Bells Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 A properly prepared and exectued prenup should save between 2 and 5 percent of the typical ~1MM net worth, so between 20 and 50K, in legal fees, over a contested divorce. To me, that's a win-win for both parties. Why pay lawyers a ton at the back end when you can pay a little up front. I learned this the hard way. For people with no assets/businesses/children, a prenup might not be worth the money, but worth investigating anyway. So, while I definitely would like to be married again, it will be conditional on a financial agreement. I want to die broke, but not via divorce I have heard, that sometimes a Pre-nup isn't worth the paper written on....not sure why though.
GorillaTheater Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 I have heard, that sometimes a Pre-nup isn't worth the paper written on....not sure why though. I'm not a family lawyer, but my understanding is that the courts generally frown on prenups, particularly if the terms of the prenup or the circumstances surrounding the execution of the prenup (unequal bargaining power, no clear suggestion to the effected party to have their attorney review the prenup, etc.) are in any way "unfair". I think it's similar to an area where I do have some experience: releases and waivers of liability. Courts frown on those too unless the party wanting the waiver bends over backwards to keep things as fair and equitable as possible.
Sibyl Vane Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 If it was that important to them, I would agree to one. I don't think prenups are exactly a superb way to start off a marriage but really, I'd rather not focus on the negative and the what ifs.
rod_in_gtown Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 IF I'm wealthy enough at the time of getting married and I wanted to protect my premarital assets before getting married, then yeah, I would ask for a prenup. LIke another poster said. Prenups, don't preclude you from giving your spouse their fair share of the marital assets, just doesn't let her dip her greedy hands into pre-marital stuff. If I had a house in the hamptons before getting married to you why should you get half of it on the divorce? My sister is getting married this weekend, and she didn't think twice about signing a prenup, they didn't even think about "distrust" or it being a "sour note". She's not marrying him for Money, she wants to be with him because she loves him. For those who say "the marriage will start off on a sour note" I believe it goes both ways, if she doesn't want to sign it, it tells me that she's in it for my money and not for me. Which would probably mean I shouldn't be marrying her in the first place. If I was in the "poorer" side of the prenup, I wouldn't mind signing it, even if I become Mr. dad for the next 10 years, I can always go back to work and make my own money. I'm not afraid of work.
rod_in_gtown Posted May 22, 2009 Posted May 22, 2009 Also, to complement my last comment. A couple should have open lines of communication about their life and expectations, wealth, expectations and reality. 21st century marriage is not ye olde 18th century affair, women are allowed to work and vote. Also financial matters should be shared and discussed as a couple, it's not "the man is in charge of the little lady and she should just sit and look pretty and breed until menopause". A pre-marriage talk should always include the feasibility of a prenup, there are times to think with your head and times to think with your heart, and while the notion of being wisked away into neverland by prince charming is every little girls dream, you, as a woman should be grown enough to know that fairy tales are for children and marriage is a real partnership that requires work and compromise. If you can't talk about marriage withouth considering whether or not a prenup is appropriate for your particular situation, then you're probably not grown up enough to make that kind of committment anyway.
Author mr.dream merchant Posted May 22, 2009 Author Posted May 22, 2009 Yes we're getting a prenup, because we're equally successful. Neither of us want to be left high and dry, neither want to be taken advantage of. Also, the divorce rate in this country is above 50%. So really, ANYTHING could happen. Yes, I love him now and probably always will. I'm hoping for the best, but people change and things change. Divorce COULD happen for anyone. Might as well play it safe. Damn, missdependant is that chick yo! I love this post right here. Its not about not loving or not trusting your SO, its about being safe. People change, life changes, something that not even love and trust can escape.
Sam Spade Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Saying mothers are unable to provide stimulating environments for children without the use of daycare does not compare to the invention of the internet. You aren't looking at social, linguistic, intellectual, emotional developments. The heartbeat of the mom and proven emotional reactions, the role of the mother in the correction of grammar development and the various stages before age 4, etc. Although I wouldn't expect someone who didn't have 4-6 years of university on childhood development to know those things, maybe you should have the basics if you want to basically call the mother's role as inadequate. Intellectual development and emotional development (ie. "whiny" kids) are two different things, btw. They are linked of course (like all other development) but they are certainly not the same. Development at a pre-school age and development at 10 years old are very VERY different. I'm assuming you don't have children because that is an obvious difference (as I already said, social attachments to mom at 8 as opposed to peer network attachments are different than 10) Like I said, you should start writing a groundbreaking thesis in the field of childhood development because your theory contradicts all 100+ (20th century) research (and older!) into the role of the mother and childhood development. And based on what, exactly? Your observations of kids at a preschool, as opposed to the consistently substantiated findings from those who have 20-30+ years observing clinical trials, researching, and actually raised a kid or 2? Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. That's all fine, and I'd never discount the role of the mother. the whole conversation started with the assumption that using any daycare at all is somehow harmful :rolleyes:. Quite simply, in the larget context of a marriage, the concept of a stay at home mom (long term) would piss me off both in a financial and relatioinship sense. All the financial risk aside, this is just a person i would not want to live with (in the present day. I guess maybe I'd be okay with this 50-100 years ago.) So, while I agree with the importance of the mother, as far as I'm concerned, many women will use any excuse in the book just so they don't have to go back to work . And what jerk would argue with this since it's "best for the kids" ? 1-2 years at home - of course. But there is simply no credible reason for leaving the workforce for 10 years altogether. I was raised by a single working mom. If she (and I) can do it as well as we did, then dual-career parents surely can do it better.
cbreitel Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 This one is for the fellas. Are you going to get a prenup? I think I am, just to be safe. Better to be safe than sorry. And ladies, how would you feel if your man wanted a Prenup? An idiotic idea in my opinion. Prenups are usually unnecessary. They may be called for when one spouse has a substantial net worth AND a substantial annual income, and the other spouse has almost nothing. If you're a multimillionaire engaged to a Hooters waitress I guess I can, maybe, see the point.
cbreitel Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Yes we're getting a prenup, because we're equally successful. If you're "equally successful", why was a prenup needed? The point of prenups is to avoid a wealthy spouse having to pay substantial alimony amounts to an unwealthy spouse. If you're both wealthy, the court isn't going to award alimony in any signficant amount if at all. And since you're both wealthy, the assets you acquire during your marriage will likely be divided 50/50 by a court anyway, which is probably what your prenup states.
Trialbyfire Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 If you're "equally successful", why was a prenup needed? The point of prenups is to avoid a wealthy spouse having to pay substantial alimony amounts to an unwealthy spouse. If you're both wealthy, the court isn't going to award alimony in any signficant amount if at all. And since you're both wealthy, the assets you acquire during your marriage will likely be divided 50/50 by a court anyway, which is probably what your prenup states. Unless you hold all your assets in cash, market value and poor judgement, can have strong bearing on what you end up holding, if the marriage should dissolve. Better to be safe, than sorry, since prenups aren't very expensive to get.
Sam Spade Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 If you're "equally successful", why was a prenup needed? The point of prenups is to avoid a wealthy spouse having to pay substantial alimony amounts to an unwealthy spouse. If you're both wealthy, the court isn't going to award alimony in any signficant amount if at all. And since you're both wealthy, the assets you acquire during your marriage will likely be divided 50/50 by a court anyway, which is probably what your prenup states. I was wondering the same thing, but at least it seems to be a good disincentive to quit the workforce for decades (which then of course would be interpreted as a refundable "sacrifice" in court for sure, although both parties may have wanted it). At least that would be my motivation to sign it in these circumstances. While I agree that prenups kinda rain on the wedding day mood, they are necessary. There is a saying "the bitch who is divorcing you, and the sweet girl you married are completely different persons".
Sam Spade Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Unless you hold all your assets in cash, market value and poor judgement, can have strong bearing on what you end up holding, if the marriage should dissolve. Better to be safe, than sorry, since prenups aren't very expensive to get. Makes sense - I read an article that some wall street honchos tried to time their divorces to coincide with the recent market lows
cbreitel Posted May 25, 2009 Posted May 25, 2009 Unless you hold all your assets in cash, market value and poor judgement, can have strong bearing on what you end up holding, if the marriage should dissolve. Better to be safe, than sorry, since prenups aren't very expensive to get. I'm still not seeing it. The law of all 50 states already decides how to divide marital assets upon divorce. For equal income earning partners, the result is usually a pretty fair one. Again, if there are unequal partners only then can I see concern that one spouse might have that would justify a prenup. I also disagree that a prenup makes things cheaper to litigate. A prenup is an added issue to fight over in a divorce case, which means more factors for the lawyers have to concentrate on, which means more legal fees for both sides. The downside of a prenup is considerable, as in my opinion it sets the tone for an eventually failed marriage.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I'm still not seeing it. The law of all 50 states already decides how to divide marital assets upon divorce. For equal income earning partners, the result is usually a pretty fair one. Again, if there are unequal partners only then can I see concern that one spouse might have that would justify a prenup. I also disagree that a prenup makes things cheaper to litigate. A prenup is an added issue to fight over in a divorce case, which means more factors for the lawyers have to concentrate on, which means more legal fees for both sides. The downside of a prenup is considerable, as in my opinion it sets the tone for an eventually failed marriage.I'm no lawyer so I'm not going to get into the legal aspects of a prenup. We could argue all day long with all kinds of different scenarios that make prenups viable or non-viable. I will state that if you believe a prenup sets up a marriage for failure, that's the exact opinion of why people SHOULD get prenups, if they have assets to protect. Reality bites so if you can't handle the heat, don't jump in the fire aka marriage! Fluffy pink clouds just doesn't cut it anymore. CYA or you're setting yourself up to get financially raped.
Sam Spade Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 If i had more money I'd be a lot more relaxed about the prenups/risk of divorce. However, per the contemporary laws my only asset worth talking about - my retirement portfolio - will be up for division. As I calculate my current investments and future earning prospects, it is just right, maybe with something little extra, but basically there is almost no margin for error. So in the event of a divorce, any bite from it at all would seriously crimp my old dude style. Just because I earned something during the marriage doesn't mean that my spouce should be entitled to half of EVERYTHING I've earhed during the marriage. Hence, the prenup. As far as joint things such as house, joint savings, joint investments, any assets acquired during the marriage etc. are concerned, I've got no trouble dividing all that, even if I end up paying/investing more in those things. Alimony is where I draw the line though: I'd burn through everything I have rather than roll over. The number of divorce cases where alimony is awarded is actually small and declining over time, but this is something so unfair that it will take decades until the bitterness associated with it begins to dissipate as well.
cbreitel Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I'm no lawyer so I'm not going to get into the legal aspects of a prenup. We could argue all day long with all kinds of different scenarios that make prenups viable or non-viable. I will state that if you believe a prenup sets up a marriage for failure, that's the exact opinion of why people SHOULD get prenups, if they have assets to protect. Reality bites so if you can't handle the heat, don't jump in the fire aka marriage! Fluffy pink clouds just doesn't cut it anymore. CYA or you're setting yourself up to get financially raped. That makes no sense. You're saying you don't really understand what prenups do, don't seem to disagree that they set marriages up for failure, but state that you need them to CYA. If you don't understand what they do, what exact part of your A are you C'ing? All prenups do is take the existing law of a particular state and change the variables a bit. This usually means altering the amount a rich spouse will owe to the poor spouse in alimony. It can also affect the distribution of marital assets. If you have such little trust in your impoverished wife that you don't want her taken care of in case you're married for 20 years and then divorce, why do you bother getting married in the first place? If you have significant premarital assets, those are going to be yours anyway after a divorce. The fight is over assets you gain during a marriage. If Husband and Wife buy a house during their marriage, and Husband wants to make sure that Wife has no ownership rights in that house in the event of a divorce, I will again ask why they are bothering to get married in the first place.
likestolaugh Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 A properly prepared and exectued prenup should save between 2 and 5 percent of the typical ~1MM net worth, so between 20 and 50K, in legal fees, over a contested divorce. To me, that's a win-win for both parties. Why pay lawyers a ton at the back end when you can pay a little up front. I learned this the hard way. For people with no assets/businesses/children, a prenup might not be worth the money, but worth investigating anyway. So, while I definitely would like to be married again, it will be conditional on a financial agreement. I want to die broke, but not via divorce aren't you already married lol? You always talk about "the wife"
cbreitel Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 If i had more money I'd be a lot more relaxed about the prenups/risk of divorce. However, per the contemporary laws my only asset worth talking about - my retirement portfolio - will be up for division. As I calculate my current investments and future earning prospects, it is just right, maybe with something little extra, but basically there is almost no margin for error. So in the event of a divorce, any bite from it at all would seriously crimp my old dude style. Just because I earned something during the marriage doesn't mean that my spouce should be entitled to half of EVERYTHING I've earhed during the marriage. Hence, the prenup. Let's say you have a retirement portfolio that is substantial ($1 million) and decades old. You then get married for 2 years and then file for divorce, without a prenup. Do you really believe the law requires you to give your wife of two years $500,000 from your retirement fund?
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Ugh, it has nothing to do with not knowing what a prenup is about. I'm having one drafted by my lawyer, for my pending nuptuals. I don't plan on marrying a future "wife" though! My future spouse is also having me sign one too. It tells both of us that we're getting married, not for the cash but for each other. If my future spouse had declined the prenup, we wouldn't be getting married.
Sam Spade Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Let's say you have a retirement portfolio that is substantial ($1 million) and decades old. You then get married for 2 years and then file for divorce, without a prenup. Do you really believe the law requires you to give your wife of two years $500,000 from your retirement fund? No, of course not. 2-5 years i snothing. I'm paranoid about the walkaway wife scenario who wakes up one day after 20 years and the kids are in college and decides that she loves me but is not in love with me/she's bored/needs to find herself/whatever . I don't have *that* much money invested right now, but my income and expences growth patterns are pretty predictable far into the future and unless I substantially change my priorities there won't be too much wiggle room, so if I end up in a divorce in 20 years, that would be a problem.
cbreitel Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 No, of course not. 2-5 years i snothing. I'm paranoid about the walkaway wife scenario who wakes up one day after 20 years and the kids are in college and decides that she loves me but is not in love with me/she's bored/needs to find herself/whatever . I don't have *that* much money invested right now, but my income and expences growth patterns are pretty predictable far into the future and unless I substantially change my priorities there won't be too much wiggle room, so if I end up in a divorce in 20 years, that would be a problem. So you're going to tell your fiancee the following: "If you and I are married for 20 years and we both earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement funds during those 20 years, I want to make sure that I alone keep 100% of that and you get none of it in the event of divorce in that 20th year." Do I understand correctly?
Sam Spade Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 So you're going to tell your fiancee the following: "If you and I are married for 20 years and we both earn hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement funds during those 20 years, I want to make sure that I alone keep 100% of that and you get none of it in the event of divorce in that 20th year." Do I understand correctly? Yes, I keep whatever I've saved in my portfolio, she keeps whatever she has earned in *her* portfolio, plus a fair division of all marital assets other than my retirement. What's so horible about that???
cbreitel Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Yes, she keeps whatever she has earned in *her* portfolio, plus a fair division of all marital assets other than my retirement. What's so horible about that??? Well for one thing you just contradicted yourself, although maybe you misunderstood me. If you earn $150,000 a year and she earns $30,000 a year, you want the prenup to say that after 20 years she will only be entitled to retirement benefits coming from her 30K and nothing out of your 150K, right? So your 150K is yours every year you are married, and her 30K is hers, and there's no intermingling? Sounds like a great marriage.
Sam Spade Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Well for one thing you just contradicted yourself, although maybe you misunderstood me. If you earn $150,000 a year and she earns $30,000 a year, you want the prenup to say that after 20 years she will only be entitled to retirement benefits coming from her 30K and nothing out of your 150K, right? So your 150K is yours every year you are married, and her 30K is hers, and there's no intermingling? Sounds like a great marriage. Our earnings would not be that disparate. Also, I'd be a lot more flexible on that if it wasn't for the "no fault" divorce laws. If I screw up, then yes, it would be fair for me to generously compensate her if the marriage dissolved because of something I did. But, if she screws up (or just decides she's bored) even with no fault on my side, she's still entitled to walk away with half my earnings. That is the scenario I'll take every conceivable measure to prevent.
cbreitel Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Our earnings would not be that disparate. Also, I'd be a lot more flexible on that if it wasn't for the "no fault" divorce laws. If I screw up, then yes, it would be fair for me to generously compensate her if the marriage dissolved because of something I did. But, if she screws up (or just decides she's bored) even with no fault on my side, she's still entitled to walk away with half my earnings. That is the scenario I'll take every conceivable measure to prevent. If the earnings aren't that disparate, then a divorce settlement would result in pretty much the same outcome that a prenup would mandate. I'm asking all these questions because I understand how prenups work, and I fail to understand why "normal" people enter into them. [by "normal" I refer to people who aren't Hollywood celebrities with billion dollar estates marrying impoverished Hooters waitresses, or whatever the case may be]
Recommended Posts