threebyfate Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 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.Prenups won't save anyone from paying spousal support, if the ex is a SAHM. But it can limit the amount of the payments, as long as the amount is reasonable. Spousal support for Ontario, is calculated based on gross or net income but is less than 50% of either.
northstar1 Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 Isn't the rate of divorce in the U.S., somewhere around 50%? Romanticism is a high price to pay for 50/50 odds, if you have real assets to protect. Yes, that is very true.
meerkat stew Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 You go, guy! Waste your money on a prenup for debt... The measure of people's assets, or lack thereof, often changes rapidly.
meerkat stew Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 That is, your salaries, bonuses, and income/profit/interest from the assets you entered into the marriage with. Why do you use the term "profit" instead of the term "capital gain?" Big difference.
Ingenue Posted March 9, 2010 Posted March 9, 2010 I would not at all be insulted if asked to sign a pre-nup. It's good financial sense. With a failure rate in marriage so high, if the relationship fails, at least finances become one last thing to bicker about. Romantic or not, some relationships will fail and once amicable relations will become bitter and angry exchanges. Why subject yourself to such vitriol if you don't have to.
Taramere Posted March 10, 2010 Posted March 10, 2010 I'd be fine with the kind of prenuptial agreement which clarifies the assets each person has on entering the marriage and provides for the settlement of financial matters in the event of the marriage not working out. Provided it's fair, and both parties have had the benefit of legal advice before signing such an agremeent, it just seems like good organisation which should cut down the time and work (not to mention the potential for acrimony) involved in reaching a financial settlement in the event of any divorce. Agreed it's not the most romantic thing, but I think a well drafted prenuptial agreement can significantly reduce stress and expense for both parties in the unfortunate event of a marriage breaking down. It also gives people some clarity about where they would stand, should things go wrong...without requiring them to have detailed understanding of Family Law (which can often get very complex).
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted March 10, 2010 Author Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) Also note that "Divorce rate in the US is 50%" doesn't imply that "If I get married tomorrow, my chances of divorce are 50%". Edited March 10, 2010 by SadandConfusedWA
tami-chan Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 I would not be insulted if asked to sign a prenup...as a matter of fact, I will asked that he signs a prenup. If the marriage does not work-less wrangling about assets and the like...and just get on with the divorce...
Mr White Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 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. This is only partially true. Sure, the actual money coming in during the marriage are generally community property. However, when it comes to things such as retirement plans (401k, pensions, etc.), especially if they have been started before the marriage, they can still be designated as separate property (including the future capital gains and employee and employer contributions associated with such accounts). For most people retirement accounts are among the biggest assets, and the spouses can waive each others' community property rights on such accounts, and/or come up with some other asset allocation mechanism that leaves the retirement (or any other specially designated/waived) account/s intact. Prenup doesn't replace the provisions of the family law, but it rather gives the spouses some flexibility in deciding what will and what will not be considered "community property" in the event of divorce. In the absence of such agreement, the courts will just use the blunt formula, and that's that.
Tropic Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 (edited) I would not be insulted. I am a female and I want my boyfriend to sign one before we get married. It is as someone previously said: the risk of your house getting burned is little, but that does not mean that I would not get insurance. Plus if things turn out bad, I don't want to be stuck in a marriage I am unhappy with because of finances, etc. I also hope for us to keep the finances separate and divide the bills between the 2, in a fair way. I think it is better this way as money can bring out a lot of problems. Edited March 11, 2010 by Tropic
kimbop Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 A prenup usually only covers separation of assets prior to marriage unless there are stipulations in the contract how marital property will be distributed upon divorce. Both parties have options on this. Also when prenups are signed, each side has to disclose their assets or else the contract is dissolved. So no. I don't object. It's not about love but about security. I like to analogies it with insurance. You get insurance in case you have an accident. A prenup only comes into effect in case there is a divorce. If one believes the marriage to be true then the pre nup won't be put into action.
Art_Critic Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 (edited) Anyone who has gone through a bad divorce can surely appreciate the value in a pre-nup. I've been thru a bad divorce in the past and I can see the value in them but I aslo can see the damage they can do... That is why I wouldn't use one, and didn't in my second marriage.. but then I also know the laws of my state and understand about what assets to protect by not co-mingling (companies) and what assets can be co-mingled... A preup isn't always this holy grail of positivity that enters a relationship.. it can also be used in a negative manner and do harm to the relationship and ultimately hurt the one you are supposed to love and protect. Edited March 11, 2010 by Art_Critic
Disillusioned Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 I heard a story about this one dummy who wasn't a lawyer, but he tried to write a prenup on his own, then he gave it to a lawyer to read... it went fine until the lawyer got to the part which stipulated (seriously!) that the guy's new wife must give him a minimum number of bj's each year, and the lawyer told him to take that out... the idiot whined and begged because he wanted to keep it in. Needless to say, the guy didn't get his prenup that day.
Knittress Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 If my spouse had prior asset or dependents... then, maybe. I used to be miss independent, everyone-supports-themselves, trust no one - but then I got into a long term relationship and realized the amount of compromise that goes into a relationship. Look, if I agree to share my life with someone, WE'RE SHARING ONE LIFE - and that includes money. Both parties in a couple make important life decisions together - where to live, what to do, often putting the other's needs before their own. And if there's children involved, one person (usually the woman) will very likely have to make sacrifices in her career in order to care for them. If you live life 50/50, you should break up 50/50.
threebyfate Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 Like any other tool, you can use it for valid reasons or use it destructively. When people are including unreasonable or ridiculous clauses in their prenups, it's a wonderful way to gauge who should be kicked to the curb!
aerogurl87 Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 Well I think the reason the divorce rate is so high first of all is because too many people see relationships as being transient and not permanent. People get married, then get bored, divorce, and move on to someone new. Not many people today have the mindsets of the older generation that said marriage is for life, not until one of us gets bored. That's how my parents live, and despite their disagreements and mini arguments, they've been happily married for almost 26 years. I have the same viewpoint as my parents, so I would never ask for a prenup because marriage is for LIFE to me. And I intend to find a partner who holds the same beliefs so that a prenup will not be necessary. But as I said before I wouldn't mind signing one if my partner had assets they wanted to protect just in case. I'm a reasonable romantic.
Woggle Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 Well I think the reason the divorce rate is so high first of all is because too many people see relationships as being transient and not permanent. People get married, then get bored, divorce, and move on to someone new. Not many people today have the mindsets of the older generation that said marriage is for life, not until one of us gets bored. That's how my parents live, and despite their disagreements and mini arguments, they've been happily married for almost 26 years. I have the same viewpoint as my parents, so I would never ask for a prenup because marriage is for LIFE to me. And I intend to find a partner who holds the same beliefs so that a prenup will not be necessary. But as I said before I wouldn't mind signing one if my partner had assets they wanted to protect just in case. I'm a reasonable romantic. I admire the way you think but a man should not run his life and approach towards marriage based on the exceptions. For every woman who thinks like you there are tons of women who have one foot out the door from their wedding day on so a guy needs to protect himself. Women do to but i feel a man is taking more of a risk.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted March 11, 2010 Author Posted March 11, 2010 With pre-nups, you are essentially thinking of money over love.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted March 11, 2010 Author Posted March 11, 2010 I also agree 100% with aerogirl and Art.
aerogurl87 Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 I admire the way you think but a man should not run his life and approach towards marriage based on the exceptions. For every woman who thinks like you there are tons of women who have one foot out the door from their wedding day on so a guy needs to protect himself. Women do to but i feel a man is taking more of a risk. That's true, those women are known as gold diggers and that's why I said if a man has lots of assets to protect I wouldn't mind signing one. Other than that, I really don't see the point.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted March 11, 2010 Author Posted March 11, 2010 I just wish I was born a 100 years ago. People were far less materialistic and money obssesed, they slept with one partner whom they later married, and marriages lasted for life. Sigh.
sweetjasmine Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 I just wish I was born a 100 years ago. People were far less materialistic and money obssesed, they slept with one partner whom they later married, and marriages lasted for life. Sigh. Marriages lasted for life only because it was socially unacceptable to get divorced - if you were absolutely miserable in your marriage, you were stuck. If your spouse cheated on you on a regular basis, you were stuck. "Suck it up and deal with it, divorce is wrong" was the attitude.
Author SadandConfusedWA Posted March 11, 2010 Author Posted March 11, 2010 Marriages lasted for life only because it was socially unacceptable to get divorced - if you were absolutely miserable in your marriage, you were stuck. If your spouse cheated on you on a regular basis, you were stuck. "Suck it up and deal with it, divorce is wrong" was the attitude. Personally, only accpetable reasons for divorce are: infidelity and physical or emotional abuse. I am sick of people who post on here and say things like: "I feel no spark anymore"... or "We just grew apart"... or "I can't stop thinking about my co-worker".. There is a large percantage of people that divorce because of boredom and "grass is greener" syndrome.
carhill Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 I probably saved thousands in legal fees by not having to defend that in court. Smart lady. This is exactly the efficiency of a well-designed contract. It costs some money, time and emotion now, but saves a bacon-load down the road. Good on ya for protecting your business; your life work.
aerogurl87 Posted March 11, 2010 Posted March 11, 2010 I didn't get a divorce because I was bored. I was tired of being cheated on and abused (emotionally and physically). I didn't go into my marriage thinking I'd stay in it until it didn't work for me anymore or I got bored. Now obviously I know you weren't speaking about me lol but I think it's wise to realize that no matter how good your intentions are and how strong your beliefs are, things happen that are beyond our control sometimes which forces you to choose a path you didn't really want to walk. I didn't have a pre-nup. I had started my own business before marriage but we were living together. My attorney drew up a contract that my SO had to sign whereby he waived his rights to my business now and in the future. We did that because I had business partners in the beginning and we all agreed that was the best way to handle that. When I filed for divorce, out of spite my H threatened the business. I produced the contract and my attorney sent it to his attorney. His attorney quickly advised him he had no rights to the business, income or assets and that was the end of that. Even though the law may have protected that business to a certain degree since I started it before marriage, I probably saved thousands in legal fees by not having to defend that in court. That's an acceptable reason to leave and if you'd look at my earlier post I said those were the part of the only grounds for divorce in my opinion (abuse and cheating). And I also think it was smart for you to get a prenup because you had assets that needed protecting. But when someone with no assets to their name screams "I want a prenup" to me that shows more than likely they aren't in it for the long haul. Glad your business and hard work was saved though.
Recommended Posts