if your FI ask you to sign a prenuptial...would you?

[tlh]

depends on what it said. If my man asked me to sign a pre-nup, I''d get an attourney to clause the heck out of the document to make sure I end up on top!

 

[LaraOnline]

The interesting thing about Whitby's post - where she was the one with the money when she met her husband, is a little like my own situation. Both my DH and myself had lost our fathers very early (before the age of 10). My father had made a very old-fashioned will, where my mother got most... but we children also had some money set aside. So while it wasn't a crazy large amount, it allowed us to buy our business.

In relation to my friend's mother, who was passive enough to walk away from everything, it seems she was just easily bullied.

Surely the marital contract would have been enough to have her access half the estate, she just didn't follow up on anything! What a turnip! She went to stay at a friend's house for a couple of weeks, and when she came back, the new girlfriend had moved into her house!
But how interesting that even when they made a bundle, the ex and his new wife didn't consider that giving her even a little something back would have been fair...

 

[princesss]

Date: 4/29/2009 10:05:46 AM
Author: megumic
Even being in the legal profession, pre-nups strike me the wrong way. If you''re willing to give your heart and soul to someone and enjoin yours with theirs, I can''t imagine saying ''Oh but, sign this so I can protect myself from you if and when things go awry.'' I think it does a disservice to marriage as we know it and discounts the very relationship. If the man/woman you''re about to marry is so concerned with their assets and money that they cannot trust the very person they''ll be spending their life with, then their priorities are in the wrong place.

My view may be a bit skewed, as I plan/hope on never getting divorced. But I would say those accepting of pre-nups are probably more likely to be open to divorce as well.

That''s definitely not the case with me. Other than under extraordinary circumstances, I don''t believe in divorce. Vows are forever. So for me, a prenup is either a meaningless piece of paper which I would never use, or protection and a way to make a horrible transition a little easier in the event of extraordinary circumstances. I don''t think I believe in my relationship any less than anybody else because I''d be willing to sign one if asked. I just take a practical view of my life: I cannot predict everything, and it does me no favours to act as if I know exactly how my life will go. Just as I will have a will and a living will set up at some point, I would be willing to set up a prenup. It''s a precaution against something horrible I hope never happens, and I would be happy to consider it wasted money at the end of my life.

 

[kama_s]

Only, and ONLY if he had a huge family inheritence. Mr. Kama had a successful business before he met me, and I have student loans - but we think of money as ''our'' money, versus ''his'' and ''mine''.

 

[mrssalvo]

nope, I wouldn''t sign one.

 

[lucyandroger]

No, I wouldn''t.

I don''t believe that divorce is something that HAPPENS to you like being hit by a bus. Divorce is a decision just like the decision to get married in the first place. SO and I have the same morals and values and divorce is just not an option for us so there''s no need for a pre nup. (Whitby''s post is right on!) Besides we have no family money, make just about the same salary, and have the same amount in student loans.

 

[Elmorton]

It really depends on the circumstance. For general economic descrepancies (ex: he makes a ton more money than I do, we have a 1-income family because we agree that I stay home, or he''s older and already has a certain amount of wealth amassed), I''d generally say no, I wouldn''t sign it - I believe that in a marriage, assets (and debts) should be shared - though I will openly say that I didn''t believe this until I''d been married for awhile, so you would have gotten a different answer a few years ago.

Now, for other reasons, I''m completely fine with signing/asking - I have an acquaintance who married a guy whose family owns a business. The family asked for a pre-nup, because they want their family business to always stay in family hands. For that, of course I''d sign.

Or, say I''m marrying a person who already has children/supports other family members - I might sign a pre-nup which states that I can''t access money of a certain amount set aside for them.

If the pre-nup is protecting others outside of the marriage, I really don''t have a problem with it. But if the prenup is simply protecting one partner in the marriage and not both, I think there''s a serious issue there that should probably be resolved prior to walking down the aisle.

 

[Octavia]

Why do so many people have the notion that a prenup only protects one partner? I guess because that''s the mass-media concept of a prenup, but it''s not true in most cases. And usually, even absent a prenup, your assets and debts are NOT going to be shared 50-50 because of the statutory scheme your state has chosen (only a handful of states are community property, and the rest are separate property). If you believe in sharing everything 50-50, you can set up a prenup that way and guarantee that it happens, because few state laws will give you that same guarantee.

I wouldn''t sign a prenup if my FI was asking me to disclaim all my rights to every dime -- but if he was the kind of person who would ask me to do something like that, I wouldn''t be marrying him anyway.

 

[NovemberBride]

I am an attorney and I would not sign a pre-nup. I do think that it signals an admission that the marriage may not work out, which I don''t think is the right attitude.

Octavia, I think in most instances people believe a pre-nup is set up to protect one partner because that''s the truth. That is not always the case, I am sure there are some pre-nups set up to protect both parties, but it is rare. You don''t need a pre-nup to protect both parties, that''s what the law is designed to do. Even though most states are not community property, the majority are equitable distribution states, which means that the property is divided fairly, and that often ends up being 50-50. The issue that most women have coming out of a divorce is not that the property was not divided equally, the issue is more often alimony. The marital assets are not usually enough to sustain someone for a prolonged period of time without an income and that''s where women who did not work outside the home get burned because they may not have the ability to get a job that pays well. Alimony is a separate issue from division of property, although it can be covered in a pre-nup (although child supprt and custody cannot).

Also, while it is true that today the woman could be the partner with assets to protect, this does not change my opinion. For what it''s worth, I came in to my marriage with a lot more money than my husband. I also am likely to inherit a large amount of money during some point in our marriage as well. The thought of asking my DH to sign a pre-nup never crossed my mind. His friends actually joked about it, but it was never something I considered. While I still earn a great deal more than my DH, he also adds a lot of value to our family as well. He does a lot of things around the house, including a majority of the cooking and cleaning. I guess it''s sort of a reversal of traditional roles, but should we ever separate, I believe that he would be enititled to a fair share of the money for his contributions during the marriage.

 

[tigian]

Date: 4/29/2009 9:37:58 AM
Author: princesss
I''d sign one.


Better to arrange everything while feeling lovey-dovey and being convinced it''s just going to be a useless piece of paper than when both people are (potentially) making decisions out of anger. Less room for vindictiveness to affect the outcome and lifestyle of one or both partners, and possibly a quicker, smoother resolution.

Ditto.
But my husband and I had nothing but student loans between the two of us when we got married, so there was no need. My business has grown during our marriage, but I am the one who owns since we don''t work together. It would be different (in terms of divorce) if we created the business together. I also don''t think that just because divorce is discussed, means that your marriage will fail.

 

[Dancing Fire]

most of you say...we don''t expect getting divorced after we say (i do),it won''t happen to us. stop lying to yourselfs,it can happen to any couple.

 

[alli_esq]

Date: 4/29/2009 12:01:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
most of you say...we don''t expect getting divorced after we say (i do),it won''t happen to us. stop lying to yourselfs,it can happen to any couple.

I just laughed aloud at this. You sure don''t mince words, do you, DF?

 

[Bia]

Date: 4/29/2009 12:01:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
most of you say...we don't expect getting divorced after we say (i do),it won't happen to us. stop lying to yourselfs,it can happen to any couple.

I actually agree with you on something DF!

 

[Camille]

I see pre-nups as a fair practice. I don't think wives/husbands should get monies that parents/spouses worked so hard for prior to being married it's not yours period. Being organized doesn't mean divorce plans, DH/I belive in one marriage and have been married for a long time...things do happen, unfortunately.

 

[musey]

Of course, I actually was the one that suggested it during our engagement. This was before I knew what pre-nups cover (at least in California), which is pretty much a non-issue for us. So we don''t have one - mutual decision.

 

[musey]

Date: 4/29/2009 12:01:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
most of you say...we don't expect getting divorced after we say (i do),it won't happen to us. stop lying to yourselfs,it can happen to any couple.

There's a difference between delusion and hopefulness.

Believing that one's marriage will never come to divorce can be a very positive force in a relationship in and of itself, so why shouldn't people believe that? Just because it could happen, that is no reason to stop believing that it won't happen. What would be the productive purpose in that?

 

[mrscushion]

Yes. And if FI and I didn''t come from similar financial circumstances, then I would ask him to sign one.

 

[whitby_2773]

Date: 4/29/2009 12:01:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
most of you say...we don''t expect getting divorced after we say (i do),it won''t happen to us. stop lying to yourselfs,it can happen to any couple.

rubbish and not true.

the most surprising people get divorced - people we might look at externally and think would NEVER get divorced. and life throws curve balls that marriages just cant tolerate, definitely. i am not anti-divorce as a universal statement, tho i do think there are a lot of couples who divorce well before they''ve ''tried all avenues''. and there are some situations where i think ''trying all avenues'' is not necessary, such as domestic violence, gender reassignment, where one partner has a history of child sexual assault, certain criminal records, various addictions, and so on and so on. but even under extreme conditions, there''s always couples who choose not to separate - for good or for ill. god knows, i''ve worked with couples who should have separated YEARS earlier than they did (or didn''t, as the case may have been). some people simply choose to stay together - sometimes to tear each other apart more conveniently. but sometimes to resolve, rise above and move on. the main factor was choice. what tears one couple apart won''t tear apart another couple. for some people, separating is more heinous to their psyches, to their morality, to their picture of themselves than staying together could ever be.

as for a pre-nup, given that my career evolved into dispute resolution, i did plenty of mediation for divorcing couples. a pre-nup, when everything is lovey-dovey, is the WORST time to make a deal on what to give up. almost always someone (most often the woman - and there is an OCEAN of literature out there on power differences related to gender - some of it written by me!) compromises to keep the peace. better to fight for what you truly want when your opponent is truly your opponent. people are more likely to fight for what they see as theirs AFTER the marriage is over than before it starts. so many women are afraid of jeopardizing the wedding, coming across as looking like a hard faced b**ch, and de-feminizing themselves in their partners eyes. they dont want to be seen as difficult, contentious, hard nosed, or any of those other things which our society has branded as inherently non-feminine. ergo pre-nups CAN BE notoriously one sided.

if you can afford an attorney before you get married, you''re more than likely able to afford a bigger, better, scarier one when you get divorced to represent your interests at a time when you KNOW it didn''t work out, rather than during the time when you''re still telling yourself ''hey - this could never happen to us''. just because you''re getting divorced doesn''t mean you cant fight for what you want even if you don''t have a pre-nup. just an off the top of my head example - the couple i know who divorced last year. she had her family''s inheritance, they divorced after 20 years, both had worked, tho she had spent some years at home raising children. she now earned slightly more than him. they agreed to share custody. even given all of that - she was awarded 75% of the family assets, and him the remaining 25%.

in mediation, mediators are taught to find an agreement. yet often one party is more contentious than the other - and generally there is one party who is more often to settling. mediators are taught to get the settlement from the party who is WILLING to settle - not from the one who they may feel SHOULD compromise more, bend more, give more. if a pre-nup favors one party more than the other, my belief is that that party is more likely to hold less fear of a divorce; loss of assets is a big negative for most people - nobody wants to lose what they have worked hard to achieve. ergo holding on to those assets tends to be a motivating influence.

but the main thing i find distasteful about pre-nups is that it''s a case of someone wanting ot protect themselves. marriage is all about being vulnerable. if one party isnt willing ot be emotionally, physically, an financially vulnerable to the other from the get go, there''s a problem.

 

[musey]

Date: 4/29/2009 12:01:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
most of you say...we don''t expect getting divorced after we say (i do),it won''t happen to us. stop lying to yourselfs,it can happen to any couple.

Oh and also, divorce isn''t something that just happens. It''s a choice. Sometimes it''s absolutely the right choice, and the only choice to make, but it''s still a choice.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I don''t find prenups replusive...although, we don''t have one. And if Mark had asked me to sign one, I would have. We both had a lot when we married, it would have made sense.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/29/2009 1:45:36 PM
Author: whitby_2773

Date: 4/29/2009 12:01:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
most of you say...we don''t expect getting divorced after we say (i do),it won''t happen to us. stop lying to yourselfs,it can happen to any couple.

rubbish and not true.


but the main thing i find distasteful about pre-nups is that it''s a case of someone wanting ot protect themselves. marriage is all about being vulnerable. if one party isnt willing ot be emotionally, physically, an financially vulnerable to the other from the get go, there''s a problem.

only if we all had a crystal ball.

 

[Pandora II]

Nope - waste of money as they have no legal standing in the UK...

 

[lyra]

Well, it seems terribly unromantic, and would have been completely a moot thing for us way back when. I can see the value in it, but personally, I''d have a hard time with the issue myself. I don''t know what my daughters would think either. It would have to be an extremely fair arrangement, otherwise it certainly would never get my personal blessing.

 

[meresal]

FI''s family owns an oil company, so we have had this conversation. I always told him, that if his dad said anything to him, about having me sign one, then I would. The compnay was built from nothing by his grandfather and his dad, it is not mine to take from him, if anything were to happen to our relationship. With that said, whenever FI takes over the compnay it will always be in his and his brother''s name. My name will never be on anything, so I wouldn''t have claim to it anyway.

I think the idea of a pre-nup is a hard thing to swallow, when it''s your first marriage. My sister just got remarried at 36, and they both signed pre-nups. When you''ve been making 6 figures for over 10 yrs, have multiple 401k''s and thousands in stocks, you are honest with yourself, and realize... anything can happen.

If I had "alot"(RE: above statement) to my name, of course we would sign one. Why should I get what he had before we met? I would expect the exact same if I were the money maker, so why would I not afford him the same courtesy. (If that is what he wanted, of course)

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/29/2009 3:20:14 PM
Author: meresal
If I had ''alot''(RE: above statement) to my name, of course we would sign one. Why should I get what he had before we met? I would expect the exact same if I were the money maker, so why would I not afford him the same courtesy. (If that is what he wanted, of course)

agree!!

 

[HollyS]

I''d laugh. His profit sharing retirement account isn''t enough to fight over.

Neither is mine. Now.

 

[Steel]

Yes.

When thing are good they are great, if a marriage is irreconcilable it is hell. Nice if the brass tacks are already for the most part divided.

 

[Elmorton]

Oh, I don''t know why I''m stirring the pot with this -

-but I don''t get the argument "Why should I get what he had before we met?"

DH and I met when we were in college. While we were dating, I went to grad school. Now that we''re married, we use our combined income to pay off both of our student debts, though mine is considerably more. Isn''t this what most people would do?

Continuing on that vein - let''s say I''m dating someone who had a large savings stored up before we met. I have less in my bank account, but still some savings. We get married. I say, "Hey, our savings account has a bunch of $ in it. Let''s buy a house" - is it unethical that I suggest this? Wouldn''t most PSers (based on what I''ve read in the multiple threads about joint/separate finances) agree that these accounts are now shared by virtue of the marriage?

I guess what I''m getting at is that I think that we marry a whole person. Penniless or rich as heck, we accept that person and that person''s history as our partner when we get married. If I marry an exceedingly wealthy man, I expect to have access to that wealth just the same as I expect to carry the burden of a partner''s debt if he is in dire straits.

 

[Steel]

Date: 4/29/2009 4:48:58 PM
Author: Elmorton
Oh, I don''t know why I''m stirring the pot with this -

-but I don''t get the argument ''Why should I get what he had before we met?''

I can''t speak for everybody else.

I would use the pre-nup to secure and safeguard future wealth not solely for existing wealth.

I feel they are particularly useful when 2 people enter the marriage but over time one supports the other in furtherance of that other''s career. Either by living in another location, child-rearing or other support methods. If not for the fact that the non-benefiting spouse took on that burden the career benefiting spouse would not achieve the level of success they achieve. So when the marriage dissolves and the supporting spouse finds themself in the labour market they often cannot enter at the same level they left and certainly not on a comparable level had they not left. So I feel they deserve to share in the future success of supported spouse. But in the event of marital breakdown neither spouse would choose to be ''fair'' to the other. Hence why I feel a pre-nup signed when times are good will often be more favourable than that fought out after he/she finds a pair of undies in the glove compartment.

Afterthought:

If I were young and married a tycoon, giving him the best mate-finding years of my life and he cheated on me and divorced me. Now with my youth behind me, I return to the dating pool where the majority of prime real estate is already married. I have become accostomed to a certain status and cannot afford it working at junior level. Why can''t I take some of his trust fund? Didn''t he scr*w me over?

 

[vespergirl]

In general, no, and we do not have a prenup. However, if I had married a billionaire or something, I wouldn''t have been surprised if he asked me to sign one. I just would have had a lawyer go over it & send back requirements of my own. However, I think that for the average couple, they are not necessary, and start off marriage on a bad foot.

I have a friend who signed a prenup, and it made her not trust her husband (he''s a lawyer who had been through a bad divorce & wanted one for his second marriage to her). I have to say, though, that she was so depressed about the prenup, that they are now having marital problems. She told me that the fact that he thought they might need one really hurt her feelings, and now she doesn''t see him the same way. It''s really sad, because they were engaged for a year and a half & just started to plan the wedding when she got pregnant 8 months before the wedding date. He sprung the prenup on her 2 years after their engagement, but a few months before their baby was due. She felt that she had no choice but to sign it & marry him at that point. I thought that was so crappy of him.