Pre-Nup & Post-Nup .

[NewLeaf512]

I have read that in this scenario this would be regarded as fraudulent as you entered into the post nup with all intentions of filing immediately.

 

I think the general rule is that post nups are more successful if they are seen to be fair.

For instance, In the event of a divorce triggered by the FWS's further infidelity or if instigated by the FWS, pre marital assets are protected, shared custody is agreed and possibly lifetime alimony could be waived.

 

What will not be allowed (as far as I know) are extreme stipulations such as, tn the event of a divorce the WS agrees to take nothing from, say, a 25 year marriage and live on bread and water for the rest of their days.

 

I think the greatest benefit of a post nup is stopping a WS trying to take their BS to the cleaners by ensuring they agree to play fair.

 

No expert so I could be wrong.

 

It's not a criminal matter firstly. Secondly proving intent under the best of circumstances is rolling dice.

 

It could be signed with good intentions and that night there is a disagreement

[Wade Lamare]

But if you offered those terms to someone and he/she said, "No, you're going to have to divorce me, oh snap..." The point is why would the offeree agree to it? And if he/she doesn't, what are you going to do? The one thing you're trying to avoid? What is the incentive to sign?

 

Sometimes the WS is so contrite, so desperate to save the marriage they've just shattered that they will sign almost anything. Doesn't make it right though.

 

Taking to the cleaners implies that the WS did not earn half the marital assets. Giving all or substantially all of the marital assets to one party has a punitive effect.

 

Quite agree, but often you see, on sites such as these, that the WS on being discovered and during divorce makes every attempt to royally screw over their BS out of spite. "I'm gonna get 100% custody, I'm gonna take the house while you live in a crappy little apartment and I'm gonna screw you for a kazillion pounds per month and spend it on my toyboy/girl.

Obviously I do not know how often they are successful at screwing over their ex partner but I've heard of and read some pretty gruesome stories.

Do you not think that if they signed a post nup, say, two years previously stating that they agreed to equal shares and to co parent equally that this would be taken into account by the court when the WS had changed their mind and were now going for blood?

 

Also, unless premarital assets are commingled, they're generally excluded from marital property like inheritance.

Yes, I had thought of this after I wrote it. But again I've heard of and read stories of WS's making an attempt to raid pre marital assets by devious means, hopefully all such cases are unsuccessful.

 

***Sorry, it's just upsetting when people do not recognize the contribution of a partner that's sacrificed his/her ability to have a career to take care of the domestic front.

 

Oh, I quite agree, my point was more that perhaps a post nup would help to make sure that both parties played fair as all too often, certainly in the past, the BS not only gets the **** sandwich of an affair to deal with but they then have to move into a crappy little apartment while paying their WS to move their AP into their old house.

Edited September 17, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[OneLov]

Wade,

 

Here's a great explanation of the theory behind equitable distribution (roughly 80% of the states follow) when dividing marital assets.

 

Equitable Distribution & Marital Fault in Divorce Cases | Popescu Law Group

 

"In the majority of the U.S., marriage is regarded by law as an economic partnership between the spouses. It is assumed that each of them contributes economic value in marriage, either actual, or otherwise. The goods accumulated throughout the marriage are divided equitably (not necessarily equally) in divorce. Emotional and psychological suffering caused by adultery is not considered by the courts in terms of value or equitable distribution.

 

An exception to this general rule is when adultery causes the other spouse to lose assets. For example, the husband who cheated on his wife gives his mistress significant amounts of marital money. Typical examples also include buying or renting an apartment or expensive gifts or jewelry related to adultery. Such waste may well constitute “squandering marital assets” without the consent or knowledge of the other spouse. To equalize the financial rights of victim, in such cases, the court may distribute a disproportionate share of the assets to the aggrieved spouse. That is not to “punish”, but to fairly distribute the parties’ assets."

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying. But keep in mind some people have an unreasonable expectation of what is fair. Unless they get 100%, they will feel as if they've been taken to the cleaners.

 

In the US, if feasible, the default for legal and physical custody is 50/50. The practical problem in situations where you have one bread winner is it's very difficult to serve your kids and your job. The truth is most people will choose their job over joint custody.

 

Also, in the apartment situation described, the husband often elects to get an apartment because of stability for the children, and if it's paid off, it's cheaper for alimony.

 

When my parents divorced, my mom got the house but she had to pay my dad an amount that was roughly half of their equity.

[BlueIris]

Frequently I read the advise for those who have experienced infidelity to get a post-nup as a term of reconciliation or a pre-nup if a fiancé cheats & the betrayed is still considering marriage.

 

I've heard that it can be argued that either are signed at a time of duress so they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

 

Do they actually help to protect you or are they mainly attempts to psychologically control or test the commitment of a partner?

 

Obviously which country you're in will make a difference.

 

They protect you financially after your partner has demonstrated that he or she will cheat- because they cheated. I'd think that if the cheater sincerely wants to save the marriage- which some do- they wouldn't balk at signing a post-nup. They might even offer one as a show of good faith and sincerity.

 

You can't control your partner and people can lie about their commitment.

 

But you can take measures to minimize the conflict and expense of a divorce if your partner does cheat. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Wade Lamare]

Wade,

 

Here's a great explanation of the theory behind equitable distribution (roughly 80% of the states follow) when dividing marital assets.

 

Equitable Distribution & Marital Fault in Divorce Cases | Popescu Law Group

 

"In the majority of the U.S., marriage is regarded by law as an economic partnership between the spouses. It is assumed that each of them contributes economic value in marriage, either actual, or otherwise. The goods accumulated throughout the marriage are divided equitably (not necessarily equally) in divorce. Emotional and psychological suffering caused by adultery is not considered by the courts in terms of value or equitable distribution.

 

An exception to this general rule is when adultery causes the other spouse to lose assets. For example, the husband who cheated on his wife gives his mistress significant amounts of marital money. Typical examples also include buying or renting an apartment or expensive gifts or jewelry related to adultery. Such waste may well constitute “squandering marital assets” without the consent or knowledge of the other spouse. To equalize the financial rights of victim, in such cases, the court may distribute a disproportionate share of the assets to the aggrieved spouse. That is not to “punish”, but to fairly distribute the parties’ assets."

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying. But keep in mind some people have an unreasonable expectation of what is fair. Unless they get 100%, they will feel as if they've been taken to the cleaners.

 

In the US, if feasible, the default for legal and physical custody is 50/50. The practical problem in situations where you have one bread winner is it's very difficult to serve your kids and your job. The truth is most people will choose their job over joint custody.

 

Also, in the apartment situation described, the husband often elects to get an apartment because of stability for the children, and if it's paid off, it's cheaper for alimony.

 

When my parents divorced, my mom got the house but she had to pay my dad an amount that was roughly half of their equity.

 

Understood.

 

So in your experience is there absolutely no value in a post nup? Would any parts of it have some standing in a court of law? Could the WS forego permanent alimony for instance?

 

Also would it not be incumbent on the attorney/legal representative to say "It will cost you several hundred dollars but it won't be worth the paper it is written on"?

[NewLeaf512]

They protect you financially after your partner has demonstrated that he or she will cheat- because they cheated. I'd think that if the cheater sincerely wants to save the marriage- which some do- they wouldn't balk at signing a post-nup. They might even offer one as a show of good faith and sincerity.

 

You can't control your partner and people can lie about their commitment.

 

But you can take measures to minimize the conflict and expense of a divorce if your partner does cheat. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

I respectfully disagree. Having a post-nup results in a more costly divorce. Most states in America are equitable distribution anyway. Unless the parties are multimillionaires, there's nothing to be gained but more legal fees and a reduced marital estate to divide.

[BlueIris]

I respectfully disagree. Having a post-nup results in a more costly divorce. Most states in America are equitable distribution anyway. Unless the parties are multimillionaires, there's nothing to be gained but more legal fees and a reduced marital estate to divide.

 

That's interesting. That hasn't been my experience.

 

Where I live prenups and postnups are upheld even if they allocate income earned during the marriage so long as there isn't duress, coercion or gross inequity.

 

Also where I live, this isn't duress or coercion:"I'm getting a divorce because you cheated, but if you're wiling to sign a postnup I'll give it a few years. It's up to you. Think about it."

[NTV]

That's interesting. That hasn't been my experience.

 

Where I live prenups and postnups are upheld even if they allocate income earned during the marriage so long as there isn't duress, coercion or gross inequity.

 

Also where I live, this isn't duress or coercion:"I'm getting a divorce because you cheated, but if you're wiling to sign a postnup I'll give it a few years. It's up to you. Think about it."

 

And that's how it was for me. I don't see that as pathetic.

[OneLov]

Understood.

 

So in your experience is there absolutely no value in a post nup? Would any parts of it have some standing in a court of law? Could the WS forego permanent alimony for instance?

 

Also would it not be incumbent on the attorney/legal representative to say "It will cost you several hundred dollars but it won't be worth the paper it is written on"?

 

No, IMO, there can be value in post nups. But I always believe a pre nup is more fair. Examples, include ensuring children of previous marriages are protected in blended families (but still think better to do pre nup in this instance). Let's say you use your inheritance (separate property) to invest in spouses business. A post nup ensuring the spouse would receive the invested amount back in a divorce is fair. Also, they could protect any sentimental value that commingled separate property has, i.e. The marital home was inherited and the spouse who grew up there wants to protect it.

 

I don't think post nups made following infidelity are good for the marriage and the individuals, thus they have no value. Like NL stated, they're expensive and you can bet will be contested in a divorce by the person standing to lose the assets, so that defeats the purpose of entering into an agreement to save money in the event of divorce. Moreover, it's very rare for a post nup in this situation to not have a punitive effect.

 

From a psychological perspective, they're also not good for building trust.

 

The point being, if you can't trust or unwilling to see yourself trusting your spouse in the future despite him/her being genuinely remorseful--end the relationship. Reconciliation is a commitment; it's hard, often times unfair, and not for the faint of heart.

Edited September 17, 2016 by OneLov

[BlueIris]

No, IMO, there can be value in post nups. But I always believe a pre nup is more fair. Examples, include ensuring children of previous marriages are protected in blended families (but still think better to do pre nup in this instance). Let's say you use your inheritance (separate property) to invest in spouses business. A post nup ensuring the spouse would receive the invested amount back in a divorce is fair. Also, they could protect any sentimental value that commingled separate property has, i.e. The marital home was inherited and the spouse who grew up there wants to protect it.

 

I don't think post nups made following infidelity are good for the marriage and the individuals, thus they have no value. Like NL stated, they're expensive and you can bet will be contested in a divorce by the person standing to lose the assets, so that defeats the purpose of entering into an agreement to save money in the event of divorce. Moreover, it's very rare for a post nup in this situation to not have a punitive effect.

 

From a psychological perspective, they're also not good for building trust.

 

The point being, if you can't trust or unwilling to see yourself trusting your spouse in the future despite him/her being genuinely remorseful--end the relationship. Reconciliation is a commitment; it's hard, often times unfair, and not for the faint of heart.

 

I believe the opposite. It's a "put your money where your mouth is" philosophy.

 

It doesn't have to be cheating, though. Stealing, physical abuse... all kinds of deal breakers bring people to the brink of divorce and if someone is truly dedicated to never doing something again, I don't see why they'd flinch about putting it on paper and having financial consequences if they do it again.

 

After all, they can just say that they prefer to divorce rather than sign it. Nothing has to be nasty or ugly. Just divorce.

[OneLov]

I believe the opposite. It's a "put your money where your mouth is" philosophy.

 

It doesn't have to be cheating, though. Stealing, physical abuse... all kinds of deal breakers bring people to the brink of divorce and if someone is truly dedicated to never doing something again, I don't see why they'd flinch about putting it on paper and having financial consequences if they do it again.

 

After all, they can just say that they prefer to divorce rather than sign it. Nothing has to be nasty or ugly. Just divorce.

 

I understand your position, I really do. It's just one of those situations where in theory it makes sense but in the application gets a bit messy.

 

Post-nup? A midmarriage sorting-out of finances may head off problems - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

 

"The post-nup is not recommended for couples who are confronting problems such as physical or mental abuse, infidelity, substance abuse -- nor for people who are really planning to break up and want to use the post-nup as a settlement in any future divorce battle.

 

Post-nup as leverage

 

Partners are rarely in the same place in a troubled relationship, and one spouse is often more committed to the marriage. The temptation is to use the post-nup as leverage to change behavior.

 

This kind of post-nup is really an ultimatum. Money becomes the marriage's glue. As Herman says: "Money is rarely a good bond for keeping people together."

[carhill]

Frequently I read the advise for those who have experienced infidelity to get a post-nup as a term of reconciliation or a pre-nup if a fiancé cheats & the betrayed is still considering marriage.

Yeah, that's one solution especially if there is a marked disparity in income/assets.

I've heard that it can be argued that either are signed at a time of duress so they're not worth the paper they're printed on.

If both parties are represented by competent and independent legal council, it's highly unlikely coercion or duress will be involved or perceived that way if an adversarial action goes before a judge later.

 

Do they actually help to protect you or are they mainly attempts to psychologically control or test the commitment of a partner?

 

Depends on the individuals and circumstances. They can remove, if properly done, some fear and uncertainty about one aspect of the legal partnership. Sure, a war can break out and lawyers will salivate and judges will impatiently tap the woodwork but, mostly, it streamlines the process, if nothing else outlining the boundaries of the war.

 

 

Obviously which country you're in will make a difference.

 

Definitely.

 

I know of only one anecdote relevant to your topic and indeed it did help and resulted in a six figure payout to the BS. I've heard of others but this was the only one where I met the parties personally and viewed the paperwork. That postnup was the seed money for her to get her professional training and move on to a successful life for her and her kids after the divorce. It didn't materially impact her exH's lifestyle so was win-win and with a minimum of rancor. There was a bit of rancor on other fronts that she created but that was transitory. Divorces can be like that.

[Mrs. John Adams]

I can see and understand a wayward proposing a post nup to the betrayed as a gesture of sincerity.... but for a betrayed to demand a post nup to me as a wayward would cause me to bolt.

 

It would truly be meaningless in terms of reconciliation.

 

I could say the same about demanding a lie detector test. If I volunteer it means way more than my betrayed demanding it.

 

Reconciliation has to be based on at least some degree of mutual respect and trust...

 

For example... I immediately became transparent to my husband... because i wanted to re establish a degree of trustworthiness. It meant something to the both of us... rather than his demanding it from me.

[NewLeaf512]

That's interesting. That hasn't been my experience.

 

Where I live prenups and postnups are upheld even if they allocate income earned during the marriage so long as there isn't duress, coercion or gross inequity.

 

Also where I live, this isn't duress or coercion:"I'm getting a divorce because you cheated, but if you're wiling to sign a postnup I'll give it a few years. It's up to you. Think about it."

 

I am not a family law practitioner. I was a litigator, and now do another role within the law. This does not constitute legal advice but my observation from a 25 year career.

 

Additionally the coercion comment doesn't relate to my post but was perhaps meant for another poster.

[NewLeaf512]

No, IMO, there can be value in post nups. But I always believe a pre nup is more fair. Examples, include ensuring children of previous marriages are protected in blended families (but still think better to do pre nup in this instance). Let's say you use your inheritance (separate property) to invest in spouses business. A post nup ensuring the spouse would receive the invested amount back in a divorce is fair. Also, they could protect any sentimental value that commingled separate property has, i.e. The marital home was inherited and the spouse who grew up there wants to protect it.

 

I don't think post nups made following infidelity are good for the marriage and the individuals, thus they have no value. Like NL stated, they're expensive and you can bet will be contested in a divorce by the person standing to lose the assets, so that defeats the purpose of entering into an agreement to save money in the event of divorce. Moreover, it's very rare for a post nup in this situation to not have a punitive effect.

 

From a psychological perspective, they're also not good for building trust.

 

The point being, if you can't trust or unwilling to see yourself trusting your spouse in the future despite him/her being genuinely remorseful--end the relationship. Reconciliation is a commitment; it's hard, often times unfair, and not for the faint of heart.

 

I have seen post-nups be successful exactly 2x and neither of those had anything to do with betrayal. They were related to inheritance of family businesses.

 

In most localities in America and certainly how it is viewed in the UK is that if a BS is aware of their WS A and continues to live as H&W sharing "bed and board" it is considered non actionable, as it infers that the BS has forgiven it.

 

Most solicitors I know who are even recently qualified could nullify a Post-Nup without having to engage a barrister.

 

In other words OneLov I concur 100%. Completely counterintuitive.

[ladydesigner]

Heck would you want to give up time with your kids? I want as much time as possible. Giving up being there for half their childhood.... that's a tough pill to swallow. For me anyway. Guess some folks walk away but I'm kinda selfish about that.

 

Maybe like one luv said it won't be enforceable. Maybe though the fear of financial penalties will keep her legs closed. Yes I wish i didn't have to think like that but I also have some hard reality to face. Love doesn't always conquer all. There is a cost benefit analysis there but who knows what th we future will hold. I'm ready if it's marital bliss and I'm ready if it's starting a new stage of my life. But I don't think I would have stayed married with my fear of her thinking the time line to achieve permanent spousal support was what was keeping her here hadn't been mitigated. Risk management and all that lol.

 

I feel the same way. I am not going to split my time 50/50 with the kids after being their sole provider their whole life (thanks to WH not helping at all). I'm also not happy about a blended family situation, my whole upbringing was that way and it was hell and chaos, total mindf*ck for a kid.

 

I'm not going to struggle financially either.

 

So for me a post-nup is more like protection, knowing the shady stuff I have seen my WH capable of, in my case it only makes sense. It's my opinion I understand the opposing point of view though.

[BlueIris]

I understand your position, I really do. It's just one of those situations where in theory it makes sense but in the application gets a bit messy.

 

Post-nup? A midmarriage sorting-out of finances may head off problems - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

 

"The post-nup is not recommended for couples who are confronting problems such as physical or mental abuse, infidelity, substance abuse -- nor for people who are really planning to break up and want to use the post-nup as a settlement in any future divorce battle.

 

Post-nup as leverage

 

Partners are rarely in the same place in a troubled relationship, and one spouse is often more committed to the marriage. The temptation is to use the post-nup as leverage to change behavior.

 

This kind of post-nup is really an ultimatum. Money becomes the marriage's glue. As Herman says: "Money is rarely a good bond for keeping people together."

 

I definitely see your point.

 

To Herman, I'd say: don't use it for leverage. Use it to relieve yourself of fears about money and unfairness, and to give some security to the betrayed spouse so that emotional bonding can be done. The bond was broken after the abuse, infidelity, etc. Building a new bond will be easier if you agree to eliminate financial worries. There are people who stay in marriages for financial reasons, lots of people. So take that out of the equation.

[NTV]

I can see and understand a wayward proposing a post nup to the betrayed as a gesture of sincerity.... but for a betrayed to demand a post nup to me as a wayward would cause me to bolt.

 

It would truly be meaningless in terms of reconciliation.

 

I could say the same about demanding a lie detector test. If I volunteer it means way more than my betrayed demanding it.

 

Reconciliation has to be based on at least some degree of mutual respect and trust...

 

For example... I immediately became transparent to my husband... because i wanted to re establish a degree of trustworthiness. It meant something to the both of us... rather than his demanding it from me.

 

Ah I see... no I didn't assume that the postnup would build trust at all. That wasn't the purpose. My wife breached the marriage contract. The marriage was over. Dead. It wasn't about bringing it back to life. In fact the filing for divorce wasn't about separation. ..that she did well enough already. The divorce was just the paperwork to make it official.

 

The postnup was about laying the groundwork in order for me to be willing to try to try to build a new one on the corpse of the last. There was no other way I would consider staying married and risking permanent spousal support. I wouldn't even try at r without it. It doesn't matter how much I love my car, I don't drive my car without insurance. I just didn't know that I needed insurance for the marriage because I didn't think my wife was the type of person that could think as coldly about our family as she did. Once I found out, it didn't make sense to stay... I would be teaching the kids how to be a doormat. But leaving would teach them something else. So it was the middle ground.

 

For postnups both sides have to be willing to sign. I couldn't force her to sign anymore than I could have forced her to stay faithful.

 

And yeah if I didn't have kids I wouldn't have considered it at all.

 

So no it wasn't a method of building trust. It wasn't used as leverage. And yeah as a bs I did propose it. I didn't wanna give up time with the kids. Plain and simple. And I'd give her a second chance but I wasn't gonna jump into it face first.

 

Could she resent me for asking for it in order to get the second chance? Sure just like I could resent her for cheating.

 

Is it enforceable? Could she contest it? The lawyer taking your money will say it is and the one hired to contest it will say it isn't. If she doesn't cheat again and I feel safer putting a foot back in my marriage because it's there then it won't matter. If she cheats again and leaves for a rich guy it won't matter. If a car accident takes out one of us unexpectedly tomorrow it won't matter.

 

Is it the best strategy? Only time will tell for us. I did spend a lot of time weighing all my options and laying out plans for 100 different contingencies before deciding to try this.

 

Only you know if it makes sense for your marriage.

[road]

Through many years:

 

 

I have seen many a WW offer a post nup after D day to show that they wanted to recover their marriage.

 

 

I have seen many BH want a post nup to feel they had something concrete after D day to make it easier for them to enter recovery.

 

 

I have seen many people tell/advise WW's to offer their BH a post nup.

 

 

I have seen many people tell/advise BH's to ask their WW for a post nup.

 

 

I have seen the courts countless times rule post nup's by theBH ruled invalid.

 

 

I have not seen a post nup upheld. Because a judge will not enforce a agreement between spouses where the one spouse leaves the other spouse stripped of all marital assets. I do not remember the legal issues that allow the judges to invalidate post nups.

Edited September 18, 2016 by road

[Mrs. John Adams]

Ah I see... no I didn't assume that the postnup would build trust at all. That wasn't the purpose. My wife breached the marriage contract. The marriage was over. Dead. It wasn't about bringing it back to life. In fact the filing for divorce wasn't about separation. ..that she did well enough already. The divorce was just the paperwork to make it official.

 

The postnup was about laying the groundwork in order for me to be willing to try to try to build a new one on the corpse of the last. There was no other way I would consider staying married and risking permanent spousal support. I wouldn't even try at r without it. It doesn't matter how much I love my car, I don't drive my car without insurance. I just didn't know that I needed insurance for the marriage because I didn't think my wife was the type of person that could think as coldly about our family as she did. Once I found out, it didn't make sense to stay... I would be teaching the kids how to be a doormat. But leaving would teach them something else. So it was the middle ground.

 

For postnups both sides have to be willing to sign. I couldn't force her to sign anymore than I could have forced her to stay faithful.

 

And yeah if I didn't have kids I wouldn't have considered it at all.

 

So no it wasn't a method of building trust. It wasn't used as leverage. And yeah as a bs I did propose it. I didn't wanna give up time with the kids. Plain and simple. And I'd give her a second chance but I wasn't gonna jump into it face first.

 

Could she resent me for asking for it in order to get the second chance? Sure just like I could resent her for cheating.

 

Is it enforceable? Could she contest it? The lawyer taking your money will say it is and the one hired to contest it will say it isn't. If she doesn't cheat again and I feel safer putting a foot back in my marriage because it's there then it won't matter. If she cheats again and leaves for a rich guy it won't matter. If a car accident takes out one of us unexpectedly tomorrow it won't matter.

 

Is it the best strategy? Only time will tell for us. I did spend a lot of time weighing all my options and laying out plans for 100 different contingencies before deciding to try this.

 

Only you know if it makes sense for your marriage.

 

My affair was almost 34 years ago. There were no post nups (at least that regular people knew about)....and the moms got the kids....the dads got every other weekend. We had no money...so there was nothing to fight about...and certainly no need for a lawyer.

 

Hard to believe I know....but there was no internet...no cell phones and regular people did not take lie detector tests either.

 

 

Besides......I was determined...that our marriage was going to make it.

 

So the bottom line is...we all have to do what we need to do.....and times have changed.

[JohnAdams]

My feelings on a Post Nup is that if I need one, I may as well get divorced. If I feel I need a lie detector test, I may as well get divorced. Both of these shows dis-trust to the point of what is the point? I realize all trust was breached, but, like the first time, I am not willing to go in with something over my spouse's head. So, if you feel you need some type of post-nup, what are you trying to save, really? Get on with your life.

[NewLeaf512]

Through many years:

 

 

I have seen many a WW offer a post nup after D day to show that they wanted to recover their marriage.

 

 

I have seen many BH want a post nup to feel they had something concrete after D day to make it easier for them to enter recovery.

 

 

I have seen many people tell/advise WW's to offer their BH a post nup.

 

 

I have seen many people tell/advise BH's to ask their WW for a post nup.

 

 

I have seen the courts countless times rule post nup's by theBH ruled invalid.

 

 

I have not seen a post nup upheld. Because a judge will not enforce a agreement between spouses where the one spouse leaves the other spouse stripped of all marital assets. I do not remember the legal issues that allow the judges to invalidate post nups.

 

The 3 main reasons they can easily be blown up:

 

1. circumstances under which the agreement was executed, inequality in bargaining power.

2. Incorrect execution

3. Both parties must be represented by independent legal counsel

4. The agreement must be updated upon chance of circumstances new job, inheritance.

5. Not updated at least every 24 months

6. Does not make the respondent a financial responsibility of the government (make them go on welfare/benefits)

7. Doesn't include ample provision for living or future children.

 

And be aware the sole responsibility for this determination is with the judge.

 

(That's not a comprehensive list of reasons why. If there is a further query, please seek legal advice. This post is not legal advice nor does it constitute an attorney/client relationship)

Edited September 18, 2016 by NewLeaf512
Add disclaimer

[road]

My feelings on a Post Nup is that if I need one, I may as well get divorced. If I feel I need a lie detector test, I may as well get divorced. Both of these shows dis-trust to the point of what is the point? I realize all trust was breached, but, like the first time, I am not willing to go in with something over my spouse's head. So, if you feel you need some type of post-nup, what are you trying to save, really? Get on with your life.

 

S[o] how does a BH know he has gotten the full truth?

Edited September 18, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Fix typo

[Mrs. John Adams]

S[o] how does a BH know he has gotten the full truth?

 

You can NEVER know you have gotten all of the truth. There comes a point when you have to trust you got the truth....or there comes a time you are satisfied with the information you have been given.

 

But you can never know 100% what goes on in someone else's head. You were not there...you did not see....you did not hear...you did not participate...therefore you are at the mercy of the wayward to trust that the information they have given you is accurate and complete....and if you are not capable of that...then you have to make a conscience decision within yourself...that you have enough information to be satisfied.

 

If I need papers and tests to prove to me that i have the truth ...in my mind....I may as well divorce.

[T-16bullseyeWompRat]

Thankfully neither of us care too much about money. So I've never had to think about this sort of thing