Would YOU Sign a Pre-nup?

[iLander]

The marrying with money threads got me started on this.

IF you were getting ready to marry your current SO, and he/she wanted you to, would you sign a prenuptial agreement?

I'll come back later and give you my answer.

 

[telephone89]

Yes of course. What people don't seem to realize is that your province/state already has you in a pre-nup. You just get no choice in it. Writing your own offers more protection for both parties IMO, you are more aware of each aspect of it and the consequences and are better off.

Unless the 'richer' party is deliberately trying to sabotage the 'poorer' person (in which case I probably wouldn't marry the richer), most prenups are perfectly reasonable.

eta- A lot of prenups also do not deal strictly with money. They also delve into family/children, property, assets acquired before marriage.

 

[Huff26]

Probably not…

It honestly depends on the situation. For example I currently work, but when/if we have baby #2 if doesn't make financial sense for me to work for at least 5 or so years. In the meantime my husband will continue with his career, get promotions, raises, bonus, acquire valuable skills, etc. So if we were to divorce at a later date, I would have given up those 5+ years and have the challenge of basically restarting my career.

Now if the prenup made allotments for things like what I outlined above, where one parent stays home with the child (or elderly parent, or travels with them for their career, etc.) then yes it's perfectly reasonable. But if you want the other person to sacrifice it all for you and then walk away when you want a different flavor, then no sorry, I'm not going to start over emotionally and financially.

 

[PintoBean]

Nope, since we weren't too keen on having kids before getting married, and we are both part of the disappearing middle class so one of these days we may just be po'.

 

[diamondringlover]

no lol we dont have anything so pre-nup would not be needed

 

[Mayk]

Yes and we did. We each had a prenup drawn up by our own lawyers then reviewed and agreed. Second marriage, both came in with children, retirement accounts, etc. it really wasn't a big deal. I teased DH he drove around with his in the visor of his car for months. We signed them and have never talked about it again.

 

[momhappy]

Yes. In certain circumstances.

 

[Gypsy]

Yes, depending on the circumstances.

First marriage, young, with both of us basically having nothing but our educations? No.

But later in life, or with a lot of family money, yes. As long as it was equitable. Not drawn up by one party and forced on another. It would have to be a mutual decision and a mutual negotiation just like our marriage would be.

 

[kenny]

No.
But not for the assumed reason.

I never want a wealthy partner.

Been there.
Done that.

 

[CJ2008]

Yes, depending on the circumstances.

First marriage, young, with both of us basically having nothing but our educations? No.

But later in life, or with a lot of family money, yes. As long as it was equitable. Not drawn up by one party and forced on another. It would have to be a mutual decision and a mutual negotiation just like our marriage would be.

Pretty much this...

Especially this part:

As long as it was equitable. Not drawn up by one party and forced on another. It would have to be a mutual decision and a mutual negotiation just like our marriage would be

 

[telephone89]

I'm interested that there are so many 'no' answers. I'm not wealthy by any means (nor is my partner) but we both thought it was important to have one. This is an interesting article, relating a bit to what I said in my first post.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/07/17/skittish-about-a-prenup-like-it-or-not-you-already-have-one/

TBH I'd be put off if someone didn't want to sign one. I know I'm not trying to rip them off, just have more control than the govt in my marriage. Perhaps it's because I come from the side of wanting/preferring one, but it would leave a bad taste in my mouth of someone refused to sign it. A) likely because they misunderstood the intent, and b) comes off like theyre in it for the money (because of a).

eta more: Also, when you get married in one state/province w/o a prenup, you are signing up for that state/province govt prenup. If you move to another state/province, I believe your new state/province govt will be your new contract. A prenup will supersede any moves, so long as it is still legal in both places.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I would.

 

[mom2dolls]

Yes, absolutely.

I am also surprised by the number of no's.

 

[Niel]

Yes. And I think every man should ask for one.

My brother in law was married, and he was left by his wife. She would not do counciling and she left him for another man.

He is required to pay her alimony and child support to the tune of half his monthly paycheck because she gets the kids 4 nights a week and he gets them three (even though the day count is reversed). He has to pay for her choice of daycare, though his mother is willing and able to provide free daycare (that the x wife doesn't want). I remember distinctly the judge in his divorce saying he was being a model father, but this is how the friend of the court is set up

He is royally screwed, and she's the one that ended things.


For a gold-digger perspective. Seems like sure sign it, you want money after all, if that's all that's keeping you from it is not cheating or not doing this or that....just sign it. I mean it should have provisions to nullify the agreement if the wealthy party is the cause of the divorce


Plus seems like it makes divorce a lot easier.

And you're in love, you're going to be together forever, right?

 

[longtimelurker]

oh heck yeah. My parents wanted us to when we were young, had no assets and just our educations. It seemed silly, especially since I had no intent to commingle gifts/inheritance (and I DIDN'T, except when I intended for it to be included in the marital estate). However, even with all of that my ex was, um, special, thinking that MY gifts/inheritance were community property (no, they're not part of the marital estate and not subject to division) and his earnings/savings were his (no, they ARE marital property and subject to division since they were earned during the marriage). Cost me an obscene amount in legal fees.

No matter how reasonable someone is ahead of time, when they're angry and lashing out they're unreasonable--better to have had the insurance of a pre-nup ahead of time so these topics were just avoided. You just don't know how someone will act -- my ex was the most rational unemotional person for 24 years, then it all flipped.

And hands down yes for a later in life marriage, especially if there's previous children.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Yes!, that will prove to her I am not marrying her for the money.

 

[Dancing Fire]

No matter how reasonable someone is ahead of time, when they're angry and lashing out they're unreasonable--better to have had the insurance of a pre-nup ahead of time so these topics were just avoided. You just don't know how someone will act -- my ex was the most rational unemotional person for 24 years, then it all flipped.

Exactly it can get ugly in a hurry.

 

[dk168]

Yup, as I have work very hard to achieve what I have, and am wary of spongers who would consider me as an easy target.

I had been sponged off before and have incurred small financial losses, and am not prepared to allow it to happen again.

DK

 

[Rhea]

When we originally married? No. It wouldn't have made sense. Both in our early 20s, no savings to speak of, no money, not set to inherit money, and I was moving abroad to be with him. Moving to another country was beyond difficult, the hardest thing I've ever done and it had a great impact on me emotionally and us financially. It was a risk for both of us as I couldn't work for a time and required his support and I had no rights should he simply decide to ditch me. I thought about moving over on a student visa but that was a greater risk financially with me shouldering the entire burden of very expensive student loans alone and with less security to me for a long-term stay in the UK so we got married. If he'd have demanded a pre-nup when we were both poor I would have left unless there was a very particular asset DH wanted to protect and he was able to clearly communicate that - such as his parent's business. What would have been the purpose otherwise? To make me feel less secure about my rights to be in the country and using our savings and his job to support me through the time I couldn't legally work? DH's parents always had intentions to retire, sell their business and enjoy their retirement, which they have - and good on them! - so no money there. They would have had to both die within our 1st 5 years of marriage and even then I don't believe inheritance is considered martial property so it was already protected as DH's by the laws of our country.

If DH died or we divorced and I entered a new marriage later in life? If it were necessary. At that point I'd want to protect anything I had from the life we built together, including anything I inherited from DH and any property that I may have at that time. I'd expect the same from a partner as well. Though at the moment that's still not much so I wouldn't be the one asking for a pre-nup in my current position but with a different partner!

 

[gregchang35]

The question is all relative....

I would not have done when i was younger, say in my 20s as i probably would not have built my estate up as i have now.

Also, past experience from his side shows how ugly it can get when the estate has to be carved up when one passes away.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

A fair prenup (one that protected existing assets and recognized professional sacrifices for the marriage)? Sure. One that was meant to screw me over? Nope and goodbye.

 

[MarionC]

Yes, absolutely.

I am also surprised by the number of no's.

I am too. You never know what the future will bring and it protects both people, no matter who has the assets at the beginning. It may seem silly or unromantic at the time, but believe me, things can change in ways you never expected.

 

[missy]

We did not but we came to the marriage with fairly equal assets and it did not cross our minds.

And if you had asked me this question 15 years ago I would have said no I would not but now I would say it depends on many factors. However, you can bet we are protected if something
g-d forbid happens to one of us in terms of life insurance, health care directives, powers of attorney, and a living trust etc.

At least we are smart about that.

 

[chrono]

Yes. Joint agreement now to be fair to both parties when both are thinking rationally will come in handy when the divorce becomes heated and people go crazy with thoughts of revenge and unfairness.

 

[ame]

The marrying with money threads got me started on this.

IF you were getting ready to marry your current SO, and he/she wanted you to, would you sign a prenuptial agreement?

I'll come back later and give you my answer.

Yes, if we had discussed it at length previously. If he sprung it on me last minute as a surprise, then we'd have bigger issues to hash out than a prenup. I think prenups can be very smart moves.

 

[Jambalaya]

Back in the day, I thought pre-nups were for extremely wealthy people, and it seems they have trickled down to ordinary people.

I don't know how I feel about them. If I were the askee, I might think you don't trust me.

If I were the asker, I'd have a lot of money and might want to protect it.

Pre-nups for very, very wealthy people seem unnecessary, because if you split $200 million in half, you'd still have $100 million. In my view, when there is so much money, pre-nups become irrelevant - but that's only my view. Some people might object to losing $100 million on principle. But usually, that person will have been your spouse for many years and has probably contributed to and enriched your life in many ways, even if you don't love them now. It's not as if you're giving the money to a stranger, but that's just me - if I had 200 mil I probably wouldn't mind "only" having 100 mil.

I did wonder if pre-nups which only apply to abuse and infidelity were possible, but then you'd have to prove abuse and infidelity. Terrible abuse can be quite hidden, and I'm not sure how you'd prove infidelity, short of hiding in the closet with a camera.

I understand what someone above said about giving things up to raise kids and then being stuck high and dry if someone decides they're in love with a different flavor. What if you have a child with certain needs, or a child that has a lot of problems as a younger teenager, and you really need to stay home longer than five years?

Maybe this is a crazy generalization, but the majority of the time it seems the man is the richer one, and it tends to be the woman who compromises her earning power as she is the one who has the kids and it tends to be her who does more of the childcare - ie gets up in the night so is more tired at work, stays home when the children are sick, and can't stay late at work in order to pick the kids up from daycare. This sometimes results in mothers being less valued at work - not always of course, but there's a term for it - the Mommy Track. And tiredness and sickness during pregnancy can also affect a woman's performance at work, not to mention possible complications of pregnancy.

So given that men are still often the wealthier party and don't have to contend with childbearing issues, pre-nups do seem a little unfair because in many cases, like in a traditional set-up, it seems to be the man who benefits. Like, he can be unfaithful with fewer consequences. But hey, I've never seen a pre-nup. Maybe I'm reading it all wrong.

If I had the money, I might want to protect it. If I were a woman of childbearing age and we were planning to have 2-3 kids, I think I'd feel worse about a pre-nup than if we were on equal footing, I was past childbearing age, and we had no reason to think that one would ever be significantly poorer than the other. Being equals and protecting what you each have is one thing, but where there is an economical imbalance, or there will be one in the future due to child-raising, pre-nups seem more unfair to the poorer party, especially if the poorer party is also the future-child-bearing party.

 

[Jambalaya]

Yes. And I think every man should ask for one.

My brother in law was married, and he was left by his wife. She would not do counciling and she left him for another man.

He is required to pay her alimony and child support to the tune of half his monthly paycheck because she gets the kids 4 nights a week and he gets them three (even though the day count is reversed). He has to pay for her choice of daycare, though his mother is willing and able to provide free daycare (that the x wife doesn't want). I remember distinctly the judge in his divorce saying he was being a model father, but this is how the friend of the court is set up

He is royally screwed, and she's the one that ended things.


For a gold-digger perspective. Seems like sure sign it, you want money after all, if that's all that's keeping you from it is not cheating or not doing this or that....just sign it. I mean it should have provisions to nullify the agreement if the wealthy party is the cause of the divorce


Plus seems like it makes divorce a lot easier.

And you're in love, you're going to be together forever, right?

I don't know much about these things, but I'd be surprised if a pre-nup denied someone child support and alimony? I thought they were to protect economical assets that a person has before marriage?

 

[luv2sparkle]

We married young and had absolutely nothing, so no. But if one of us remarries after the other dies, then yes. I would want to protect what we have built together for our children and grandchildren, and I wouldn't want it to go to a second wife and her family. I have seen it happen and it was ugly.

 

[missy]

My dh is such a romantic. I just told him about this thread and asked him his thoughts about prenups. He said if we were getting married today all over again he still wouldn't want a prenup because we love each other and are committed to each other and will be together forever. Unconditionally. Isn't he romantic? I love him more today than I did when we first became a couple 16 years ago this Friday.

 

[iLander]

Well, I wouldn't.

If it were a second marriage situation, and there are inheritances/children on both sides, then that's what wills are for, right?

But as far as marriage and potential divorce settlements, I think we're in this together, through thick and thin. Period. Marriage is the ultimate act of optimism, and I wouldn't be able to trust someone that wants a back door open.

And it leads to "my money" and "your money". Some people live this way, but I couldn't. If we're going on vacation, who's money are we using? Or are we splitting it, like roommates. Or it one person "treating" the other? Doesn't that make someone subservient?

Just my opinion about how I live my life, no judgement on others.