Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But wouldn't your wife and life partner be someone that you can share those things with? Who else would you share them with?
Shared car, shared house, from our salaries after we get married, yes.. Inheritance/trust/whatever it is is strictly off-limits unless I decide to do so.
Share, as in enjoy with? Yes. But the general point of inheriting and inheritance is for children involved, and like I said, I would NEVER throw my wife under the bus like that.. even in a divorce (especially if children are involved... I understand that sometimes men do this and it saddens me.) I just wouldn't want to get divorced and then have half my assets walk off with the other guy and his kids and my ex-wife... I know people who've had that happen and it really ruins any amicable relationships that existed.
So, we are talking about marriage, and I have been told by my family to get a prenup. This is her second marriage, my first. She has little to no assets. I have a home and other assets I am told to protect. This, I have no idea how to bring up nor how she'll respond... Ideas? Suggestions??
If you have no idea how to approach her with this subject matter, then I would suggest you not getting married. When in a relationship you should be able to talk to your "best friend" about anything.
I am pro prenups. There is a fine line between love/hate and one just never knows.........
Yep, I'm from WA and it just happened to my mom. He first won marital rights but my mom passed away before a settlement and he then claimed the same against the estate. And won. In this case it turns out all he ever had wanted was the gifts he had given her and a some keep sakes. Along with as he put it the principle. As we were going to give him those things anyways it turned into a non issue. The attorneys tell us this is becoming common across the land. Not just in liberal states. The attorney told me that there were as he last read 16 states that recognize common law marriage and some of those only the ones that were grandfathered before a set date. In any state however a person can sue for a division of assets similar or equal to as married and the rules used for a division should they win will be the same as the division of property in the dissolution of marriage. As I said in the other thread, see an attorney, this is how you find out where you stand, not by advise on a forum. I think people would be very surprised to see how things can go down. Thinking you are protected by simply not getting a marriage license in a non common law state is very flawed.
I'd never ask someone to sign one either. When I get married, what's mine is his and what's his is mine and that's how I believe it should work.
Maybe because I got married early in life I think this way, but I also wouldn't do seperate bank accounts and split bills and that sort of thing. All money goes in OUR account and bills get paid from there.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I would never sign one either and would be really offended if my husband ( at the time when we were dating ) asked me to. I look at it this way ( speaking in general ) - if you think that person might divorce you and you're looking to protect yourself, why get married in the first place? Just date.
We also don't have separate accounts or anything. We share everything including our bank accounts - there is only one, and in both of our names.
Can't stand Kanye West, but this lyric is dead-on:
"When she leave yo a**, she gonna leave with half."
From a financial perspective, you're bringing 100% of the assets into this marriage. She's bringing 0%. That means if you end up in divorce court like 50% of Americans who get married, you can kiss half of what you've worked hard for goodbye.
If your assets aren't that important to you, go ahead and chance it. But if they are, take another lesson from Kanye:
Couldn't have said it better myself. I would never sign one either and would be really offended if my husband ( at the time when we were dating ) asked me to. I look at it this way ( speaking in general ) - if you think that person might divorce you and you're looking to protect yourself, why get married in the first place? Just date.
We also don't have separate accounts or anything. We share everything including our bank accounts - there is only one, and in both of our names.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do.
You don't wear a seatbelt thinking "hhhhmmm I wonder what tree I am going to hit today with my car" of course not. You wear it just in case, for safety, etc. Same thing when it comes to having an insurance. Years may pass an you never ever use it, yet, you have it just in case.
It is advisable for men who have a lot of money, properties, investments, etc. to have a prenup before getting married. It is nothing new to hear about them losing half to their exwife regardless of her not contributing a cent to a man's fortune.
Nope. The law leaves about a million loopholes for attorneys to reach through. One of the most common things to attack is interest and capitol gains on assets previously held but attained during the marriage. This can include retirement accounts that were never funded during the marriage itself which happened to me. In my case I was required to split that ENTIRE account. I had it before I was married and never put another cent in at as I moved on to different investments after the marriage. 50/50 split. I think he should be focusing on getting an attorney who unlike us will actually know what he is talking about and he can get an understanding of what he might face based on facts.
One thing I don't think a lot of people realize here is that pre-nups are among the weakest contracts in law. They can be attacked in the state of marriage, any state resided in during the marriage or the state of filing. Many of the things in prenups are put in there knowing full well they will be tossed in court but they do provide agreed intent which can bear on the division of assets. Its important to know what they can do for you and what they cant and that will be based on factors which in some cases cannot be known at the time of their signing. There is a reason why you see movie stars and such getting taken down despite a pre-nup.
Mixed feelings on this one. One thought would be to look at how and why the first marriage ended. Did she try to screw him out of everything? Or was it more even? Her financial history would be another factor. She doesn't bring in many assets. Is she responsible? Does she hold down a steady job? Have a spending problem or just had to pay for school loans, etc and couldn't save much.
I think pre-nups become more important as you get older, particularly if they're between two older people getting remarried who have kids of their own, etc. Those situations can get complicated and you've had a lot of time to build up assets. It's a different scenario when you're 55 and could potentially lose what you spent 30 years working for (when you may not have the times/mean to earn it back), versus 25 and are just starting out.
To some degree, life is a risk. This girl marrying the OP has to weigh whether he'll use her for sex for 5 years, then trade her in for a younger model the day she turns 30. Some guys with a lot of money do just that. While part of me understands why prenups are right for some couples, the other part feels that if you don't know this person and trust this person enough to build a life with them and share what each of you bring into the marriage (whether that's a house, or a warm wonderful personality, or being a great mother to future children, or the happiness that comes from finding a perfect partner), then maybe you shouldn't be marrying at all.
Because they do protect you somewhat. Not too long ago they were hardly worth the paper they were printed on but as time goes by and cases go to court the weaknesses are getting winnowed out and more and more portions of them are holding up. If you look at most things you would have a contract for they are fully fleshed out in terms of challenges in court. You know what works and what doesn't and write them accordingly. A prenup is a relatively newer contract that is still being tested in many ways in court. It doesn't help that most contracts will be made and completed in one place. If there is an issue it will be handled in that place. Laws on the dissolution of marriage vary hugely and people move meaning that the contract may have to stand the scrutiny of a court in any state and with the wide variance in law that means a real possibility that something that works in the state the prenup was done will actually be challenged in another where it doesn't. Divorce needs reform badly. There should be more uniform laws about how they are handled that apply nation wide and those laws should be based on modern realities not a 1952 world view.
I would encourage it because why should anyone take half of what a person has worked for and/or possessed prior to the marriage?
IMO; the assets that should be divided are the ones acquired by both parties DURING the relationship/marriage. Anything before then; NO.
But WTF do I know...........
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
