Jump to content

Pre-Nup & Post-Nup .


Recommended Posts

Frequently I read the advise for those who have experienced infidelity to get a post-nup as a term of reconciliation or a pre-nup if a fiancé cheats & the betrayed is still considering marriage.

 

I've heard that it can be argued that either are signed at a time of duress so they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

 

Do they actually help to protect you or are they mainly attempts to psychologically control or test the commitment of a partner?

 

 

Obviously which country you're in will make a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the are done legally then they are enforceable. Depends on a lot of things. For me it wasn't for punishment. I wanted something to protect me and it helped combat feeling like I was being used as a wallet with legs.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with wanting to protect yourself financially in the event of a divorce.

Marriage is not all about romance and kisses. Ugly and practical subjects like finances need to be discussed as well.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
MuddyFootprints
If the are done legally then they are enforceable. Depends on a lot of things. For me it wasn't for punishment. I wanted something to protect me and it helped combat feeling like I was being used as a wallet with legs.

 

Do you have kids? :lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are decided on a case-by-case basis. Post nups are generally more scrutinized. In fact, in CA, if a post nup awards one spouse more than he/she would otherwise receive under the law, the contract is presumed unconscionable.

 

The effect of a post nup is almost always punitive as one party is giving up roughly half the marital property by signing. The spouse seeking enforcement can divorce the spouse and leave him/her penniless. I would never advise a client to sign one that restricted or waived his/her rights to marital property.

 

A more practical issue with post nups the bargaining power lies with the offeree. The consequence of not accepting the terms is exactly what the offeror wants to avoid. It's hard getting someone to give up something by threatening with a consequence that will provide that person with more than if they accepted the offer.

 

Plus, if they were shrewd, they would realize the offeror just tipped his/her hand. Now they know the offeror has deemed them to costly to divorce "as is." The practical application is that it's very difficult to get most people to sign a post nup.

Edited by OneLov
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MuddyFootprints
Yup. Why?

 

Just the feeling of being a walking wallet. I think his wallet has walked across the country once or twice.

 

Fortunately, I didn't have to contribute anything toward our kids or our lifestyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just the feeling of being a walking wallet. I think his wallet has walked across the country once or twice.

 

Fortunately, I didn't have to contribute anything toward our kids or our lifestyle.

 

Yeah well I'm wasn't worried about the contributions to the kids part of divorce. They are my kids. I was worried that staying longer could put me in the realm of permanent alimony for the pleasure of giving a second chance. If she cheated again why should I pay her for that privilege? She wants to leave for someone else then she can pick someone who will support her instead of me.

 

Course you can imagine I have strong feelings about that topic lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MuddyFootprints
Yep I've been thinking about a Post-Nup and I have kids. Didn't think this way before the False R though.

 

Then why not divorce?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MuddyFootprints
Yeah well I'm wasn't worried about the contributions to the kids part of divorce. They are my kids. I was worried that staying longer could put me in the realm of permanent alimony for the pleasure of giving a second chance. If she cheated again why should I pay her for that privilege? She wants to leave for someone else then she can pick someone who will support her instead of me.

 

Course you can imagine I have strong feelings about that topic lol.

 

Permanent alimony (or a long f-ing time) would be the situation here. I'm a much cheaper keep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why not divorce?

 

Heck would you want to give up time with your kids? I want as much time as possible. Giving up being there for half their childhood.... that's a tough pill to swallow. For me anyway. Guess some folks walk away but I'm kinda selfish about that.

 

Maybe like one luv said it won't be enforceable. Maybe though the fear of financial penalties will keep her legs closed. Yes I wish i didn't have to think like that but I also have some hard reality to face. Love doesn't always conquer all. There is a cost benefit analysis there but who knows what th we future will hold. I'm ready if it's marital bliss and I'm ready if it's starting a new stage of my life. But I don't think I would have stayed married with my fear of her thinking the time line to achieve permanent spousal support was what was keeping her here hadn't been mitigated. Risk management and all that lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The court looks at it like her contribution to your marriage. She gave up her ability to make a living for herself for presumably the benefit of the marriage. The guys that have less to worry about domestically are able to focus on their careers. They are able to put in the longer hours to get that promotion to get a fatter wallet.

 

A court does not presume all housewives sit on the couch and eat bonbons all day while flipping between Oprah and QVC; their only problem is deciding on which frivolous trinket they should spend their hardworking-husband's money on. Or if that is the case, then it presumes the husband was perfectly happy with the arrangement.

 

But if she was willing to sign one, that's between you two.

 

It's not necessarily unenforceable. It comes down to the terms and the procedure in negotiating them.

 

Think of it like this. What if you were to get her to agree to award you with all marital property in the event of divorce. Then file for divorce and take everything. I'm not saying you'd do this, but there are guys out there that would turn around and say, "gotcha b****!"

 

That's why courts scrutinize these agreements.

 

Then if she needed financial assistance where would she go? The government doesn't want to pay for her.

Edited by OneLov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here at home shattered, not much is made of them.

 

Solicitors still expect both parties to go into battle over the ins and outs, and a judge will still decide what's fair at the end of it.

 

They're too easily contested frankly, and costly to boot!

 

We looked into it, me as a matter of security and he as a matter of assurance, but we both found it really wasn't worth it for us.

 

It didn't offer any concrete security to be perfectly honest.

 

 

Others may feel differently.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
The court looks at it like her contribution to your marriage. She gave up her ability to make a living for herself for presumably the benefit of the marriage. The guys that have less to worry about domestically are able to focus on their careers. They are able to put in the longer hours to get that promotion to get a fatter wallet.

 

A court does not presume all housewives sit on the couch and eat bonbons all day while flipping between Oprah and QVC; their only problem is deciding on which frivolous trinket they should spend their hardworking-husband's money on. Or if that is the case, then it presumes the husband was perfectly happy with the arrangement.

 

But if she was willing to sign one, that's between you two.

 

It's not necessarily unenforceable. It comes down to the terms and the procedure in negotiating them.

 

Think of it like this. What if you were to get her to agree to award you with all marital property in the event of divorce. Then file for divorce and take everything. I'm not saying you'd do this, but there are guys out there that would turn around and say, "gotcha b****!"

 

That's why courts scrutinize these agreements.

 

Then if she needed financial assistance where would she go? The government doesn't want to pay for her.

 

I have read that in this scenario this would be regarded as fraudulent as you entered into the post nup with all intentions of filing immediately.

 

I think the general rule is that post nups are more successful if they are seen to be fair.

For instance, In the event of a divorce triggered by the FWS's further infidelity or if instigated by the FWS, pre marital assets are protected, shared custody is agreed and possibly lifetime alimony could be waived.

 

What will not be allowed (as far as I know) are extreme stipulations such as, tn the event of a divorce the WS agrees to take nothing from, say, a 25 year marriage and live on bread and water for the rest of their days.

 

I think the greatest benefit of a post nup is stopping a WS trying to take their BS to the cleaners by ensuring they agree to play fair.

 

No expert so I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that it doesn't matter if there's cheating involved. The more wealthy spouse is going to be pissed as hell about having to give up half no matter what. Even without cheating.

Edited by Popsicle
Link to post
Share on other sites
They are decided on a case-by-case basis. Post nups are generally more scrutinized. In fact, in CA, if a post nup awards one spouse more than he/she would otherwise receive under the law, the contract is presumed unconscionable.

 

The effect of a post nup is almost always punitive as one party is giving up roughly half the marital property by signing. The spouse seeking enforcement can divorce the spouse and leave him/her penniless. I would never advise a client to sign one that restricted or waived his/her rights to marital property.

 

A more practical issue with post nups the bargaining power lies with the offeree. The consequence of not accepting the terms is exactly what the offeror wants to avoid. It's hard getting someone to give up something by threatening with a consequence that will provide that person with more than if they accepted the offer.

 

Plus, if they were shrewd, they would realize the offeror just tipped his/her hand. Now they know the offeror has deemed them to costly to divorce "as is." The practical application is that it's very difficult to get most people to sign a post nup.

 

Are you qualified in any other states besides California? (Community property in CA yes)?

 

Some of the states have extremely draconian laws.

 

I wouldn't get married without a pre-nup, would you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand pre-nups and wanting to protect your assets, but I can't help but think how pathetic it must be to have a 'post-nup' drawn up in order to stay with a cheater.

 

Sometimes I read about this on message boards where a BS has a post-nup drawn up after their cheating WS has been caught. It basically stipulates that the cheater loses most of their assets if they're caught cheating again and they divorce.

 

I just can't imagine having to sink to THAT level just to try to keep someone 'loyal' to me. It just seems utterly pathetic to try to use fear of losing one's assets as a motivator for keeping them 'honest.' I also think it doesn't stop them from cheating, either. It just makes the cheater that much more sneaky, knowing there's a lot more to lose if they're caught again.

 

The whole thing is pitiful.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can understand pre-nups and wanting to protect your assets, but I can't help but think how pathetic it must be to have a 'post-nup' drawn up in order to stay with a cheater.

 

Sometimes I read about this on message boards where a BS has a post-nup drawn up after their cheating WS has been caught. It basically stipulates that the cheater loses most of their assets if they're caught cheating again and they divorce.

 

I just can't imagine having to sink to THAT level just to try to keep someone 'loyal' to me. It just seems utterly pathetic to try to use fear of losing one's assets as a motivator for keeping them 'honest.' I also think it doesn't stop them from cheating, either. It just makes the cheater that much more sneaky, knowing there's a lot more to lose if they're caught again.

 

The whole thing is pitiful.

 

A post-nup is merely the equivalent of a slave contract. If people are ok in indentured servitude with their spouse as their jailer/owner, that's on them. I would never enter into an agreement such as this, nor would I draw one up. It's just as baffling to me as people who are together and spy on each other (before, in the mistaken belief there was an A or after an A in R) if you are spying on someone, if you have to threaten them to be loyal to you under threat of financial or repudiational penalty/ruin, then you don't love them and there is no trust, please separate. It's a car crash. Completely concur

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think it doesn't stop them from cheating, either. It just makes the cheater that much more sneaky, knowing there's a lot more to lose if they're caught again.

 

I fear you may be correct.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

NL,

 

I don't have a problem with pre nups. Post nups are like you said--indentured servitude. They don't protect any party and only serve to punish one.

 

Wade,

 

I was being facetious. Yes, that contract would never pass muster. The statement was made to illustrate how a post nup can be used to royally screw someone over.

 

The best protection is to give the parties equal footing in the event of divorce.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs. John Adams

In our case...we were young and poor...so there was no pre nup...and there certainly was no post nup.

 

I offered to leave and ask for nothing...I meant it. He has always said no matter the outcome...he would split everything 50/50. He means it.

 

I agree with others here....I would not want to stay simply because of a piece of paper that forces my financial hand. I stayed because I wanted to....and it had absolutely nothing to do with finances.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance, In the event of a divorce triggered by the FWS's further infidelity or if instigated by the FWS, pre marital assets are protected, shared custody is agreed and possibly lifetime alimony could be waived.

 

I think the greatest benefit of a post nup is stopping a WS trying to take their BS to the cleaners by ensuring they agree to play fair.

 

But if you offered those terms to someone and he/she said, "No, you're going to have to divorce me, oh snap..." The point is why would the offeree agree to it? And if he/she doesn't, what are you going to do? The one thing you're trying to avoid? What is the incentive to sign?

 

Taking to the cleaners implies that the WS did not earn half the marital assets. Giving all or substantially all of the marital assets to one party has a punitive effect. Also, unless premarital assets are commingled, they're generally excluded from marital property like inheritance.

 

 

***Sorry, it's just upsetting when people do not recognize the contribution of a partner that's sacrificed his/her ability to have a career to take care of the domestic front.

Edited by OneLov
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...