what about this pre-nup?

[slimjim]

Recently, I saw an episode on Dr. Phil about prenups. I think Dr. Phil is full of S..t personally, and his advice is always slanted toward favoring the women, who coincidentally are the main demographics of his BS show. (Who'd a thunk it?)

 

But, I was having a slow day and watched some of the circus. Anyhoo, one woman had 300K, and wanted the man to sign a prenup so that this money would be protected. The guy didn't want to do it, believing that a true committment meant sharing everything that both victims have when coming into the marriage.

 

Phil tried to browbeat him into believing this was fair: The woman had children, wanted them secure, she was abused when she was 2 by a gang of syphlitic apes, her other husband tried to screw her over, and other such excuses why she needed this money.

 

Another case on the show, a guy wanted a prenup to protect his assets, and of course he was branded as not willing to fully commit to the relationship, planning for failure, the woman couldn't believe he would do such a thing as putting his assets over his love for her ... yada, yada, and other such shrink sewage as they could dole out.

 

So, how about this as a prenup, and would any woman sign it?

 

As a sign of our "undying and eternal commitment" the first person to file for divorce agrees to forfeit any and all community property, give up the rights to any alimony and in addition pays 200K in damages to the other party, as damages for breach of the marriage contract. The only exception is proof of adultry or drug/alcohol abuse or addiction.

 

Of course, specific other criteria can be included, but this is the general theme of this prenup. Also, the wedding ring will be sold and is treated as part of the property, since it is the symbol of this union, which is now dissolving and is not a "nice parting gift."

 

This would make marriage the equivalent of knowingly stepping into a bear trap - you have to really think about it, and you only get out of it by chewing your own leg off.

 

Maybe this will make this institution less of the joke it has become today, possibly because of no fault divorce.

 

Who would not sign this when you are going through your "till death do us part" nuptuals? Wouldn't this be a sign of true committment to a person, and lack of signing it be a warning sign and red flag? Wouldn't this put iron in the words of everlasting committment, and prevent you from ending up as a contestant on Dr. Phil?

 

Later

[silentfearsliluil]

Yeah I would sign a pre-nup. Of course I'm not married before but if that day came, I might even be the one to suggest a pre-nup.

 

It's a scary world out there.

[Curt]

I agree that marriage is a big step, and the world has certainly changed compared to what it was.

 

Nonetheless, I think that it's wrong to expect that your beloved would sign a pre-nup to make certain that whatever you have (as your own) at the start, would still be only yours at the end, shold that eventuality happen.

 

Marriage is a partnership. 50-50 goes. If you don't think your partner is good enough to risk your bucks/property/whatever, then dump her/his a$$, and move on.

 

Curt

[Mermaiden]

No I would never sign a pre nup NOR would I ever have a guy I was marrying sign one I made up (I have assets of 400k)

[Mz. Pixie]

I would sign one, but not THAT particular one.

[Craig]

I've signed one and I'd sign another one again if the circumstances were appropriate.

 

WTF gives any person the right to think that just (and I say JUST) because they marry someone that they have the right to half of the assets that their spouse had before the marriage.

 

Marriage is a very serious agreement, a contract, between two people that has an emotional content but also a practical and legal content. What some people don't realize is that IF they don't do a pre-nup then the state does it for them in such a way that getting divorced without a pre-nup can be very expensive indeed.

 

I would expect that in the event of the demise of a marriage that any wealth acquired during the marriage would be split 50/50 in a no fault situation and that any assets acquired prior to the marriage would remain the sole and separate property of the respective individuals.

 

If any future prospective wife thinks that she automatically gets half of my assets just by marrying me then I would be a fool to marry her.

 

Marriage is a commitment not a beach party. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad and sometimes it's something else, but it's not something to be taken lightly. My own experience taught me that not everyone takes the "c" word (commitment) as seriously as I do and in fact not everyone even knows the definition of commitment. Marriage isn't the goal or the destination, marriage is a constant state of being where each party contributes to the overall good that the couple enjoys. Sometimes, one spouse carries the full load but over time each spouse must get something out of being married or there is no point in getting married.

 

I happen to be one of those people that likes to work hard and play hard. When I work, I work and when I play, I play. The last thing I want is a wife that is the perfect woman until we are married who then slides into a fat, bitchy sloth that knows more about daytime TV than the producers of the shows themselves. If I am unlucky enough to find myself in a marriage with a woman that prior to marriage was the perfect woman and then became her true self after marriage then I deserve to get out of that marriage with a minimum of expense.

 

Of course the people with their heads in the sand will disagree with me and say it isn't romantic to do a pre-nup but divorce isn't romantic either and guess what? Most people get married thinking it is forever but they don't sign papers saying they can not ever get divorced. How romantic is that? How could anyone get married and if they truly love their partner not create a legal situation where it would be extremely hard or impossible to get a divorce? I mean if you really loved your prospective spouse wouldn't you show how much you love them by making it impossible to get divorced?

[Art_Critic]

Props to you Craig.. That's great.. I love your attitude.

In Georgia during a divorce only marital assets are considered for division and .So you walk out of the marriage with what you went in with .

An inherientance is also excluded from being divided.So the need for a Prenup isn't as necesary as in other states. Although there is the possibility of business growth to consider as well..

I would sign one myself and have asked someone to sign one.. many years ago and was told to Fu** off and die by that person.

[tanbark813]

I would sign one myself and have asked someone to sign one.. many years ago and was told to Fu** off and die by that person.

 

Ironically it seems like that would be one of the surest ways to know the pre-nup was a good idea.

[RecordProducer]

Recently, I saw an episode on Dr. Phil about prenups. I

The guy didn't want to do it, believing that a true committment meant sharing everything that both victims have when coming into the marriage.

 

So, how about this as a prenup, and would any woman sign it?

 

"Victims"! You're funny!

 

Yes, I would absolutely sign any prenup. Whatever he has earned before marrying me is only his and I have no right to take it from him. I didn't give up anything at the time when he was making that money, he didn't know me.

 

Regarding how money will be distributed in case of divorce or death, it's also a choice of the one who makes the money. It actually depends whether the people are young and whether they have children from previous marriages, whether they want more kids, etc.

 

For example if the guy thinks that whatever he makes will be his then the woman may choose to have her own career and not share HER money with him. If they decide to have children, they should sign a post-nuptial agreement on what happens in case of divorce or death, because there will be children involved.

 

But my attitude is that if one partner makes more, the money is his. We are separate individuals and any gifts and financial support we give should be voluntary. I can't imagine myself fighting to get something that somebody else earned. What I didn't earn doesn't belong to me. Moreover, by trying to protect women, the law doesn't do them any favor. Many men don't want to get married, because they don't want to be financially screwed. Or they stay married because divorce would cost them too much, but cheat on their wives. In other words, without prenuptial agreements the wealthier party wouldn't want to get married at all so the other party doesn't have much choice.

 

Women's big problem is that they rely on men and if the husband leaves them they have a problem finding a job after many years of being stay-at-home moms. IMHO, the only right a woman can claim is child support. Also if the kids are too small, she could request alimony. Because if a man gets rid of his wife and kids and lives good, while the wife has to take care of the children and can't find a job, then she might decide to give HIM the children so she can have time to work. How would he cope with that? He would have to pay somebody to take care of the kids while he works, right? Well he can as well pay the children's mother.

[Curt]

"Victims"! You're funny!

 

Moreover, by trying to protect women, the law doesn't do them any favor. Many men don't want to get married, because they don't want to be financially screwed. Or they stay married because divorce would cost them too much, but cheat on their wives. In other words, without prenuptial agreements the wealthier party wouldn't want to get married at all so the other party doesn't have much choice.

 

I can certainly see where you're coming from, RP, but I believe that one of the reasons marriage appears to be in a state of decline is because of ideas that center around the relative position of each "I" that enters into marriage, not the "We" that marriage was designed to create.

 

Today, IMHO, mutual respect and joining of lives to make a cohesive family unit has been relegated to second place, replaced by separate individuality within the framework of a "business-like" arrangement.

 

There is no "I" in the word team. In my opinion, marriage is more than just a financial investment in another person. I think we do marriage the ultimate disservice when we start breaking out the rubber stamps and label makers to post "his" and "hers" labels on things before the marriage even takes place. IMHO, it helps reinforce the idea that the whole thing can be a "temporary" state, and is not a union as it was meant to be. The idea comes down to be: I'll play house with you, until I get dissatisfied with what I am getting out of marriage, and then I will take MY blocks and go home.

 

I don't see that marriage was meant to be this.

[slimjim]

great replies. My main point was that by signing a prenup with significant penalties upon dissolution would be the perverbial 2X4 between the eyes to both parties that these words that they are about to say have meaning, and as such have consequences. This "ceremony" actually means something other than a bridezilla getting everything she wants and all the groom's buddies getting wasted on a free bar.

 

Such a prenup doesnt prevent a divorce, it merely causes sacrifice to the first one to break this bond. In the law, this is a social contract with legal implications; therefore breach of this social contract has consequences just as breach of a legal contract. Inheritance and other separate properties remain separate, as is the case in most states, unless that money is commingled into the community property.

 

as far as you craig, i know the feeling about the risk of marrying a fox and waking up with a cow. Weight or appearance is indeed an emotional need for some people, even though its an issue that attacks one's vanity and should be handled as gently as transporting nitroglicerin on an epileptic camel. in fact, a long time ago i mentioned on this site a condition of a prenup based on weight. the woman or man loses X number of dollars for every pound over a predetermined weight based on age. That way, you get a windfall if fatty files for divorce, and if things are really sucking and the SO begins to really work on losing weight, then hide those frigging assets!!!! You should have read the wrath that was thrown my way, about all this unconditional commitment stuff etc. etc. This version, which i call my puntive prenup, would surely test your initial commitment , for better or worse, richer or poorer, until fat do you part. Thats what marriage was originally intended to be, together through everything and anything, regardless of weight gain, health, etc. Now long term to most people is until after lunch, and everything should be solved in the time of a 30 minute ****com. You are correct in that no one takes this stuff very seriously anymore.

 

Something has really changed in the past 20 years---i bet most of your grandparents didnt divorce, but some of your parents did, and you now know a lot of friends who are on their next ex-wives. No wonder its tough to find someone you can really trust, with a 54% divorce rate. one bump in the road, they take half of the old security, and they jump ship like drowning rats.

 

ms pixie, why wouldnt you sign this punitive prenup if you met your soulmate? wouldnt this be a sure sign that yu are committed to this person for life, and are willing to put your money where your mouth is??

later

[RecordProducer]

1. Today, IMHO, mutual respect and joining of lives to make a cohesive family unit has been relegated to second place, replaced by separate individuality within the framework of a "business-like" arrangement.

 

When people stop marrying their partners because they see them as food tickets and when they stop divorcing them and screwing them financially, there will be no need to view marriage as a business arrangement. I can precisely tell you the date when that will happen: when both parties bring equal assets in the marriage and contibute equally in monetary terms. In other words, never. Moreover if marriage was a pure business deal, it would be easy. But there are things like sex, love, children, infidelity, etc. that interfere with the primary "deal" and affect both parties financially in case of divorce. Money is the favorite tool of punishment and is accepted as such even by the legal system. It also gives the "screwed" party nasty ideas of how to deal with the pain of rejection.

There is no "I" in the word team. In my opinion, marriage is more than just a financial investment in another person.

 

Did you order a wake up call, Mr. Idealist?

 

I don't see that marriage was meant to be this.

 

There was a case in Canada where a couple signed a prenup that stated that the woman would only get 3% of the house (as the mortgage was being paid) as years go by. So after ten years when they got divorced, although the house was earned in the marriage, she got very little of it. Now this could be good and bad. If the man was making a lot and they didn't have children and she decided to leave him because she fell in love with someone else, she got what she deserved.

 

However if she was contributing as same as the husband, i.e. if they were middle class, she had children with him, did all the home chores, was a stay-at-home mommy, and he decided to leave her after 10 years, because he fell in love with someone else, then the wife is obviously unfairly screwed.

 

IMHO, a prenup has both good and bad sides. It also has a lot of holes. E.g if one partner knows that he or she will continue to make a lot of money, the prenup may protect them, but if the other party fails to claim their rights and in the meanwhile they become very successful, they will be screwed. For example, the man makes a lot of money and the girl just graduated so they sign a contract that protects his future assets. Later his success declines while she becomes very successful. She is not protected.

[Curt]

Did you order a wake up call, Mr. Idealist?

 

LOL! Yep, 7:00 AM will be fine! Will you set the clock on your side of the bed or should I set the one on mine?

 

IMHO, a prenup has both good and bad sides. It also has a lot of holes.

 

I think you're 100% right on this. Dunno if we'll ever agree on this one RP, but I think I understand where you're coming from.

 

Great debating with ya anyhoo.

[RecordProducer]

LOL! Yep, 7:00 AM will be fine! Will you set the clock on your side of the bed or should I set the one on mine?

:lmao: This gave me a really good laugh!

Great debating with ya anyhoo.

Ditto!

[Outcast]

The cure for divorce is not preventing people from leaving marriages but rather teaching people how to behave when they're in marriages. And maybe even not allowing them to marry unless they pass premarital courses designed to teach them how to behave.

 

I saw the same show as you and the guy who wouldn't sign the prenup had many strikes against him. He appeared to be big trouble - had been in jail, I think even had a restraining order against him. It was no bias that caused Dr. Phil to caution the woman against marrying that guy. He was a bad deal.

[slimjim]

well, i dont know if you saw the same show. the one phil i saw was just about pre-nups, and he was brow beating this guy to accept it, and it looked like a fair deal to him, etc. i was flipping back and forth so that nausea wouldnt happen with to much exposure. But it seemed to me to be a vast change in attitude delivered when the man wanted to protect his assets, as compared to the woman. if this guy had other problems, then Phil wouldnt have tried to convince him to sign the pre-nup as being fair.

 

My punititve pre-nup does NOT attempt to prevent people from getting divorced. It merely adds consequences to their breach of the social contract, in which they promised to be there forever. Its putting their money where their mouth is, pre-marriage. this would have to give them serious pause, and make sure that they know that their vows and words are not just mere cake decorations, but have real meaning and consequences. one poster has siad that she would not sign one---but didnt explain the reason not. well, why not?? why wouldnt not signing be a red flag on her part, and her planning for failure??

 

Everyone wants the easy way out...perhaps if they thought seriously beforehand, and realized how important this step was, they would act accordingly. and these 6 months dating, and then marriage, and 6 months divorced deals wouldnt be so prevalent. If you know that if you are the first one to file for divorce, you immediately loose alimony and any community property, as well as monetary damage which can cut into your seaprate property, I think one would at least try to work something out, and surely would be less cavailer about entering into marriage in the first place. words really mean something to some people, and long term means just that. Most people these days think long term means after lunch, or any problem can be solved within the 30 minute time limit of a sh..tcom.

 

Divorce used to be for cause only--you had to prove that your spouse was bad, committed adultry, etc. then thye came up with no fault, and made it easy. Now the rate is 54% and climbing, so it looks like its not working very well. Another bad idea is building a city 12 feet below sea level, by a major river in a hurricane zone, and an even worse idea to rebuild it. just a matter of time before you get burned. later