Would you be insulted if you were asked to sign a pre-nup?

[meerkat stew]

Bit of a difference between asking for a paternity test and asking for a prenup.

 

Sorry, no, no difference at all, other than a pre-nup is very intrusive for both parties, and a pat test is not intrusive on a woman at all. As Mr. White points out, a majority of female posters support pre-nups because there is a chance of benefit to them and their children. OTOH, very few female posters support a paternity test, something MUCH less obtrusive and onerous on the woman, simply because there is no chance of benefit to them, or they internalize and personalize the pat test as questioning their honestly as opposed to looking at the situation objectively (god forbid looking at an issue from the point of view of another... that would demonstrate <shudders>... empathy, and a maturity level past that of a child).

 

So a social scientist using LS as a microcosm for purposes of an experiment might conclude that women are capable of supporting a proposition that has, or may have a chance of benefitting them, while at the same time being incapable, or in the best cases apathetic, of a proposition that does not benefit them. There are of course outliers possible in both propositions. Interesting.

 

Perhaps men are equally incapable of objective thought and empathy as a group with respect to emotionally charged issues (I believe this to be true, not picking on women), what would be a good comparative example?

 

However you were to word a request for consent to a paternity test, there's an implication in such a request that the W may have cheated. You can't really get around a request like that causing offence...

 

Of course one can get around causing offence, by a) finding a woman capable of objective empathy and emotional maturity (an outlier), and b) discussing both a pre-nup and pat test together before the issues arises, even as early as an exclusivity talk, thus removing rampant emotionalism, personalization and internalization from her thought process.

 

Prenups simply acknowledge that marriages don't always last. Individual clauses within them may well cause offence, but the acknowledgement that not ever marriage lasts is not, in itself, a slur on the character of either party to the planned marriage.

 

Pat tests simply acknowledge that a statistically significant percentage of offspring are not actually offspring of the putative father. Timing is the issue. If, during the exclusivity talk, a man and a woman discuss these things, and a man states, "Part of marriage for me necessarily includes a prenuptial agreement and paternity tests of all offspring," the sting of feelings may be completely avoided, or mostly mitigated at the very least.

 

or the party arguing against its terms didn't receive the benefit of legal advice before signing, then the court won't intervene lightly in a private agreement between parties.

 

Only in the zany domestic courts (in the U.S. anyway, no idea about elsewhere) can a woman get a contract voided merely due to "not obtaining legal advice," a man trying such will be laughed out. But it's understandable because in the eyes of U.S. domestic courts, women are perceived in the same way as minor children, incapable of managing their lives in an adult fashion without court assistance, and this seems just fine with women as long as they receive unjust enrichment as a result. Only in domestic agreements is the definition of "unconscionability" stretched far beyond its narrow legal application.

 

It will in cases where the contract has resulted in a manifest injustice. for instance, if one party had been left in a state of poverty, a clause depriving them of any financial assistance from the other would probably be overturned regardless of whether legal advice had been dispensed at the time of the agreement being signed. Maybe applicable if there had been an unforeseen change in the couple's circumstances - for instance, if the party disadvantaged by the agreement had developed serious health problems during the marriage.

 

:lmao: The domestic court hilarity continues, and once again, good luck to a man who seeks to claim impoverishment as a counter to enforcement, I'm sure there have been outliers, but just go ahead and stipulate that such a "defense" to enforcement is actually a "female defense." Nowhere else in the legal world are sound, well-settled legal principles such as unconscionability, equity, unjust enrichment, and narrow application of same contorted and twisted to the benefit of one gender as they are in the domestic courts. Thank god I don't go there, the illogic and disrespect for the law would give me vertigo. I do get to hear the insanity from domestic practice colleagues though, we laugh about it over drinks.

 

Also if there are any children of the marriage, the court is far more likely to intervene in a prenup....as it also will if either party failed to make a full and accurate disclosure of their assets before the prenup was signed.

 

Don't even want to think about the contortion of the law involved in reaching the above.

 

Men, take note. If you expect a pre-nup to be enforced: a) state in writing that she should obtain legal counsel in a separate document that she acknowledges receipt of, preferably a letter that she signs, b) never have your lawyer present or discuss anything with your SO before marriage unless she has her counsel present (going to the lawyer to sign the thing is a nono unless she brings hers too), c) provide for a marginal post-marriage payoff to her in the agreement, d) have a couple of neutral witnesses to the agreement to prevent claims of coercion e) have your statement of pre-marriage property (and hers if she actually has any assets) prepared by an accountant, probably not the same one who does your taxes, f) deal with children resulting from the marriage in the agreement, but do not attempt to contract out of statutory support, as unscrupulous judges will void the whole agreement rather than "blue-penciling" it, and you can't avoid statutory support via contract anyway, g) make sure she is not undergoing psychotherapy or on any sort of prescription psych/emotional meds when she signs (you were thinking of marrying a woman on prozac? BAD idea), h) consider that no matter what other precautions you take, the women's court will do anything in its power to screw you, so stock up on Vaseline.

 

Women, take note... none of the above paragraph applies to you! Happy day! you can dance into "women's court" with a pre-nup written with high lighter on a roll of toilet paper and have a good chance of having it enforced. You are God's special creature, treated like an infant by the courts, enjoy it while it lasts!

 

It's generally pretty hard to imagine any lawyer advising someone to sign a prenup that deprived them of rights to alimony that they would otherwise have a legal entitlement to. Why would anyone advise someone to sign away their legal rights, unless they're going to be very nicely compensated for doing so?

 

They are compensated, generally, by a higher standard of living than they could have obtained on their own while the marriage endures, and specifically by allowances and post marriage settlements mutually agreed upon in the pre-nup. Of course, most domestic courts don't consider those as the very valid consideration that they actually are in the "real" law.

 

 

Disclaimer: The above is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction, especially not in the zany, bizarro world of domestic (women's) court, but is intended to be SATIRE. Please take it as such.

[Star Gazer]

Glad to see that court experience with employment law, trumps hands on experience with pre and post nups.

 

Hope you have a great evening too. I know I am and will.

 

Whoever said my experience is limited to employment law? Yes, that's my focus now (about 70% of my caseload) but it's not all I do nor all I've ever done. As far as family law is concerned, I've represented about 25 clients in divorce proceedings...about half of which had prenups!!

 

Now really, please stop fighting me on this. You may have more actual divorce experience than I do, but you are NOT an attorney, and do not understand the nuances of California law. You trying to trump me here is like me trying to tell a surgeon how to do his job just because I've had surgery before.

 

Thanks.

[carhill]

As an edit to my above posting...

 

there should be no insult perceived

[threebyfate]

There's limited power that prenups can govern, when it comes to children.

[carhill]

Think of it in terms of cross-collateralization and/or substitution rather than attempting to contract away one's legal responsibilities. An agreement which recognizes and addresses legal responsibilities flies far better with the court, IME, and I've had some experience with other (not premarital) contracts in court. This can be inferred in many aspects of prenuptial (and other) negotiations. It's one way a couple can approach a pre-nuptial from a positive position. The whole purpose of the process, IMO, is win-win, recognizing each partner's strengths and weaknesses and addressing them in a balanced way. As is with life, pre-marital circumstances can change markedly during a marriage, shifting the balance of power and responsibility. I need only look to at my own M for examples of that. Roles, fortunes, and realities change. A good contract looks forward to change and addresses it. Since signing that marriage license is IMO one of the simplest, yet most sweeping legal decisions one can make, it seems reasonable to support that act with clear and present understanding of what that signature confers. Clarity

[threebyfate]

As someone who strongly believes in marital settlement agreements, you don't have to convince me that they're worthwhile. But there are limits to these agreements, when it comes to spousal support and children, that a qualified, experienced lawyer, can explain to you.

 

I think there are many marriages that don't need these agreements, whereby both individuals come into the marriage, with no assets or net debt. IMO, it's like flushing your money down the toilet, if you get one.

[troggleputty]

Several years back, I received a phone call one evening from a buddy of mine, out of the blue. Said buddy had gotten a divorce from wife #1, a couple of years prior, which was shall we say "unpleasant."

 

Seems that he was out to dinner with his fiance.

 

During the dinner, she springs the idea of a prenup on him. (She had significant family assets.) Apparently he kind of freaked out at that, got very angry, and he called me in the midst of all of this.

 

I suggested he just calm down and told him I didn't think a prenup didn't mean she didn't love/trust him; but given that his first marriage didn't work out, who could really blame his fiance?

 

I also suggested that maybe she was just "testing" him, and his violent resistance to the prenup might make her think their marriage shouldn't go forward. So I told him obviously to do what he thought was best with regard to the prenup, but that I was really curious as to why he reacted so violently to it. I don't know what the terms of it was since we didn't discuss that. He was an intelligent guy however so I assume he would have taken it to a lawyer before actually signing it.

 

The point I was trying to make to him, however, was that his extreme resistance to the very notion of a prenup would probably be seen as a huge "red flag" to his fiance, and therefore, he should tone it down and at least tell her he would "think about it" rather than fly off the handle as he apparently had done.

 

So guess what? I guess they ironed out the prenup situation (I don't know if he ever signed it or not), then three years later: They get divorced.

 

And here this dude is getting all angry at the mere suggestion that a prenup is a good idea.

 

Just anecdotal but it supports the notion that those who get seriously bent out of shape by the very notion of a prenup are probably most in need of signing one, at least from their prospective spouse's viewpoint.

[troggleputty]

As someone who strongly believes in marital settlement agreements, you don't have to convince me that they're worthwhile. But there are limits to these agreements, when it comes to spousal support and children, that a qualified, experienced lawyer, can explain to you.

 

I think there are many marriages that don't need these agreements, whereby both individuals come into the marriage, with no assets or net debt. IMO, it's like flushing your money down the toilet, if you get one.

 

 

The "default" I would suspect in most states concerning distribution of marital property is more or less of a 50/50 split. The farther the prenup deviates from that default--without some rationale for the deviation--it would seem the more likely the court might raise an eyebrow.

 

Except for the mid to upper middle class/wealthy, most people don't really have that many assets. Maybe the family home; a couple of autos; some furniture/home furnishings; some jewelry; and then retirement accounts, pensions, and such.

 

A prenup is probably most useful to address the identification of non-marital assets which would not be subject to equitable distribution in the event of a divorce, although WDIK?

[carhill]

But there are limits to these agreements, when it comes to spousal support and children, that a qualified, experienced lawyer, can explain to you.

 

I agree, and one did, explaining the vulnerabilities I'm open to not having a pre-nup. I have the legal bill to prove it

[threebyfate]

I agree, and one did, explaining the vulnerabilities I'm open to not having a pre-nup. I have the legal bill to prove it

I have no doubt that you did. My comment was directed to everyone in general, especially individuals who feel they can en masse avoid any obligation, post cessation of traditional marriages. Pre/post nup or not, you're not going to able to avoid child support or alimony, when the clauses that govern these two, are considered unconscionable, by the Courts.

 

I just realized I need to replace my precaffeine usage of the term "marital settlement agreements", with "marriage contracts" in my last post. Hope that makes some sense now.

[Star Gazer]

There's limited power that prenups can govern, when it comes to children.

 

Now THIS is true, in part because you cannot contract away the rights of third parties (i.e., the children, to be supported financially and be raised by the more qualified parent).

[Green]

Now THIS is true, in part because you cannot contract away the rights of third parties (i.e., the children, to be supported financially and be raised by the more qualified parent).

 

Yeah but with Safe haven laws women can give away third parties. For a while you could drop off children of any age in Nebraska no questions asked... they have since changed that to within 30 days of birth.

 

But the fact is your wrong to a degree because if in a contract you provide for a lump sum payment for child suport purposes and the court aproves it... you will get out of standard child suport.

[Star Gazer]

Yeah but with Safe haven laws women can give away third parties. For a while you could drop off children of any age in Nebraska no questions asked... they have since changed that to within 30 days of birth.

 

Safe haven laws have nothing to do with a prenup regarding children. You're mixing issues.

 

But the fact is your wrong to a degree because if in a contract you provide for a lump sum payment for child suport purposes and the court aproves it... you will get out of standard child suport.

 

Wrong again. You can contract/agree to provide MORE in child support than the standard guidelines (and the court will approve that), but you cannot contract away to provide LESS than the standard guidelines. Child support belongs to the CHILD, not the parent. Parents cannot contract away their child's rights to a standard level of support.

[craw]

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.

ya your wife probably would have been boned by the king first before you did.

[Barky]

This thread = fail

[amymarieca]

We have different points. Your father isn't being taken to the cleaners with spousal support, as he's paying less than the 50% and the amount is only $1800, which isn't much to live on, on a monthly basis. Keep in mind that this is taxable income for your mother. A prenup won't save him from making a reasonable payment of $1800/mo.

 

Yes, I know this. I was actually agreeing with someone who said the exact same thing as you. Even if you don't make much money you can still be taken for half of it. Read what I was responding to rather than arguing a point I was already trying to make!