Men: Would You Sign a Pre-nup to Protect Her Assets?

[Woggle]

Of course I would if she would agree to let me protect my assets as well.

[sweetjasmine]

But if someone refuses to sign a prenup, beyond being emotionally irrational and/or a gold digger, what other reasons would there be?

 

I can imagine some situations. If he didn't have a pot to piss in but demanded I sign a prenup and got angry at me for being unsure about it, then I think that'd be good reason to refuse.

[that girl]

In a lot of cases, I think a pre-nup is a good idea.

 

It makes sense to protect your nest egg, to protect your home and to protect your business.

 

That being said, I think a lot of people who are into the idea of a pre-nup aren't all that interested in created a very long term relationship.

 

Like the idea of paying rent while the other person builds equity doesn't sit well with me. On one hand, I see why someone would want to protect themselves but deep down I think I would feel like they did not see this as a lifetime committment and had no problem taking advantage of me.

 

The only couple that I know for a fact has a pre-nup has what I consider a fair agreement. The higher earner was the woman and she pre-nuped her two homes and her significant family assets. They've been married about a decade now and one of those homes has been sold for a bigger place. I believe that part of the pre-nup relating to the home that was sold is now invalid and she might have to pay out some equity on the second home because she hasn't updated the pre-nup. But really the point of the pre-nup was to protect what she had in case of a quick divorce. Now they have two kids (he isn't a SAHD but he does more of the parenting since he has a lower hour job). If they got divorced, she wouldn't want to leave the father of her children in a crappy financial situation. But her nest egg was always kept seperate, so it would just be the things that changed during the marriage that would be in play.

 

Something like that I would sign because it protected what was there before without making it husband versus wife. They built a life together and part of that would be shared.

 

I think there is a difference between people who are looking to build a life together and people who see the relationship as likely to end. You can't really have both, but you can have a pre-nup with either.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Pre-nups are for people who aren't really sure about the character of the person they are marrying, IMHO.

 

People change. You have to be a few marbles short to not realize that.

 

Unfortunately most of the men in my income tax bracket are much older than I'd like to date, are already married, or, if my age, want a 25-year-old who wants children. It's been very difficult for me to find someone to date who would even have his own home or significant assets that he'd have to protect.

But it gives me something to think about.

 

Don't date just based on Assets... It sounds like you have the right idea.

 

I wouldn't. I'd sooner not get married than ask a man to sign one. I either trust someone or I don't. And if I don't trust them enough to know that they won't rip me off financially, and unfairly if the marriage should fail, then shame on me for marrying them in the first place. Shame on me for not really knowing their character.

Many reasons...see above. Trust and knowing someone's character for one. I don't get feeling confident enough to take vows and pledge an oath to share a life but not your assets. Huh? I just don't get that. I can't even imagine asking that of someone I was considering spending my life with, let alone fathom them asking that of me.

Yep, thanks for the bolded part above. Exactly.

Nope. Not me. As I said, I'd stay away from marriage entirely or I'd marry without one. It's all or nothing for me.

 

Trust me, your crystal ball is not that powerful. You can't predict where someone will go with their life.

 

I had an xGF I thought was the best person ever fall into drug addiction and completely change.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I married someone who had the highest degree of character of any man I'd ever known (after my father). He had always been honest, forthright, made sacrifices for me and acted with esteem. I refuse to feel shame for not predicting that 8 years down the road, his own insecurities and conflict avoidance would cause him to leave me for another woman.

You never, ever truly KNOW any other person, period, and you're deluded if you think you can know every nook and cranny of their dark places. You know that person's principles and character while you're with them, but people change over time and I refuse to be held hostage to blaming myself or losing my livelihood over another human being to whom I have no control over. The simple fact is the person we divorce is not the person we fell in love with - ever.

The post asked men if they'd feel emasculated about signing a pre-nup, not the efficacy or morality of pre-nups in general. Please try to stay on topic.l

 

For the record... if I knew you had significant assets... I ask to sign one of my own free will. Because I would want you to know that my motives are 0% financial.

 

I'm one of the sappiest romantics you'll ever meet, and even I think that pre-nups are a great idea when either or both parties have significant assets.

 

That's because a pre-nup is like saying... lets take all the financial issues off the table so we can really love and trust one another.

I can imagine some situations. If he didn't have a pot to piss in but demanded I sign a prenup and got angry at me for being unsure about it, then I think that'd be good reason to refuse.

 

I've got some friends that are Dirt poor, but stand to inherit HUGE amounts of money.

 

I think this attitude is silly, because it assumes you know everything.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Untouchable_Fire

[sweetjasmine]

I've got some friends that are Dirt poor, but stand to inherit HUGE amounts of money.

 

I think this attitude is silly, because it assumes you know everything.

 

Huh?

 

You're missing my point. What I mean is, theoretically, if my SO had no assets to protect (including potential inheritance) and yet demanded I sign a pre-nup and then proceeded to get angry with me for not doing it in a heartbeat, then that would tell me he absolutely doesn't trust me and/or that he automatically views marriage as financial suicide regardless of circumstances, and neither of those things are appealing to me and they would be enough to make me seriously question marrying him.

[Tiberius]

I just think its funny how women demand prenups now that they make more, while they thought they were unromantic when they made less. You can always cohabit.

[carhill]

Men: Would You Sign a Pre-nup to Protect Her Assets?

 

Absolute necessity before getting married again, to protect her assets and mine. I wouldn't blend assets or incomes, married or not, without a proper contract in place. Divorce cost me 15 years of my life work. Never again

[tincanman99]

Sure why not? I understand where she would be coming from. I have seen to many people get raked over the coals not too.

[CrestfallenNoMore]

PhoenixLady - I'm not going to further the debate on morality and judging one's character as that is not what this is post is about. I'm just going to say that you would certainly be entitled to shame yourself for whatever reason you want, but I'm grateful that I've elected to perceive myself as an imperfect human being, who doesn't always have all the answers, and to treat myself, first and foremost, with kindness. To me, that's a far more constructive practice than heaping shame on myself and how I choose to live my life.

 

FWIW, I've never had issues with pre-nups, so any stereotypical lumping of "women who change their spots when they get a little money" is moot for purposes of this discussion.

 

Thanks for all of your responses so far.

[Sphere]

There will be a pre-nup if and when I get married.

[CrestfallenNoMore]

Depends on the pre-nup.

 

If it merely says that I will have no right to the assets that she already had before the marriage then I would sign it. In fact, I would even bring it up before she did. But once we get married, I want everything we make and get together from then on to be our shared possession.

 

Yes, that is how I would want the pre-nup structured myself. The only sticky wicket might be the house if he didn't have one himself.

[threebyfate]

The term emotionally irrational could encompass 1000 reasons.. many valid...

 

If someone feels that the relationship now lacks trust because they were asked to sign a prenup are they supposed to be wrong for feeling that way ?

 

Is only the person asking for the prenup the only right one ?

 

The gold digger is a no brainer...

By the way.. I asked a girl to sign a pre marital agreement after engagement about 25 years ago so she understood how my companies are set up so she understood that she could never become an owner..

she walked.. but I always felt she was a gold digger down deep..

 

I did learn a lot about that experience though.. I also learned how both sides feelings have merit.. and now the divorce laws are different in my state than they were back then so a prenup isn't necessary anymore..

I tend to hedge my bets. Especially when it comes to anything that's emotionally driven.

 

Many reasons...see above. Trust and knowing someone's character for one. I don't get feeling confident enough to take vows and pledge an oath to share a life but not your assets. Huh? I just don't get that. I can't even imagine asking that of someone I was considering spending my life with, let alone fathom them asking that of me.

That's 'cause you're emotionally driven with pretty much every decision made in life. You and I are night and day when it comes to this.

 

I can imagine some situations. If he didn't have a pot to piss in but demanded I sign a prenup and got angry at me for being unsure about it, then I think that'd be good reason to refuse.

Truthfully, had H. not been open to prenups, I would have walked before investing further.

[sweetjasmine]

Truthfully, had H. not been open to prenups, I would have walked before investing further.

 

But you had/have assets to protect. That's different.

 

My point is if someone had nothing that needed protecting and still made demands, it would make me think there are serious trust issues.

[threebyfate]

My point is if someone had nothing that needed protecting and still made demands, it would make me think there are serious trust issues.

Agreed since that's just a silly waste of time and money. It says that he's also irrational in his decision-making which would be no-go.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Huh?

You're missing my point. What I mean is, theoretically, if my SO had no assets to protect (including potential inheritance) and yet demanded I sign a pre-nup and then proceeded to get angry with me for not doing it in a heartbeat, then that would tell me he absolutely doesn't trust me and/or that he automatically views marriage as financial suicide regardless of circumstances, and neither of those things are appealing to me and they would be enough to make me seriously question marrying him.

 

Sorry, I didn't explain that well. I was trying to say that you may not know what he has coming in terms of an inheritance. What if it's just his parents house? Do you have an exact dollar limit? Would you object if he has 99,000 but not 100,000 in assets?

 

What if he has something of low economic but very high emotional value he wants to protect?

 

Bottom line... if a guy doesn't trust you... he will not marry you!

 

So, when you put conditions on it like this... it seems like your just looking for an excuse to be offended by the request to sign one.

[2sure]

I think that a prenup is essential unless you arer planning on having children together. Because children change so much about cirumstances, regardless of planning...as a mother I wouldnt sign one with a gun to my head.

[threebyfate]

I think that a prenup is essential unless you arer planning on having children together. Because children change so much about cirumstances, regardless of planning...as a mother I wouldnt sign one with a gun to my head.

Pre-nups can't disadvantage child support, at least by government defined standards.

[carhill]

Would a young lady with a leased car, a rented apartment and a new M.D. degree have something to protect? She's got a ton of student debt and just joined a new (to her) private group practice. Her net worth may be and likely is negative. If she does have something to protect, how would the negotiations go? Husband-to-be isn't liable for her pre-marital education debt, but would he share in her practice partnership value and how would that go? After all, most of that value would be built, and her debts paid down, while they were married. Her net worth would increase dramatically over that time. Should he share in that and, if so, how?

 

Let's complicate things a bit by presuming that HTB, once married and his doctor wife have children, chooses to be the predominant stay at home parent due to his wife's busy schedule as a doctor. His income falls accordingly and he chooses to place family life over career advancement, supporting his now successful wife's career in medicine.

 

What now?

 

Interesting scenarios, and not far-fetched.

[sweetjasmine]

Sorry, I didn't explain that well. I was trying to say that you may not know what he has coming in terms of an inheritance. What if it's just his parents house? Do you have an exact dollar limit? Would you object if he has 99,000 but not 100,000 in assets?

 

No, I don't have an exact dollar limit.

 

But tell me, what's the point in hiring two lawyers and drafting a pre-nup if you don't have anything and don't stand to inherit anything?

 

What if he has something of low economic but very high emotional value he wants to protect?

 

Like what?

 

I wouldn't want to take something of very high emotional value from anyone. I don't have it in me to do something like that. If he doesn't trust me not to be a piece of crap and take half his very first teddy bear and his book collection in the event of a divorce, then I wouldn't feel comfortable marrying him.

 

Bottom line... if a guy doesn't trust you... he will not marry you!

 

And if I don't trust a guy, I won't marry him, either.

 

So, when you put conditions on it like this... it seems like your just looking for an excuse to be offended by the request to sign one.

 

Huh? I'm saying that I would be offended in the hypothetical situation where he has nothing to protect because he would be demanding that we go to two attorneys and spend time and effort on something that is going to protect him from what, exactly? From me taking half of his nothing? It would be a sign of mistrust and insecurity.

[Untouchable_Fire]

But tell me, what's the point in hiring two lawyers and drafting a pre-nup if you don't have anything and don't stand to inherit anything?

 

If he is willing to put in that effort, it means he thinks there is something worthwhile. If you really loved him you would be understanding.

 

I wouldn't want to take something of very high emotional value from anyone. I don't have it in me to do something like that. If he doesn't trust me not to be a piece of crap and take half his very first teddy bear and his book collection in the event of a divorce, then I wouldn't feel comfortable marrying him.

 

How do you know you would not do that? Divorce is VERY emotional. I know because I've been through one.

 

You literally can't say with any kind of certainty how you will act in a divorce situation.

 

I would have told you ahead of time that I would be a vindictive prick, but when it actually happened I was not mean at all.

 

Actually at one point she threatened to destroy one of a kind pictures of me and my grandfather who had passed away, if I did not accede to certain terms in the divorce.

 

Huh? I'm saying that I would be offended in the hypothetical situation where he has nothing to protect because he would be demanding that we go to two attorneys and spend time and effort on something that is going to protect him from what, exactly? From me taking half of his nothing? It would be a sign of mistrust and insecurity.

 

Or it might be a sign that he is realistic. The real test would be to see if he similarly protects you from himself. That means more than the prenup itself.

 

Even if you two have nothing it can provide the groundwork for how things are split in a divorce.

[donnamaybe]

I did up my own pre-nup prior to my marriage, and my divorce attorney told me she couldn't have done it better herself. Cost me nothing. I had free notary service at my bank, so even that part of it was free. It sure made things much easier when we did divorce. Had we not divorced, the papers would have remained in the safe deposit box. Had I not required a pre-nup, my ex would have tried to take half of my retirement fund.

[Eeyore79]

I'm basically a fair and decent person, and in general I wouldn't take something that's not mine. If my husband and I parted amicably, I wouldn't expect a share of his assets.

 

But I have to admit: If he cheated on me and we divorced, then dammit I would take him for every penny, just to punish him for cheating. I would make his life as hard as possible, even if I didn't want or need his money, even if taking it was morally the wrong thing to do... I would do it just to make him suffer for the way he'd treated me.

[2sure]

I'm basically a fair and decent person, and in general I wouldn't take something that's not mine. If my husband and I parted amicably, I wouldn't expect a share of his assets.

 

But I have to admit: If he cheated on me and we divorced, then dammit I would take him for every penny, just to punish him for cheating. I would make his life as hard as possible, even if I didn't want or need his money, even if taking it was morally the wrong thing to do... I would do it just to make him suffer for the way he'd treated me.

 

Thats what I ended up doing. And you know, its odd too, because if we had divorced under other circumstances I would have chalked it up to my mistake and walked away with what I came with. But the part that REALLY surprised me was that I was legally entitled to everything my attorney asked for. I would never have thought that.

[carhill]

Interesting question...would it be reasonable to negotiate distributions based upon proven or presumptive infidelity? AFAIK, in California, courts won't uphold clear sanctions for infidelity, but is the concept worth negotiating? Say our young, successful married doctor and mother decides to start up a sexual affair with one of her male PA's at work and brings home a specific STD to hubby. What are his remedies under their prenup, or should a prenup address such situations?

[Tiberius]

PhoenixLady - I'm not going to further the debate on morality and judging one's character as that is not what this is post is about. I'm just going to say that you would certainly be entitled to shame yourself for whatever reason you want, but I'm grateful that I've elected to perceive myself as an imperfect human being, who doesn't always have all the answers, and to treat myself, first and foremost, with kindness. To me, that's a far more constructive practice than heaping shame on myself and how I choose to live my life.

 

FWIW, I've never had issues with pre-nups, so any stereotypical lumping of "women who change their spots when they get a little money" is moot for purposes of this discussion.

 

Thanks for all of your responses so far.

 

I seriously doubt you would even bring the discussion of a prenup up, if you were used to dating men who vastly outearn you. Maybe it wasnt fair to say women. I think no man who has far less than the woman he is going to marry is going to bring up talk about a prenup.