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.
Just asking as I was dating a girl pretty seriously for over one year, she made around what I made per year. But her Parents and Grandparents were rich.
Her Dad said he liked me a lot out of blue and if it works out no need for a pre-nup with him.
I kinda nod and ask her later what does that mean/
The Mom and Dad had a ton of money, they also owned over 300 rental properties as well as the six acre mansion they lived in. The pre-nup was an agreement that any money received as a result of an inheritance from them if I divorce their daughter or their daughter dies first is it all either reverts to a trust in my kids names or goes back to the master trust to be redistributed to the other blood heirs.
You know what the daughter had a regular job. She was never going to make a ton of money.The money would come in a huge chunk all at once. It made sense. Imagine I married their daughter, two weeks later parents killed in car crash, a huge sum of inheritance comes our way, I divorce daughter and take half.
This is a very long thread and I didn't get to read it all. I find it interesting that most people aren't talking about what they think about prenups, they are talking about how the feel about them.
A prenup is a tool, a legal and financial tool that some people need, but not everyone needs.
Because the ridiculously wealthy use prenups mainly for "in case of divorce" emergencies, most people think about them as being "how to split things if there is a divorce" and that can be true, but (in my opinion) that's one of their weakest uses (premarital assets you get to keep on divorce, it's only jointly acquired assets that you split). The reason so many are overturned in divorce is because they are so outrageously unbalanced (and sometimes call for things that happen to be illegal in the state). For example, if an agreement contains terms so unfair that one party would be left with nothing following a divorce, that contract probably wouldn’t hold up in court.
Where prenups really help your average Joe (or Jane) is when you are older, have children or a business you started prior to the marriage. Your prenup can serve as part of your estate planning in these cases.
For example, say you own family property from before the marriage, you have kids from a prior marriage, maybe your previous spouse died and wanted the property to remain in his or her family, so when you die you want that property to go to your kids if you die instead of your spouse. Of course you could always trust your spouse to split things the way you want, but what if you die and so does your spouse at the same time? Now maybe your old family property will be sold and split evenly among your kids and your second spouses kids... a prenup helps in those situations. Yes, you can put it in your will, but a will can be challenged in court... you are more likely to have what you want in case of your death if you have a will and a prenup.
All this said, I am dating someone with a business and two adult children. We both have our own assets as well. If it ever comes to marriage, I wouldn't be the least bit put off with a prenup. I would expect it. But if I were just some young person starting off without much to my name, I wouldn't bother.
If getting married, it needs to be carefully communicated. I like the idea of separate bank accounts but then 1 joint account you have when married.
When dating, not sure I understand. I would never move in with someone until I was married (again I'm very traditional). If I did move in with someone, I would pay half my rent. The only exception is say if he insisted I live in a place I could never afford and we work some financial thing out.
I do prefer a man regularly paying for dates provided it's things like movies, meals, or drinks. I know on here that makes me out to be a "gold digger". I do like being treated like a princess (I hate saying that, but I do. It makes me feel special).
If a man who is dating you pays 100% for everything it is irrelevant if he marries you. I married my wife two years after we met. During that two years I paid for 99% of dates. Then when we bought a house we pooled all our money together to buy it. Guess what she had more than me as she saved more the prior two years as I paid for all the dates. I looked like the big man for two years and did not cost me anything.
However, if I dumped her and we did split dates or she paid for most she would have blown a lot of money and now be stuck with less to live on or less to spend on her wedding or house with the guy who actually will marry her.
I think a girl is a fool to spend tons on dates. The guy they marry no help to him. it just subsidizes the losers who ditch you.
And also it causes losers to stick around more. To be honest. I dates a few girls for maybe a little longer than I should after I knew it was going nowhere. Why they would split things, be happy to come over for a booty call. I felt bad as if they made me pay I would have cut if off sooner, and they would have wasted less time in their prime single years.
It made sense. Imagine I married their daughter, two weeks later parents killed in car crash, a huge sum of inheritance comes our way, I divorce daughter and take half.
What jurisdiction was this in?
I'm not familiar with any jurisdiction where an inheritance or specific gift to one spouse automatically becomes community property.
I'm not familiar with any jurisdiction where an inheritance or specific gift to one spouse automatically becomes community property.
Don't know why an inheritance would be any different unless it's in a trust or something...
So my answer to you would be "it becomes community property just like his paycheck is community property the second it's deposited in the bank or cashed"
Don't know why an inheritance would be any different unless it's in a trust or something...
So my answer to you would be "it becomes community property just like his paycheck is community property the second it's deposited in the bank or cashed"
An inheritance to one spouse is considered "different" in a lot of places because it is not by its inherent nature community property.
In the jurisdictions that I am familiar with, if one spouse gets an inheritance and keeps it separate from the community property (that is for example, in the case of a piece of real property, not using communal funds for upkeep or taxes and such), in the case of a dissolution, there is a presumption that it remains the sole property of the one spouse.
These things are generally dealt with very differently than wages earned during the time of the marriage.
Don't know why an inheritance would be any different unless it's in a trust or something...
So my answer to you would be "it becomes community property just like his paycheck is community property the second it's deposited in the bank or cashed"
All those links lead directly to the documents in question, which are official bills as proposed and available to the public. They are .pdf documents authored by National Organization for Women. As I said, feminists regularly oppose shared parenting and have done so for decades.
"As court-ordered arrangements*imposed*upon…embattled*and*embitter ed*parents*…*[joint*custody]*can*only enhance*family*chaos.* Each year, the National Organization for Women-New York State fights back against proposed legislation that will hurt mothers and their children."
You can spin it any way you want, reality is only one and I know my stuff when it comes to these topics.
I wouldn't have a problem signing a prenup that protected a spouses pre-marital assets. And not only if he was rich but if he earned or inherited modest assets prior to our relationship. It is natural to want to preserve that which we earned on our own. I think most people regardless of gender feel the same.
It is said that the chances of a marriage ending up in divorce is close to 50% so it can make sense for rich men, or women who have assets, to want a prenup but it just sounds a bit cold in my opinion. If I really really really needed to protect my riches (If I had them) I would rather just do this on my own and not hurt my wife's feelings but unfortunately both man and woman need to sign this document. Not sure why the other person has to sign it too. Maybe I am a bit sensitive or whatever but this just doesn't sound loving, trusting, and/or romantic.
It is said that the chances of a marriage ending up in divorce is close to 50% so it can make sense for rich men, or women who have assets, to want a prenup but it just sounds a bit cold in my opinion. If I really really really needed to protect my riches (If I had them) I would rather just do this on my own and not hurt my wife's feelings but unfortunately both man and woman need to sign this document. Not sure why the other person has to sign it too. Maybe I am a bit sensitive or whatever but this just doesn't sound loving, trusting, and/or romantic.
It's a contract so both parties need to sign it. They both need their own lawyers too--they can't have the same one.
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.
