My bf doesn't even have a will, but he wants me to sign a prenup

[calizaggy]

The tone of this whole thread just irks me..

 

You meet a GENEROUS man who has the means and WANTS to take care of you and your future family..And he is immediately not trusted simply because he wants to protect what he previously worked for INCASE something changes.

 

Look, if you DO NOT want to be a stay at home mom, DO NOT MARRY THIS GUY. As another poster suggested, this guy will have to pay for EVERYTHING, which is very generous. I am sure if he wanted you to work and pay half, and raise kids, posters would be calling him "Cheap". i guess it is a no win for him.

 

Marriage is a risk. For men and women. Personally I would never marry a woman who was working solely as an "exit strategy" of sorts. Similarly i would never marry a woman and stash away parts of my income because i do not trust her.

 

You might earn less later IF you divorce, but the vast majority of his current income WILL go to you and your future kids.. Plus child support and alimony if things do not work out. More than fair.

Edited November 29, 2009 by calizaggy

[ADF]

Prenups can be a very good idea, but they should never be imposed by one person on another. Make sure that any prenup you sign is satisfactory to you. Better yet, get the advice of a lawyer.

[New Again]

The tone of this whole thread just irks me..

 

You meet a GENEROUS man who has the means and WANTS to take care of you and your future family..And he is immediately not trusted simply because he wants to protect what he previously worked for INCASE something changes.

 

Look, if you DO NOT want to be a stay at home mom, DO NOT MARRY THIS GUY. As another poster suggested, this guy will have to pay for EVERYTHING, which is very generous. I am sure if he wanted you to work and pay half, and raise kids, posters would be calling him "Cheap". i guess it is a no win for him.

 

Marriage is a risk. For men and women. Personally I would never marry a woman who was working solely as an "exit strategy" of sorts. Similarly i would never marry a woman and stash away parts of my income because i do not trust her.

 

You might earn less later IF you divorce, but the vast majority of his current income WILL go to you and your future kids.. Plus child support and alimony if things do not work out. More than fair.

Relax, I think you're projecting onto this thread or something.

 

I know that I don't know much about prenups and how they work - people on this thread have given me some great advice, points to think about, and places to start in doing my own research. Most of the information I found online prior to starting this was too general to help me, or over my head (legalese).

 

I work from home with my current job, and I have the option of becoming a contract worker, which would offer even more flexibility that I already have (and a pay cut); I also have the option of working from home for myself; if my bf decided to incorporate (or whatever) I would have the option of working from home for him; when kids are school aged I would also have the option of teaching. All options to think about, though I know we would both (ideally) want me to take off a couple-few years.

 

Having a parent stay home with the children while they are young is a value that my bf and I both share (and he is fortunate enough to be in a financial situation to make that a reality), and we both think that is a very important way of contributing to the family (it seems several of you discount any contribution that is not monetary).

 

We both had moms that stayed home with us when we were young, and when we were older worked part time while still raising us and taking care of their husbands full time - his mom worked part time from home, and my mom worked part time for the family business and took us to work with her.

 

We are both fairly traditional in that sense, and there is nothing wrong with our values; however IMO these values mesh much better with a traditional marriage view - specifically, not divorcing.

Edited November 29, 2009 by New Again

[Tayla]

I've never heard of a prenup expiring unless you include a sunset clause.

 

Trust laws also vary per trust, per jurisdiction.

 

Prenups carry what is called a *release* clause when implemented correctly. ITs one of the nice parts of the contract. It allows either party to then share in the previously disclosed asset or investment. The reason they can expire is simple, the guidelines and laws change on contractual law and this would fall under it should that happen in a state of equal marital distribution. It would essentially become unenforceable if the laws have changed so much to incur an unfairness to the one party. (hope this makes sense, contract law is not easy to explain sometimes).

 

Correct, Trust laws do vary state to state, country to country.

 

I regard the posters concern and its a valid matter that does deserve getting information . I like how she has values and is ultimately wanting to be fair to both sides based on her family values, Its commendable.

[threebyfate]

Prenups carry what is called a *release* clause when implemented correctly. ITs one of the nice parts of the contract. It allows either party to then share in the previously disclosed asset or investment. The reason they can expire is simple, the guidelines and laws change on contractual law and this would fall under it should that happen in a state of equal marital distribution. It would essentially become unenforceable if the laws have changed so much to incur an unfairness to the one party. (hope this makes sense, contract law is not easy to explain sometimes).

 

Correct, Trust laws do vary state to state, country to country.

 

I regard the posters concern and its a valid matter that does deserve getting information . I like how she has values and is ultimately wanting to be fair to both sides based on her family values, Its commendable.

What you've described is a sunset clause which you've also mixed in with potential legislative changes that might impact on an existing marriage contract. These two issues are not definitive and don't necessarily go hand in hand. Marriage contracts aka prenups and postnups, don't expire automatically.

[Vertex]

What you've described is a sunset clause which you've also mixed in with potential legislative changes that might impact on an existing marriage contract. These two issues are not definitive and don't necessarily go hand in hand. Marriage contracts aka prenups and postnups, don't expire automatically.

 

^^ This is correct.

[Star Gazer]

IMO, in the event of divorce, what each person takes should equal what each respectively had when they entered the marriage, plus half of whatever is earned during the marriage (regardless of who earned it or how). So, the best prenup to me is one that protects your separate property, but whatever is earned during the marriage (including income off of the separate property, such as rents) is split evenly.

 

Oh, whops... I just described what happens without a prenup!

 

Equitable division of the assets works. Even a golddigger isn't going to get much in the event of a quick divorce...

[Vertex]

IMO, in the event of divorce, what each person takes should equal what each respectively had when they entered the marriage, plus half of whatever is earned during the marriage (regardless of who earned it or how). So, the best prenup to me is one that protects your separate property, but whatever is earned during the marriage (including income off of the separate property, such as rents) is split evenly.

 

Oh, whops... I just described what happens without a prenup!

 

Equitable division of the assets works. Even a golddigger isn't going to get much in the event of a quick divorce...

 

The problem is that simply splitting down the middle -- in half/evenly -- is not necessarily equitable, which is why prenups exist.

[Star Gazer]

The problem is that simply splitting down the middle -- in half/evenly -- is not necessarily equitable, which is why prenups exist.

 

Without a prenup, the standard typically is EQUITABLE division. Sometimes that ends up being 50/50, sometimes not.

[Vertex]

Without a prenup, the standard typically is EQUITABLE division. Sometimes that ends up being 50/50, sometimes not.

 

Well, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but as far as I know, without a prenuptial agreement, the state laws are at the helm when it comes to who owns what property acquired during marriage, and sometimes state laws even dictate what happens to your property that was acquired prior to marriage. It basically means the state gets to decide how property is shared, how debts are handled, and how rights are governed with respect to probate laws (ability to sell, etc). If these laws don't really fit your fancy, then a prenup allows you to override these conditions and decide your own distributions and terms. Otherwise, the battles for ownership can be pretty messy and costly.

 

This is why I consider prenups to be the smart thing to do. You can even draft your own, and it'll even be thrown out if it's seen as unfair or if it breaks certain state requirements. Again, the state's view of "equitable" may not really be what you as a couple view as "equitable." A prenup allows you to dictate these terms in the form of a contract. It is in this sense that a prenup is protection.

[Ruby Slippers]

Your bf has raised this issue to protect himself. You are going to have to do the same, by outlining very specific outcomes for various scenarios (stay-at-home mom with one kid, three kids, number of years out of workforce, etc.) in the contract.

 

It sounds to me as though he has framed this in terms of protection for himself only -- that he has not factored you in suggests to me that he doesn't view you as a true partner to whom he's making a genuine commitment.

 

If I were thinking about a prenup, I would consider the implications for both of us, should divorce occur, and present my case in that framework.

[Vertex]

Your bf has raised this issue to protect himself. You are going to have to do the same, by outlining very specific outcomes for various scenarios (stay-at-home mom with one kid, three kids, number of years out of workforce, etc.) in the contract.

 

It sounds to me as though he has framed this in terms of protection for himself only -- that he has not factored you in suggests to me that he doesn't view you as a true partner to whom he's making a genuine commitment.

 

If I were thinking about a prenup, I would consider the implications for both of us, should divorce occur, and present my case in that framework.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

[Johnny M]

IMO, in the event of divorce, what each person takes should equal what each respectively had when they entered the marriage, plus half of whatever is earned during the marriage (regardless of who earned it or how).

Hypothetical scenario (actually, not so hypothetical in the case of a few couples I know). Two people get married, one works his/her ass off and makes millions, while the other does nothing except going on shopping sprees and watching TV. Why should the second person be entitled to half of the wealth earned by the first person?

[Vertex]

Hypothetical scenario (actually, not so hypothetical in the case of a few couples I know). Two people get married, one works his/her ass off and makes millions, while the other does nothing except going on shopping sprees and watching TV. Why should the second person be entitled to half of the wealth earned by the first person?

 

Prenups are typically given this sort of bad-rap even though they do guard against these types of scenarios. In general, I think they should simply be looked at as protection and delineation of various conditions in the event of divorce. It's better to have control over your conditions than to divorce and end up in fights with the state/your ex/etc over who gets what. Furthermore, you'll probably be in a more rational state of mind drafting up these types of conditions/terms sooner rather than later. It's just a good idea to have one -- they can protect both parties involved. It isn't purely existent to screw someone over who happens to make less. The OP of this thread simply needs to add in her form of protection to the prenup such that, depending on the type of lifestyle she and her husband choose to live, they can both have mutually-agreed upon terms in the event things don't work out.

 

Of course, my understanding of a prenup may be way off, since I'm 23/not a lawyer/never been married/never even SEEN a prenup. I'm just going off what little I know, here. If I am incorrect, please let me know if there is some inherent advantage to NOT having a prenup.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Vertex

[kampfy chair]

My best advice on pre-nups.. get married with the assumption that it will inevitably end up in divorce.. this is the reality... protect yourself..

 

When the 2 people are head over heels in love,.. it's hard to talk about divorce.. but when divorce comes.. it can get very nasty..

 

I am in 100% agreement with this. I am currently engaged and my fiance and I plan to sign prenups to protect both of our assets. You may feel like it could never happen to you, but the reality is that half of all marriages end in divorce, and those couples all felt the same way as you do now at one point. In your case, though, I would make sure that if you are planning to be a stay at home mom that you make sure there is a provision in the prenup that would require him to provide you with alimony for at least a reasonable period of time.

 

Also, having a prenup doesn't mean you have to keep all of your finances separate. I will say I think it is healthier for each individual to have their own account and to pay househould bills and so forth out of a joint account. Keeping everything separate would be inconvenient, but I think it's best for each individual to maintain his/her own financial independence within the marriage. But I realize that not all couples feel the same way about this. It's a good thing you're talking about this now though, so at least both of you know where the other stands. Financial disagreements can ruin the happiest of relationships.

 

Also, I'd just like to add that my parents signed a prenup and have been happily married for over 24 years. So signing one definitely does not mean that you won't have a happy and successful marriage.

[threebyfate]

There are variable limitations to child and spousal support, and custody/visitation, reliant on jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, any figure(s) too high or low, can invalidate the agreement. In some jurisdictions, either one of these support mechanisms are invalid.

 

As an example, in Canada, spousal support clauses are valid but child support is invalid. Child custody and visitation clauses are invalid in both Canada and the U.S.