sweetjasmine Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 This contesting involves lawyers and lawyers, at least at the firm I use, are about 300.00 per hour. A couple (each having their own lawyers) can easily rack up 100K in legal fees (not to mention forensic accounting fees) in a contested divorce with lots of fuzzy assets. This is why I wouldn't be insulted if he asked me to sign a pre-nup. Besides it makes more sense to me to figure out these kinds of things before combining assets. Dividing assets can get very messy and expensive for both people. I guess I view it the same way I view a living will and a regular will. I don't expect to die before 50 or end up extremely sick and incapacitated, but on the off chance it actually happens, having a clear contract as reference will make life easier for everyone involved.
Ruby Slippers Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 More than half of marriages fail, so I think a pre-nup is smart. Would the romantic idealist in me be a little hurt to extend or receive the request for one? Sure. But I'd get over it. If you stay married forever, you have a tidy little legal document in the safe that never gets touched. If you don't stay married, the legalities are mostly taken care of, which would be a relief in a stressful, emotional time.
blue.iris Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 That's great and awesome, but just because your family hasn't had a divorce, doesn't necessarily mean you won't... Think of it like this... Everyone in your family has built a house and none their houses have come down or even had a problem and don't need insurance. Based on that awesome track record, you won't need insurance either. But what if you marry that once-a-century storm would can then take everything from you and you had a simple and easy chance to protect yourself? Now also remember that divorce is a greater than a once-in-a-century occurence... Well, I'm in my early twenties, right out of university. No debt, but no major assets either so I don't really have anything to protect. If I had a lot of property, I would be willing to share it completely with my partner. Otherwise, I wouldn't get married.
Mr White Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 As part of the indicator of prenup or not, look to net asset value, rather than just assets. Someone who's upside-down in their mortgage, with massive student loans on the side and no other assets to speak of, owns nothing. Complete BS . All that a pre-nup does is to articulate what's "separate" and what's "marital" property, and how the latter will be allocated in the event of a divorce. Just as an individual retains a sole responsibility for his or her pre-marital debts as they enter the marriage, they also maintain responsibility (and control) over their premarital property. The fact that the current net worth could be zero is beyond irrelevant. What matters is what is designated as a "separate property" (vs. "marital") in the prenup (which also covers the debts in an abstract sense since whether you allocate money to retirement or to paying down debt, you increase the net worth of your "separate property" by approximately the same amount).
carhill Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I guess I view it the same way I view a living will and a regular will. I don't expect to die before 50 or end up extremely sick and incapacitated, but on the off chance it actually happens, having a clear contract as reference will make life easier for everyone involved. Wrt POA's and living wills, my attorney clued me in on a good tidbit of advice, to have a designated successor attorney (for financial and health care POA's). Also, wrt financial POA's, to incorporate verbiage regarding gifting (power to gift). The lack of such has cost me a fair amount in court fees. Better to get it right up front A potentially tricky time is the time I'm going through right now, from filing to settlement to final judgement (of divorce). That and other scenarios are why having competent legal advice is such a benefit, both for efficiency as well as peace of mind. To me, a pre-nup is exactly the same vehicle, for both parties.
Jersey Shortie Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I'm not sure how I feel about this one. On one hand, I understand the desire to protect your assets "in-case". On another, I would be hurt to be asked to sign a pre-nup and would fear that this would set a tone for the relationship that was two-fold. First based on a lack of trust and respect for each other and second that what is his is his and what is mine and mine and our relationship is not one based on sharing, trust and respect. I also grew up with parents that lived the stereotypical gender roles and I would in part, like my own relationship to mirror some of those stereotypical gender roles. My mother and father both contributed to the relationship in different ways. He ran his own business and she had odd jobs growing up but for the most part, was home with us more. He took care of her and she took care of him. As he retired, he wanted her to retire too even though she was a good 16 years younger then him. I think what makes relationships work is that each partner contributes their own special abilities to make yourself a team. If you have two people that are strong in the same area and neither that are strong in the other, you have a little problem sometimes.
threebyfate Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Complete BS . All that a pre-nup does is to articulate what's "separate" and what's "marital" property, and how the latter will be allocated in the event of a divorce. Just as an individual retains a sole responsibility for his or her pre-marital debts as they enter the marriage, they also maintain responsibility (and control) over their premarital property. The fact that the current net worth could be zero is beyond irrelevant. What matters is what is designated as a "separate property" (vs. "marital") in the prenup (which also covers the debts in an abstract sense since whether you allocate money to retirement or to paying down debt, you increase the net worth of your "separate property" by approximately the same amount).You go, guy! Waste your money on a prenup for debt...
amymarieca Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Of course I would not be insulted. Marriage is a bigger contract than a mortgage. Many people see this as a sign that their partner does not trust them. Let's face it though, most people act very differently when they are angry and upset. You can say now that you would never take your husband/wife for everything they have, but would you really be saying that after you found out they slept with your best friend? I highly doubt it. I know such things from personal experience. I dated a guy for 8 years, we lived together for about 6 months. I stupidly did not have my name put on the rental lease when I moved in. After 6 months of living together (and 8 years of dating) he still hadn't proposed, so I decided to end it. I found another apartment within 2 days and was able to move in within a week. Rather than putting up with each other for a short time, he decided to kick me out. There was nothing I could do about it, except live in a hotel. That was super fun. My whole point is that people do stupid and inconsiderate things when they are angry. This was a small situation. Can you imagine the complications if we were married?
homersheineken Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 A pre-nup is a not a barometer of his/her attraction to you. It's a safety net. there's something very, very jaded about this outlook. It might be practical, but it's still jaded – if you're going into marriage already planning for divorce, you don't need to be in that relationship. call it silly, call it romantic, but if you're going into it with failure as an option, why even bother getting married? You don't have to hitch up with someone to enjoy his/her company ... It has nothing to do with jaded-ness or feelings. It's about practicality. I will call it silly and worse, naive. Not sure if you're aware of this but people change over time - so the person you "know" and love now may be completely different 2, 5, 10 years down the line. You can plan to spend to your life with the other person. Failures happen - and at a greater rate than success. Keep thinking idealistically and you're setting yourself up to be swindled.
Star Gazer Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I don't think people understand what a prenup does. Most people who enter into one say, "Oh, well I have all this property, and he has a trust fund, so...." But what they don't get is this: If you had property before the marriage, that would still be yours - without a prenup. If you had a huge 401K/bank account/trust fund/stock option before the marrage, that would still be yours - without the prenup. If you had a huge inheritance coming to you (even during the marriage!), that would still yours - without the prenup. If you had child/spousal support obligations or huge debt or student loans, those would still be all yours - without the prenup. The only thing that's divided upon divorce without a prenup is what is earned in income (as well as debts) DURING the marriage. That is, your salaries, bonuses, and income/profit/interest from the assets you entered into the marriage with. So yeah.... the trust/romanticism issue combined with what little impact it would ever have, if any, upon dissolution, there's just no need for one.
homersheineken Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I'm not sure how I feel about this one. On one hand, I understand the desire to protect your assets "in-case". On another, I would be hurt to be asked to sign a pre-nup and would fear that this would set a tone for the relationship that was two-fold. First based on a lack of trust and respect for each other and second that what is his is his and what is mine and mine and our relationship is not one based on sharing, trust and respect. I also grew up with parents that lived the stereotypical gender roles and I would in part, like my own relationship to mirror some of those stereotypical gender roles. My mother and father both contributed to the relationship in different ways. He ran his own business and she had odd jobs growing up but for the most part, was home with us more. He took care of her and she took care of him. As he retired, he wanted her to retire too even though she was a good 16 years younger then him. I think what makes relationships work is that each partner contributes their own special abilities to make yourself a team. If you have two people that are strong in the same area and neither that are strong in the other, you have a little problem sometimes. It has nothing to do with trust and respect. If you're going into marriage without either, that's a mistake. But people do change and to be unprepared for it can be disastrous financially. Think of it as "relational insurance". You hope you never ever have to use it, but you'll thank God if you ever have to.
Lizzie60 Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Nope.. in fact if he didn't ask for one.. I would have him sign one.. I have properties, investments, money.. and I wouldn't lose one penny to a man.. this is for my kids..
carhill Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 If you had property before the marriage, that would still be yours - without a prenup. Once you've married and gone through a divorce, I'll entertain a more experienced perspective. In order to delineate the very seemingly simple items you've enumerated, in a contested divorce, you must support your position legally in negotiations or in court. You're a lawyer. You know how it works. Wife says 'I made a house payment' OK, prove it. "I gave you cash' OK, show it. We need to repay you from the asset base for contributions to separate and/or quasi-marital property. That's one tiny example from my divorce. Until you've been there, I'd suggest trying to not be an authority on it.
phineas Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 If I re-marry. IF. pre-nup all the way baby!! No signie of the prenup no dingie dingie of the wedding bells.
homersheineken Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I don't think people understand what a prenup does. Most people who enter into one say, "Oh, well I have all this property, and he has a trust fund, so...." But what they don't get is this: If you had property before the marriage, that would still be yours - without a prenup. If you had a huge 401K/bank account/trust fund/stock option before the marrage, that would still be yours - without the prenup. If you had a huge inheritance coming to you (even during the marriage!), that would still yours - without the prenup. If you had child/spousal support obligations or huge debt or student loans, those would still be all yours - without the prenup. The only thing that's divided upon divorce without a prenup is what is earned in income (as well as debts) DURING the marriage. That is, your salaries, bonuses, and income/profit/interest from the assets you entered into the marriage with. So yeah.... the trust/romanticism issue combined with what little impact it would ever have, if any, upon dissolution, there's just no need for one. Simply put: Uh, no. IF this were the case, why would any have ever gotten a pre-nup?
Jersey Shortie Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 It has nothing to do with trust and respect. If you're going into marriage without either, that's a mistake. But people do change and to be unprepared for it can be disastrous financially. Think of it as "relational insurance". You hope you never ever have to use it, but you'll thank God if you ever have to. I'm sorry but for me it does have to do with trust and respect. And as I said before, it has the possibilty to set the tone of the relationship that draws a clear dividing line between two people that are suppose to become a team.
sweetjasmine Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 But people do change and to be unprepared for it can be disastrous financially. I agree. People can just simply grow apart or change enough that staying in the marriage doesn't make sense anymore. That sort of situation isn't betrayal of trust, IMO, so drafting a pre-nup in case something like that happens doesn't automatically imply lack of trust or respect.
Lizzie60 Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I agree.. there would be no need for a pre-nup.. A gets married to B who has no money.. no property but no debts.. a low paid job.. A has a better job.. makes more money.. has some investments ... They fall in love.. get married... buy a modest house. They're sooo happy. Then a few years down the road, the house needs some renovations, A gets some investments out to pay for the reno.. upgrading the house.. therefore the value.. A ends up putting more than B in everything.. because A makes more money. They divorce.. sell the house.. therefore.. B gets more than what s/he puts in during the marriage. A is mad .. B said 'F* OFF... SUE ME'... Do you think A will take B to court and spend more money, probably throwing it to some hungry lawyers.. I don't think so.. Be safe.. sign a prenup..
Star Gazer Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Simply put: Uh, no. IF this were the case, why would any have ever gotten a pre-nup? Because they think they need protecting. MOST people don't. Unless you're making tons and tons of money by yourself DURING your marriage, there's just no need for one.
phineas Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I'm sorry but for me it does have to do with trust and respect. And as I said before, it has the possibilty to set the tone of the relationship that draws a clear dividing line between two people that are suppose to become a team. well, my STBXW spells team with an "I".
phineas Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Because they think they need protecting. MOST people don't. Unless you're making tons and tons of money by yourself DURING your marriage, there's just no need for one. You don't need to make much money for your ex-wife to take you to the cleaners for maintenance in certain states.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted March 9, 2010 Author Posted March 9, 2010 SG makes some good points (I didn't know that about pre-nups). In case the net asset thing was directed at me: I never had student loans. I won scholarships up until and including my PhD (that not only paid my student fees but also payed a reasonable amount for living expenses etc). I have also paid off the mortgage on my apartment within 3 years so I currently have no debt. Despite reasonable points that everyone brings, romantic in me would still be highly insulted. I also come from a family where there never was a single divorce and my mum and dad only have joint accounts. In the words of my dad "if your mum were to ever ask me for a divorce, I would be so crushed that money would not matter to me at all". I am kind of saddened than there don't seem to be many people like that around. Valuing practicality over everything is kind of to me, but each to their own.
Crusoe Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I have thought about this a lot lately. I wouldnt be offended if asked to sign a pre-nup but if I ever married again I really don't think I could ever ask for one. That may well make me an idiot and I got a lot to lose, but I am kind of old fashioned in my ideals and values, I would rather lose everything I own than go against them.
threebyfate Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I have thought about this a lot lately. I wouldnt be offended if asked to sign a pre-nup but if I ever married again I really don't think I could ever ask for one. That may well make me an idiot and I got a lot to lose, but I am kind of old fashioned in my ideals and values, I would rather lose everything I own than go against them.As long as you're well aware of all the consequences of not getting a prenup and are willing to hazard a 50/50 chance, this is sincerely your call to make. Myself, after the first experience, I learned a few things and aren't willing to risk a 50/50 chance. For both my H. and myself, our post-nup was a great way to not only avoid the 50/50 risk but to ensure that we wanted to be with each other, solely for each other, rather than any financial gain.
amymarieca Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 You don't need to make much money for your ex-wife to take you to the cleaners for maintenance in certain states. I hear you. I live in Ontario, Canada. My parents are divorced and my dad doesn't make much money, but still has to pay my mom $1800 a month. That's ordered by the court too! That amount doesn't even include child support because my brother and I are 26 and 28 years old.
Recommended Posts