were married for 15 years and she honestly hadn’t the slightest inkling. He had seemed like a fantastic person, funny, brilliant dad, kind husband, they never argued, he was kind to everyone and seemed like an all round great guy - he was even a police officer. Then he rapes and kills a woman after abducting her from the street. And later his wife also finds out he had been visiting prostitutes for years. No signs. You just never know 100% what another person is capable of. Terrifying.

 

[Jambalaya]

@diamondseeker2006 Thirty-two years of raising children? Well, I know what my nightmares are going to look like tonight!

 

[Jambalaya]

@Ionysis - although it's true that your assessments are sobering, I also find them very realistic. My eyes were opened by seeing my close friend's very happy marriage collapse.

 

[GoldenTouch]

No prenup here…. I wish I had one (in hindsight), but my lawyer said it wouldn’t of helped anyway??!! The reason why escapes me….. Not that at the time of marriage did I ever, in a million years, think I would of needed one. I personally don’t know of anyone having one here in Australia.
In Australia when you go to court re: settlement, if you can’t agree, (I would say 90+% of couples - because most separations (sadly) do get messy & at that time someone is bitter….) ALL assets are put into the property pool.
All my jewellery had to be valued (my great, great grandmother’s ring, engagement ring, my 18th birthday gift etc) & the amount of the asset is put into the property pool. So in theory you may get to keep the ring in your possession but you will be “paying” your x spouse money somewhere along the line for half of its value. I hardly think it’s fair for things that are gifts, sentimental or family heirlooms - because I know I wouldn’t sell them so to me they don’t have a “financial value”.
I always heard that they look after the “mothers” financially in family court if they have majority care of the children - so they get more of the assets/money in settlement (especially YOUNG children), but I didn’t find that to be true my my instance (people are probably assuming). I got a lot less in settlement than the other party & I wasn’t the one who caused all of debt. All debts got put into the property pool as well…..
Terrible, horrible time - so much money wasted on lawyers !
If having one could reduce some of the nastiness, expense & hostility I think it would be a fabulous idea.

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

We married at 22/23 when we each had nothing but equal amounts of student loan debt, no pre/post nup.

 

[Ionysis]

Bloody hell! I’m surprised anyone in Oz ever risks getting married!!

 

[Grymera]

Post nups are now generally legally unenforceable in many places in the United States, so if you're relying on one, you might want to call your lawyer and check if it's still valid! Many won't even do them anymore for risk of them getting thrown out of court.

My husband and I were "all in" when we got married.

 

[Alybetter]

We don’t have one. My husband would lose in the divorce no matter what just based on the laws in our state and the fact that he’s the sole earner. But neither of us are the type to become acrimonious. We would split everything.

 

[Lookinagain]

I think most people are "all in" when they get married. I don't think they go into it planning for things not to work out and divorcing. So I don't really think that is a reason to use for not having a pre-nup, unless for religious reasons you'd never consider divorce, no matter what.

 

[icy_jade]

So I don't really think that is a reason to use for not having a pre-nu

Pre-nup really isn’t the norm where I am, unless you are ultra wealthy and have family wealth to protect.

 

[Gussie]

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.

Regardless of where you live or have domestic help, this judgment is detrimental to all women. Mommy wars suck!

 

[Elizabeth35]

Ionysis--very, very few people have staff as seems to be customary in your area.
And even if they do have the money to have staff---it's up to the people in the marriage to make joint decisions about who works, or does not work for pay outside the home.


'But there is no fundamental reason why my husband couldn’t work now they are older, he just chooses not to. I choice I don’t get to make because someone has to keep a roof over all of our heads. '

The fact that you feel you don't get to make a choice seems very unfair. That is NOT making a joint decision. Can you not sit down and work out a compromise that you can both agree to?

 

[Austina]

I stayed home for 16 years while DS was growing up. I did everything in the house, cleaning, cooking, washing and ironing, shopping, decorating and gardening. I took DS to school and collected him everyday, I did it because DH worked very long hours and was away every month and we both felt it important that one of us be a constant figure in our son’s life. As he got older, he got more and more involved in after school activities, and needed taking and collecting, usually along with friends. It may not be a popular opinion, but we believed the only way our child would be brought up the way we wanted him to, was if one of us did it. If I had to do it all again, I’d do exactly the same.

 

[Grymera]

I think most people are "all in" when they get married. I don't think they go into it planning for things not to work out and divorcing. So I don't really think that is a reason to use for not having a pre-nup, unless for religious reasons you'd never consider divorce, no matter what.

Nah, disagree. Entering the marriage on equal footing and building a life together is a valid and wonderful thing to explore. If life happens and a divorce does too, at least the couple knows they did everything they could to work together and act like a team rather than always keeping one foot out the door in terms of preserving individual assets. What rarely gets discussed is the resentment that comes along with a prenup when one parter has more money/assets kept separate and protected. Especially if the less wealthy partner decides to stay home with the kids.

 

[luv2sparkle]

We have been married 41 years after marrying at 20. We had nothing to prenup. I have stayed home for 31 of those years. It was what was right for us. I find @Ionysis statements very rude and judgmental. Every family has to do what is right for them. I have rarely had help at home. I spent my days running kids around and literally hardly had a moment to myself. My staying home allowed my husband to fully pursue his career goals which paid significantly more that I would have earned. I thought about having a career myself and could have but it was more important to me to spend my life on my children-because the time is short that you get with them.

If something happened to my husband or me, it is unlikely that either of us would remarry, but if we did we would have a prenup to protect what we have built for our children. In my family, we have seen a spouse marry a greedy woman who siphoned everything she could for her family and left nothing for the family of her husband.

At this point, we are both retired. He from his career and me from raising our brood. I have no desire to go to work no and no need to do so. Should we divorce I could live on half his retirement and our assets as could he. I would fully expect to get that.

 

[Ionysis]

Oddly I wouldn’t ever have had a pre nup. I only insisted on the post nup after my husband had proven to me that his loyalty and judgement could not be relied upon. It was a condition of staying together. I’d never have put such a document in place at the outset of our marriage.

 

[Ionysis]

Regardless of where you live or have domestic help, this judgment is detrimental to all women. Mommy wars suck!

I was questioning the length of time not the validity of the choice to be a stay at home parent.

 

[Gussie]

I was questioning the length of time not the validity of the choice to be a stay at home parent.

The length of time deserves no judgement either.

I am sorry that you are not content with your husband's choice. I hope that you can find a way that you both are happy in the situation. However, judging anyone other than your husband because of his or her choice to work or stay at home for any length of time is awfully high and mighty.

 

[lissyflo]

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.

Try as I might I can’t phrase a civil response to this, especially as you later posted that everyone where you live pays for extensive domestic help. Good lord, the judgement of some people.

 

[missy]

I was questioning the length of time not the validity of the choice to be a stay at home parent.

Lonysis, it isn't your place to judge other moms. Being a mom is the hardest job anyone could ever have and also the most important job anyone could have. Parenting is tough. Let's support each other rather than judge each other. Let's not parent other parents please.

 

[Lookinagain]

Nah, disagree. Entering the marriage on equal footing and building a life together is a valid and wonderful thing to explore.

I don’t think having a pre-nup prevents entering on equal footing. It depends what the pre-nup is meant to address. Often it is only meant to deal with inherited assets. Not necessarily what is earned by either or both during the marriage. So if divorce does happen the result would be that the person who inherits takes their inheritance with them. Marital assets may be split. To me that’s the right result. Particularly if both parties work. I guess it depends where you’re coming from. Most of my friends are professional women and their husbands are professionals as well so don’t need the other for support should the marriage fail. I agree others may be in different situations and one being the earner while the other stays home for whatever reason changes things. But I still think inherited assets should stay out of the pot to be divided should things go awry. Just my opinion.

 

[Jambalaya]

I'm with @Ionysis. Privately, I have more respect for people who spend at least some portion of their lives working outside the home, even if not for very long, having to be suited and booted and at their desks looking alert by 8 am, experiencing challenges like bosses and co-workers, and knowing what it's like to have to produce, and generating taxes, than I do for people who have never worked. (I don't count people who take career breaks to have kids; I'm talking about people who have never had a job.)

That's one of the reasons I don't have much respect for Kate Middleton, who did absolutely nothing for many years between college and marriage, and who has consistently done a fraction of the engagements that all the other royals do, including those who are decades older than her. I think that never working outside the home is taking the easy way out, and it's just lazy, frankly. This is just my private opinion. As a very hard worker myself, this is how never-workers appear to me.

This isn't really about the kids issue. I know people who have never had kids and who don't have a real job. They mess about forming a company of one and appointing themselves CEO.

Funnily enough, I was reflecting the other day about how many people I know who don't have real jobs. It's a lot. After graduation, everybody was fast off the starting blocks, but in middle age, many seem to have lost their enthusiasm for work, regardless of whether they have kids or not. It's interesting.