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

[CrestfallenNoMore]

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.

 

It's more the case that I've always been taught to earn my own and not expect a man to give me the lifestyle I want. Consequently, I don't want what I have earned myself taken away. So I can completely understand the desire and need, regardless of gender.

[sanskrit]

Unless children are desired from the union, there is no good reason to marry for those who don't have specific religious beliefs unless one of the parties' work offers a spectacular benefits package that doesn't apply to "partners."

 

Some in the thread say that they wouldn't take what wasn't theirs unless there was cheating, but many marriages end in serious resentment that has nothing to do with cheating, and domestic lawyers are expert in creating a contentious environment between divorcing parties that didn't exist previously.

[threebyfate]

Unless children are desired from the union, there is no good reason to marry for those who don't have specific religious beliefs unless one of the parties' work offers a spectacular benefits package that doesn't apply to "partners."

 

Some in the thread say that they wouldn't take what wasn't theirs unless there was cheating, but many marriages end in serious resentment that has nothing to do with cheating, and domestic lawyers are expert in creating a contentious environment between divorcing parties that didn't exist previously.

This is your opinion, rather than fact. For some of us, there are reasons of which one is that both of us are willing to cleave to each other for the rest of our lives. It's a conscious and desired choice.

 

Having said that, when making an emotional decision, IMO, it's best to offset the decision with some pragmatic insurance ergo prenup.

[sanskrit]

This is your opinion, rather than fact.

 

As far as there being "no good reason" for non child-seeking, non religious people to marry, no, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. 50% of marriages end in divorce and there is no non-religious, non-reproductive function of marriage that unmarried people can't achieve independently of the marriage contract. For example...

 

one is that both of us are willing to cleave to each other for the rest of our lives.

 

... no necessity of marriage to accomplish the above, none whatsoever. People can certainly commit to each other for life without involvement of the state. People can accomplish by trust or will the exact same results that marriage accomplishes with respect to marital property and estate taxes. If you say, "well we just wanted to," that's a fine subjective reason, but not an objectively good reason for marriage.

 

Stating again, outside of reproductive, religious or work benefits reasons, there is no objectively good reason to marry.

 

There are plenty of reasons not to marry, though, especially for men in light of current family law. Just one example, wife becomes pregnant with an unplanned child. Husband signs birth certificate. Couple divorce. Later, paternity test shows husband is not the father. Wife marries biological father, and maintains custody. Original husband is excused from child support? No, he continues paying for 18 years while his "child" lives with both biological parents. Far fetched? No, not at all, happens with alarming frequency.

[GorillaTheater]

Hell no I'm not signing a pre-nup. If I get married again, it's going to be for money.

[threebyfate]

As far as there being "no good reason" for non child-seeking, non religious people to marry, no, that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. 50% of marriages end in divorce and there is no non-religious, non-reproductive function of marriage that unmarried people can't achieve independently of the marriage contract. For example...

Your cup is half empty. What about the 50% that do work out? Pretty big odds for, as long as you hedge the other 50%.

... no necessity of marriage to accomplish the above, none whatsoever.

This is according to your subjective views on marriage.

 

People can certainly commit to each other for life without involvement of the state. People can accomplish by trust or will the exact same results that marriage accomplishes with respect to marital property and estate taxes. If you say, "well we just wanted to," that's a fine subjective reason, but not an objectively good reason for marriage.

 

Stating again, outside of reproductive, religious or work benefits reasons, there is no objectively good reason to marry.

 

There are plenty of reasons not to marry, though, especially for men in light of current family law. Just one example, wife becomes pregnant with an unplanned child. Husband signs birth certificate. Couple divorce. Later, paternity test shows husband is not the father. Wife marries biological father, and maintains custody. Original husband is excused from child support? No, he continues paying for 18 years while his "child" lives with both biological parents. Far fetched? No, not at all, happens with alarming frequency.

Once again, subjective views. These are just scare tactics from someone who obviously has no respect or at minimum, fears marriage. You're entitled to your opinion but objectivity doesn't have any component in your argument.

[sanskrit]

Your cup is half empty. What about the 50% that do work out? Pretty big odds for, as long as you hedge the other 50%.

 

You missed the point of bringing up the 50% failure rate. Even uncontested, amicable divorces create a lots of paperwork and hassle for the parties, if not legal fees, especially if children or property are involved. If there is a 50% chance of undergoing such, and no reproductive or religious advantages accrue, why do it?

 

But the "half full" retort is specious anyway. What if the post office delivered only half the mail? What if half the people in jail were innocent? Would decrying those problems as problems be dismissed by merely stating "your cup is half empty"? That kind of statement isn't even an argument, is it?

 

This is according to your subjective views on marriage.

 

No, sorry, it's plain fact. Parties can accomplish any non-reproductive, non-religious goal without marriage that they can accomplish with it. If you feel otherwise, name some or just accept a fact for a fact. Gay people do this all the time via commitment ceremonies. Other than the state involvement and expressed qualifiers, they are identical to marriage in every way, just not marriage.

 

These are just scare tactics from someone who obviously has no respect or at minimum, fears marriage.

 

Haven't insulted you personally, why then do you choose to insult me? You know nothing about me and vice versa. Certainly doesn't add any credence to your argument, and makes you look unduly emotional on the topic. Try applying more reason and less emotion to what I am claiming, and you will find that what I'm saying isn't really all that controversial.

 

I have all the respect in the world for people who marry for reproductive, religious, work benefit, or even subjective reasons. That's their prerogative. Doesn't change the plain fact though, that outside those reasons, there are no objective reasons to marry.

 

You're entitled to your opinion but objectivity doesn't have any component in your argument.

 

Keep restating that, but until you list some specific objective benefits to marriage other than the qualifiers I have listed, your argument is just hot air.

[carhill]

It's interesting that, at least in the US, venue of marriage and venue of divorce (meaning states/jurisdictions of occurrence) has effect on prenup validity and/or enforcement. That's something else to consider when crafting/updating a prenup.

 

 

One benefit to marriage is, if I were to die in a plane crash tomorrow, absent prior expensive legal work (I got a quote of 3 to 5K for a new trust) by myself to the contrary, my separated wife who filed for divorce and lives completely separately and without interest in my life and times, could/would inherit my estate, and I presume vice-versa. The interesting part is most of her major assets are/will be adjudicated marital property transmuted to separate property by the pending divorce judgment, further clouded by the fact that we've yet to sign a MSA, formalizing our agreement on matters of fact. She could will her 'interest' in the property to anyone, quite cheaply, but could that withstand a legal challenge by myself, or vice-versa?

 

Something else that a prenup can address. Lots of stuff

 

Also, dependent upon jurisdiction, unmarried cohabitating partners *may* be considered to be legally a 'couple' in the eyes of the state if certain conditions are met. In such cases, agreements entered into as an unmarried couple can be enforced and upheld in the same manner as a pre-nup. Perhaps that's a caution to those who believe avoiding marriage relieves them of certain responsibilities and obligations, particularly the ones which pre-nups address. Plan your cohabitation carefully

 

In other news, the cat is licking the blue cheese dressing out of my salad bowl before I was finished!

[CrestfallenNoMore]

Hell no I'm not signing a pre-nup. If I get married again, it's going to be for money.

 

haha! Nice! I needed a chuckle on this drizzly Monday.

[Ruby Slippers]

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?

I support that. Ideally, the marriage contract would cover all possible events related to finances -- children, shared earnings, individual earnings, inheritances, catastrophic expenses, infidelity, divorce because of "irreconcilable differences", old-age care, and so on.

[sanskrit]

One benefit to marriage is, if I were to die in a plane crash tomorrow, absent prior expensive legal work (I got a quote of 3 to 5K for a new trust) by myself to the contrary, my separated wife who filed for divorce and lives completely separately and without interest in my life and times, could/would inherit my estate, and I presume vice-versa.

 

Those quoted expenses seem rather high merely to change a trust beneficiary unless your estate and/or estate plan are exceedingly complex. Might shop around in your shoes.

Edited October 4, 2010 by sanskrit

[carhill]

Those quoted expenses seem rather high merely to change a trust beneficiary unless your estate and/or estate plan are exceedingly complex. Might shop around in your shoes.

In my case, due to the recent death of my mother, the matter is a bit complex, and perhaps atypical. Yes, the estate plan is complex. The firm which has handled my legal matters in the past is where I got the quote from. They've provided good results so far. I would have them prepare a pre-nup in the future and represent my interests. Also, I was advised of the scenario of a proactive beneficiary change versus contention of marital and quasi-marital properties being considered as a challenge to that beneficiary's legal right. Also, as I have no living family now, a new beneficiary will have to be considered. Formerly, it was to provide for my mother's care. I'm trying to get the divorce done first and then focus on estate planning again. Only so much time and money.

 

Had we never married, I presume circumstances would be potentially quite different, as, AFAIK, Cali isn't a common-law state. We did cohabit long enough to qualify for common-law status in states which do recognize that form of being a 'couple', so people in those jurisdictions should be aware of the potentials and perhaps consider a common-law version of a pre-nup to address them.

[CrestfallenNoMore]

I don't live in a common-law state either, carhill, which does have other potential legal ramifications.

 

I guess one of the big things that sticks with me is, had my parents died while I was married, I would have absolutely shared my inheritance with my ex-husband without a second thought. Whatever we acquired would have been ours together.

 

But now, had that situation occurred, I would have hated knowing that my adulterous ex-husband moved into his girlfriend's home with something purchased by or inherited from my parents. As it was, I didn't pursue anything of his (even half his 401k) in an effort to punish him as they were "just things." But I guess I wouldn't feel that way if he benefitted from from the blood and sweat of the people who raised me.

 

Lots of things to think about.

[sweetjasmine]

If there is a 50% chance of undergoing such

 

I always find it interesting when people bring up these statistics.

 

If I adjust for my demographic group (by age at first marriage [assuming I won't marry for a few more years], education, religion, socioeconomic status, geographic location), then the probability of divorce within 15 years of marriage is much, much lower than the 50-60% number people like to throw around.

 

If people are going to let a pop culture statistic affect their life choices, they should probably read up on it a little more. If two people are professionals in their 30s with established careers, college degrees, and no prior marriages, they're facing a different probability of divorce than a couple who are high school drop outs and who got hitched at 17 because they had a baby on the way.

[40 Fonzarelli]

I don't buy insurance because I know I am going to get into an accident. I buy it because its possible.

[PhoenixLady]

I don't buy insurance because I know I am going to get into an accident. I buy it because its possible.

 

I don't think that's a great analogy. We can't predict what a stranger in another car will do after all. But the character of a man I marry is not an unknown quantity.

[Pfiend101]

If she makes me sign a pre-nup she must not really love me! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[sanskrit]

I always find it interesting...

 

I used the 50% number as it is likely the most applicable number to the broader readership of this forum. Adjust as you like for your personal situation, doesn't impact the points I have made one iota.

[40 Fonzarelli]

I don't think that's a great analogy. We can't predict what a stranger in another car will do after all. But the character of a man I marry is not an unknown quantity.

 

People change. People fall out of love. You can't predict any of that based on knowing someone's character. Its definitely not quantifiable.

[donnamaybe]

People change. People fall out of love. You can't predict any of that based on knowing someone's character. Its definitely not quantifiable.

Yup. There is absolutely NO way anyone can get inside anyone else's head and know, for a fact, EXACTLY what they would do in any given situation, particularly if a R were to go south.

[Tiberius]

I don't want what I have earned myself taken away.

 

Time used to be, that the ex got "a fair share" in divorce and "everything in marriage is shared", but I guess the tune changes now that more women are going to have money out of which some will be married to men who have less money. But in that scenario many women will do the math and do not bother with marriage to begin with.

[PhoenixLady]

I must disagree with some of the posts here saying you can't know what a person will do. I think if you really look at a person's past history and you really know their true character, whether the relationship works out or not, matters not. An ethical and fair person doesn't suddenly become an unethical and unfair person upon breaking up....at least not in my experience.

 

If that happens (doing a total 180 in character) then it tells me that you really didn't know the person all that well to begin with...either that or they're a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type!

 

Just to add: Knowing a person really well enough to determine how they'll react in the event of a breakup requires one to not make decisions based solely on emotion. It's always a good idea to balance one's decisions between the emotional and the intellectual. Anyone who does just the former is a fool...and those who base their decisions solely on the latter are just cold and unemotional robots.

Edited October 5, 2010 by PhoenixLady

[CrestfallenNoMore]

I must disagree with some of the posts here saying you can't know what a person will do. I think if you really look at a person's past history and you really know their true character, whether the relationship works out or not, matters not. An ethical and fair person doesn't suddenly become an unethical and unfair person upon breaking up....at least not in my experience.

 

If that happens (doing a total 180 in character) then it tells me that you really didn't know the person all that well to begin with...either that or they're a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type!

 

We disagree that it's a black and white issue. Character isn't a static thing, like eye color; it's defined and re-defined as we grow and are faced with life's challenges. Sometimes people act according to the rules of character they've always lived by, and sometimes circumstances, insecurities or something else occurs, so they don't. They re-define their rules. For instance, I shoplifted as kid, but now that goes against my rules of character. I learned, I grew, I re-defined. Other's re-define regressively.

 

I didn't marry someone who'd cheated before he cheated on me; in that case then yes, I would have overlooked something. But extrapolating that downloading pirated music (his only "ethical flaw," according MY personal definition of ethics) would then lead to infidelity? What a waste of time it would be to blame myself for missing that leap.

[PhoenixLady]

We disagree that it's a black and white issue. Character isn't a static thing, like eye color; it's defined and re-defined as we grow and are faced with life's challenges. Sometimes people act according to the rules of character they've always lived by, and sometimes circumstances, insecurities or something else occurs, so they don't. They re-define their rules. For instance, I shoplifted as kid, but now that goes against my rules of character. I learned, I grew, I re-defined. Other's re-define regressively.

 

I didn't marry someone who'd cheated before he cheated on me; in that case then yes, I would have overlooked something. But extrapolating that downloading pirated music (his only "ethical flaw," according MY personal definition of ethics) would then lead to infidelity? What a waste of time it would be to blame myself for missing that leap.

 

I can't agree. I'm talking about character as an ADULT. We can't go back to someone's childhood character as character is still being formed. As for anyone 25 and older, I think for the most part, character is pretty much set. Do we continue to grow and learn after that? Sure. But our basic character as far as morals and ethics are concerned are pretty well entrenched by then from my experience with people.

 

I can respect your (and others') view on this though. But yeah, I do kind of see this as a black and white issue.

[CrestfallenNoMore]

I agree that it's generally pretty well-defined. Once we know a person, I do agree that we can generally predict what they will or won't do, but there are those dark places, insecurites, addiction issues, and pain from childhood deep inside that can lead a person to re-define their character regressively; and those are the flaws in an otherwise exemplary, publicly-shown character that we cannot predict. Hence, a pre-nup.

 

Consider yourself fortunate that your experiences with people have always been predictable. Thanks for your input and I respect your position as well.