How many have done a Pre-Nuptial Agreement; and why

[distracts]

I am not married yet, but plan on consulting a lawyer to better understand divorce law in my state and to determine if a prenuptial agreement is needed. This is part of the "pre-wedding groundwork" including premarital counseling that we'll be doing. I think it's a good idea to talk over with a lawyer even if you don't end up getting one, just so that you're more familiar with what would happen in the unlikely event that you ever do get divorced. It never hurts to be prepared. I disagree with those saying it's not romantic to do - I think it is very romantic to say that you want to ensure that your spouse's property remains their property in the event of a split, because you love them enough now that no matter how deranged you get in the future you don't want to hurt them in that way, when you could put legal protections in place to prevent it. I think that's romantic. But maybe I'm crazy!

 

[TravelingGal]

Perry, I don't know about your situation, but having been involved with someone who was not a legal resident at the time, I would say if the person's residency depends on the marriage, get a prenup. (Ours ended up not requiring our marriage for his residency, btw.)

I vaguely recall you said she was of eastern european background, but don't know if she was already here or not.

 

[steelmagnolia]

We didn't do one, because we were young and both came into the marriage with essentially nothing. As to the comment about inheritance upthread, my DH did come into a large inheritance when we'd been married 18 yrs and in our community property state, it was untouchable by me should I divorce him. One of the few things that would remain his regardless of the fact that he didn't get it until we'd been married many, many years.

 

[Trekkie]

Yes, they can be unromantic but it's nice to put in writing the way that people who are planning a 'life' together SHOULD behave when in reality, often don't. I married a divorced man with a child many years ago, I'm telling ya' sometimes people you'd least expect to be spiteful treat people [and kids] hideously when they are mad.
I wanted children and early retirement so a simple pre-nup was in order. It took him over a year to pay off his ex-wife's debt, so he had no choice
This should be private as many still think prenups are for rich people only
What aobut your credit? Want to keep your favorite piece of jewelry in the family?
I view prenups as marital insurance, not planning for an inevitable failure, it's having a plain in case of failure.

OMG, I found myself nodding to your entire post! So true! And like I always tell my friends who are on the fence about prenups, "if you don't want one because you are confident your marriage will last forever, then what's the harm in getting one? Worst case scenario is you're covered, best case scenario is you die married and you don't need it!"

Actually, the biggest reason to get a prenup is to protect things so that we can cover for each other during marriage if something bad goes wrong with the other. In this we are setting things up to protect the marriage. Due to the community property laws in Wisconsin people are now getting divorced just to prevent their "family" from having to absorb responsibility for very large medical bills if they are diagnosed with long term illnesses that will eat up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future (and health insurance is not what it used to be). Of course, it wrecks the family in other ways - and at a time when one of them needs emotional support as well due to the illness (I have a friend who went through this).

This is so true, Perry! A prenup isn't only for divorce, it's about making provision for your loved ones should anything like this ever happen to you. I readily acknowledge that not every marriage involves divorce, but every marriage features money.

In our case, I felt it was absolutely necessary, my DH felt it was unromantic. When I explained to him that I wanted a pre-nup because I loved him and wanted to protect him should I ever make any bad financial decisions, he readily came on board.

I had been married before and left that marriage with financial scars that are still impacting my life today, nearly 7 years later. Also, I dabble in property development with a view to one day retiring with enough of an income from my property portfolio to allow me to live in style, dripping with diamonds and Hermes handbags. Ok, the last bit is an exaggeration, but you get the idea.

However, as a result of this, at one stage I was very heavily in (mortgage) debt and I know I will be again. It would be unreasonable of me to expect my new husband to assume responsibility for this debt, seeing as I'm the one who consciously decided to take this risk. Also, I live in South Africa. The political situation is unstable. Every week brings new issues about owning more than one property... What if the government decides to seize my properties and leave me with nothing? This is not unlikely, it happened in Zimbabwe, just up the road from us.

Anyway, my point is not that I wish to hoard the profits to myself, but rather that I don't want my DH (or any children we may have) to be negatively impacted as a result of my business. For us, a pre-nup made perfect sense. Perry, it sounds like it is a good idea for you too. I am very glad that Princess Z is on board.

 

[Jennifer W]

I've had the option of getting "married" (civil union)... now please try to imagine this... for 2 months and 18 days out of anywhere I've lived in my lifetime.

Ok, so I looked at all this. Complicated!

My income would become his, his would become mine, my debts would become his, his would become mine?

There are some things about this marriage business I don't think I would like!

So if you get married in some states, you assume your spouse's debts? That's scary. Worst case scenario, what about the debt they did not disclose to you? What if you divorce them when you discover their borderline insolvency? Are you still liable for a portion of it, even though you knew nothing about it and didn't run any of it up yourself? There was a ruling here many years ago to prevent what commentators described as 'sexually transmitted debt' where people are liable for a spouse or partner's debts. If that didn't exist, I would surely consider a pre-nup.

eta, sorry for this slight threadjack, I'm genuinely interested in how this works elsewhere, and it's making me re-think my attitude to pre-nuptial agreements, since I see more of a purpose to them in this context now.

 

[Imdanny]

I don't know how this works because, to be honest, I've always focused on the "good" parts of marriage.

I want to be, and deserve to be, given the same status as married people would have re: medical and "end of life" decisions. I know you can get medical power of attorney, and things like that. Those arrangements are not always honored by hospitals. We hear horror stories in the US about partners dying alone while the other was fighting to even have access to them, etc.

I do know that our new civil union law is very short. It simply says who's eligible (not blood relations) and then says the same statues that apply to marriage apply to civil union.

I don't have a lot of assets to "protect" and as strange as it might sound, I know I'm never getting "divorced". Having said that, there's a lot more about marriage I want to know before I would enter into one.

I think I've been a little too judgmental about pre-nuptial agreements. I don't have any problem with couples doing whatever works for them.

 

[missy]

My dh and I never even considered a prenup. We are both romantics and the thought of one truly didn't cross our minds. We both had some assets when we got married (both owned homes and cars and stocks/bonds/retirement accounts) and neither of us had any debt except my dh's mortgage as I had already paid mine off. But then again he was earning way more than I was so I think we were sort of equal money wise when we got married. Even if we weren't equal financially a prenup wasn't on our radar.

I think there is no general right or wrong here but rather what is right for each couple. I see it both ways. For us it wasn't right but I could see where for others it would be the smart thing to do. A very individual and very personal decision.

 

[perry]

I agree with the comment about it being romantic to ensure your partner is protected during the marriage. Who would not want to protect their partner?


I'd avise everyone to fully research the laws of the state they get married in; and the laws of any states they are planning on moving too. In the end, the state you are living in when problems occur may determine how things plays out.

Don't have a pre-nup; and then move to a community property state (there 8 or 9 of them in the US - and they all do things differently); and you may find yourself in a completely different set of rules that can impact your marriage.

There are such things as "post nuptial agreements" as well. I would clearly do a post nup if I was moving to certain other states to ensure appropriate coverage under their laws.


Love Laugh and Live Life,

Perry

 

[onedrop]

I've had the option of getting "married" (civil union)... now please try to imagine this... for 2 months and 18 days out of anywhere I've lived in my lifetime.

Ok, so I looked at all this. Complicated!

My income would become his, his would become mine, my debts would become his, his would become mine?

There are some things about this marriage business I don't think I would like!

So if you get married in some states, you assume your spouse's debts? That's scary. Worst case scenario, what about the debt they did not disclose to you? What if you divorce them when you discover their borderline insolvency? Are you still liable for a portion of it, even though you knew nothing about it and didn't run any of it up yourself? There was a ruling here many years ago to prevent what commentators described as 'sexually transmitted debt' where people are liable for a spouse or partner's debts. If that didn't exist, I would surely consider a pre-nup.

eta, sorry for this slight threadjack, I'm genuinely interested in how this works elsewhere, and it's making me re-think my attitude to pre-nuptial agreements, since I see more of a purpose to them in this context now.

JenniferW: Yes, (in part) to your question that I highlighted. It's not the state where you married that would have jurisdiction, it's the state where you reside when the divorce happens that would have jurisdiction over the division of assets and liabilities. And yes, you can be liable in certain community property states even if your spouse incurred the debt in their own name. Which is why a prenup would be highly advantageous in a community property state, even if you don't have a lot of liabilities going into the marriage. Not only does it protect assets acquired before the marriage, you'd also probably be covered in a divorce when there are significant liabilities/debts.

We didn't do a pre-nup, but I certainly understand why couples would have one depending upon their circumstances. I also don't think pre-nups mean that a couple is planning for a divorce. I think when discussed and agreed upon well before the marriage actually happens, especially in the context of trying to protect and safeguard each other if something as unfortunate as divorce occurs, a pre-nup is a really positive thing.

 

[Saoirse2]

I agree with the comment about it being romantic to ensure your partner is protected during the marriage. Who would not want to protect their partner?

I'd avise everyone to fully research the laws of the state they get married in; and the laws of any states they are planning on moving too. In the end, the state you are living in when problems occur may determine how things plays out.
There are such things as "post nuptial agreements" as well. I would clearly do a post nup if I was moving to certain other states to ensure appropriate coverage under their laws.

Love Laugh and Live Life,
Perry

Post-nuptial agreements are not as common as pre-nuptial agreements where I live because postnups cover Alimony and often disregarded in court [if other part says it was entered under duress] and may look like further portfolio enhancement.

Either one may be required when entering to a partnership so their spouse will not claim on the business in case of an early death/divorce.
Our Pre-nup expired 8 years ago [remainder of a major loan]. If I recall correctly, it had a compensation in case of a role as a caretaker, early death %, medical bills and company's loans/liability protection.
If I were to remarry again [doubt it] I would request a prenuptial to protect my children and have him give up the right to alimony.
Be safe, S.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I've had the option of getting "married" (civil union)... now please try to imagine this... for 2 months and 18 days out of anywhere I've lived in my lifetime.

Ok, so I looked at all this. Complicated!

My income would become his, his would become mine, my debts would become his, his would become mine?

There are some things about this marriage business I don't think I would like!

So if you get married in some states, you assume your spouse's debts? That's scary. Worst case scenario, what about the debt they did not disclose to you? What if you divorce them when you discover their borderline insolvency? Are you still liable for a portion of it, even though you knew nothing about it and didn't run any of it up yourself? There was a ruling here many years ago to prevent what commentators described as 'sexually transmitted debt' where people are liable for a spouse or partner's debts. If that didn't exist, I would surely consider a pre-nup.

eta, sorry for this slight threadjack, I'm genuinely interested in how this works elsewhere, and it's making me re-think my attitude to pre-nuptial agreements, since I see more of a purpose to them in this context now.

Every state is different. In some states, if one spouse has a ton of debt and needs to file for bankruptcy, both individuals have to file even if the other has never touched a credit card. The courts can go after the other spouse and garnish wages or file tax liens. One person I know had her spouse aquire debt after they seperated and she got her bank account drained! She got a letter in the mail and was like WTF because her employer had been contacted. They also took money from the DAUGHTER'S account b/c the daughter had a joint account with the dad.

 

[partgypsy]

I haven't (didn't need to, both of us didn't have anything when we got married). Friend of mine did; they both came from wealthy families and also were a little older, had independent careers. The husband had his own business. It made sense for them because it protected assets that were to only go to one side of the family or another, and protect her in case something catastrophic happened to his business, that she would not be financially impacted.

In your case I think it is a good idea. The simplest way to do it is to protect assets earned before the marriage, keep debts earned before marriage only in the debtors name, and share what is earned after marriage.
However as you have seen, some people do keep their earnings seperate after marriage. However even if physically seperated, this is and can be contested during a divorce (that is, judge interprets what is earned or owed during a marriage as shared).

 

[mimB]

Next time I'm getting married, I'll be insisting on a pre-nup; after going through a mild divorce without one, it would feel irresponsible not getting one.
In MD, USA, any income post marriage is mutual; any debt acquired from jointly owned equity is mutual; for many 401K plans, the spouse is automatically the beneficiary, and that cannot be changed without the spouse's consent. Plus, it takes a year or more to divorce - any savings or debt accumulated then still counts as mutual.
Now, even given three ameliorating assumptions (marriage being short and childless, and both people staying civil under duress), financial and emotional costs with a pre-nut (hiring an attorney, allocating assets while wildly in love) vs without one (hiring an attorney and dividing assets and responsibility while very politely trying not to bite each others heads off) will be lower.
Or so I expect.

And if you get a pre-nup and then stay together forever - there are no real downsides - you are better aware of the law, and have an additional certainty that silly financial decisions will have less negative impact on your relationship and your individual status.

Romanticism via legal gestures (or lack thereof) is overrated - love by itself does not sustain a relationship.