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.
However for most of us average joes, it's insane. I feel that asking for a prenup is just telling the woman that I expect there is a good chance we could very well get divorced in the future. That is not an option for me- when I got married it was to spend the rest of our lives together, period. That is what marriage is- call me old fashioned or naieve, but that's what it is. A prenup just makes it weird, makes it sound like a business arrangement- I feel that it would have been an insult to my wife to ask her for such a thing before we got married.
Exactly! Prenups make a lot of sense from practical point of view, however, to bring it on the table before marriage, when the relationship is likely very romantic, it's like telling the future spouse "I don't trust you!". That could actually ruin the whole relationship before the marriage starts.
Perhaps, it's more feasible for older couple, when both partners may had been married before, but it's very tough for younger first timers. Just underminig the very purpose of getting married.
If you are a male and had a large income would you ask for a Prenup?
If you a male and marrying a girl with money how would you feel if she asked for a Prenub?
If you a woman would you sign a prenub?
As a woman with money would you ask for a prenub?
I personally would never sign one. If the person asked me for a prenub I would walk. Why because it seems to be getting the marriage off on the wrong foot from the beginning.
If I had a lot of money would I ask for one? ( Oh now the shoe is on the other foot you say) If I felt like I had to and there were signs I would walk again and not down the isle.
If I really felt strong about the person then I would remain with the person minus a prenup. As in without marriage.
Then again you know men they always tug as our hearts. So I would say minus marriage.
Sometimes their is a huge difference between love and being a caring person also.
Its not so much of a concern if you are younger ...like under 50 years of age because you can still work and obtain enough (hopefully) for retirement . But, when retirement age is around the corner / have had at least one divorce / and considering the divorce rate for remarriage....it makes sound rationale to seriously consider a prenup that is fair and equitable . I never used to believe in them, but, considering how easy it is to get a divorce today as well as the baggage people bring with them from their lifes experiences that can weigh heavy on a marriage....if one is going to get married in their 50's or later... its pretty imperative I believe. Yes, its kind of a crummy way to start a marriage but its also naive to think the chances are good that your marriage will last -- the statistics state otherwise. If one doesnt opt for a prenup, then i think its fairly important they find a marriage partner whos on a simular socio-economic level as you are. What I REALLY think is , most marriages should have never happened anyway and the two people should have just remained good friends thru life ; and...if a person can do alright living by themselves with fulfillment , happiness, and purpose... then I think its advantageous to remain single if at all possible. Most of the marriages I know , are basically putting up with one another because the thought of being alone isnt very palatable. I wouldnt be surprised if its only some 10% of marriages that are truly working out well without regrets. Im not totally agaisnt marriage, but, both had better seriously apply objectivity to their mate selection / date for at least 2 years / and pay attention to the red flags before moving ahead to the alter.
Before national socialism, the rules of the common law regarding marriage were sufficient.
After national socialism (1935), a prenuptial contract is vital.
Under current regulations for voluntary socialists, those who lack prenuptial contracts are in for an unpleasant experience.
Before national socialism, the rules of the common law regarding marriage were sufficient.
After national socialism (1935), a prenuptial contract is vital.
Under current regulations for voluntary socialists, those who lack prenuptial contracts are in for an unpleasant experience.
Like ive stated before, not having a prenup when youre over 50 (especially) , is a huge risky proposition ; ive come across a few guys who are almost broke going into retirement because their ex-spouse made out like a Bandit. The most recent person ive encountered was a 67 year old gentleman whos wife left him for another thereby forcing him to sell all of his major possesions for a cash divorce settlement.
Marriage is a contract. I think that if more people viewed it as a contract there might be less animosity when it ends. Having said that, I think a prenup is nothing more than an extension of that contract.
I think a prenup is a wise idea. I don't think having a lot of money is necessary. I think it can be something as simple as the house and vehicles.
I am a female and if I were to marry again I might insist on a prenup.
Even if it merely states that I walk with what I came in with.
I agree completely! It seems people do not want to address it but I believe there is a "business" side to marriage. IMO most people don't enter into marriage thinking about getting a divorce, but with the rates being what they are and the sad truth that some couples outgrow each other I think there needs to be some level of protection/security for both partners. An example is my hubby has a portion of some property that is in his older unmarried brother's name and it is going to stay that way "so the spouse's of the siblings can't take it in a divorce if one were to occur" my husband wanted us as a married couple to build our home on that property, I refused. My response to that was if after we bulid a home which I help pay for and in 10 years you or I decide we are no longer a happily married couple then I have to walk away from all the time and money I put into what I helped to build, that does not work for me. He was very upset at first but after many discussions we came to an agreement that worked for both of us.
Quote : '---Quote (Originally by Pandamonium)---
Marriage is a contract. I think that if more people viewed it as a contract there might be less animosity when it ends. Having said that, I think a prenup is nothing more than an extension of that contract.'
REPLY: A contract can be easily broken and is conditional ; a real marriage is supposed to be an unconditional lifelong vow to one another and to God -- the reason for prenups in this day and age is because of the cultures influence , aberrant philosophies , and entitle-itis which runs rampant in America. Its a monetary safeguard in case a martial partner should become persuaded by the me me me culture and hence go for the juglar of the other spouse (usually women on the mans juglar) .
As a lawyer (who's reviewed and participated in drafting a fair number of prenups) I have several thoughts:
FIRST, it's stupid to say that every couple needs a prenup as a matter of course. Understand, that's the lawyer in me talking. Every situation is different. A prenup can be a nifty device to accomplish very specific things, and under certain circumstances, it is advisable. In most cases, however, it's 75% exercise in ego-boosting and 25% attempt to **** over your future spouse. In some cases, it's more overt and blatant than in others, but that's the theme.
SECOND, by law, prenups have nothing whatsoever to do with children. It's a cardinal principle of contract law that a contract cannot be used to bind a non-party. Guess what? They may lack "capacity", but children have independent legal identities. They aren't parties to the prenup, so the prenup can't be used to bind them. You can draft whatever you want, frame it, dip it in bronze, whatever -- you'll still have to pay child support.
THIRD, people who enthusiastically push prenups generally have very unrealistic expectations of them. The first thing I ask a client who is contemplating a prenup is this: "What do you expect a prenup to do for you?" Get the following facts straight: A prenup will not prevent a divorce. A prenup will not prevent litigation. A prenup will not prevent your spouse from acting bitter and deranged, and as a result being very litigious in the event you break up. A prenup will not save your children from being dragged through the divorce. A prenup cannot be used to contractually obligate your spouse to behave a certain way, to be nice, to sleep with you, or otherwise to act better than you think she would act if not kept on a short leash.
FOURTH, if you approach your future marriage in a blatantly mercantile fashion, don't complain if your fiance does the same. Play this scenario in your head: You tell your fiance you want a prenup and hand her the draft. Her response is: "All right. I'll have my lawyer look this over and get back to your lawyer with proposed changes. Also, before I even consider going over this in any sort of detail, I want copies of your tax returns for the past 10 years and a schedule of assets and liabilities in the form of an affidavit." Oh, what's the matter? Did you expect her to sign it right then and there? Because she should just trust you on this?
FIFTH, it is unethical to put off the discussion of a prenup until after the couple is engaged, and the engagement is announced to the family and friends. The pressure that this puts the other person under is really unfair. (Springing up a prenup hours before the wedding used to be common, before courts began invalidating such prenups with a relish.) If you intend to ask your future spouse for a prenup, you should articulate it the very first time the subject of marriage is discussed -- before the engagement. Long before.
SIXTH, it insults my intelligence when people define a prenup as an insurance policy that protects both parties. It isn't. At best, it's a compromise. By its very nature, however, doing a prenup is an adversarial process. If you hire me to do a prenup, I certainly will not draft something that "protects both parties" -- I will draft something that's designed to scroo your virgin bride to the fullest extent allowable by law. Because that's my job. If you then gave her my draft and told her it's meant to protect both of you, you'd be lying. Under the best of circumstances, she will go out and get her own lawyer, who will redraft the prenup in a way designed to reorient the scrooing. After considerable back-and-forth *****ing, we might come up with something that you both could live with. Or you'll break up. Either way, don't pretend it's something you do together, for the both of you. After all, you wouldn't be marrying someone that stupid, would you?
SEVENTH, I don't understand the aversion to marriage being based on love. Seriously. Marriage is a "business transaction"? Whatever. People often pontificate about that, but no one wants a true mercantile arrangement devoid of any affection, a terse exchange of sex for goods, or breeding for room and board. Why are people so ashamed of wanting to be loved? One thing about business transactions is that they are conducted at arm's length. Marriage doesn't fit the bill. Well, it sort of worked that way with aristocratic marriages centuries ago, but look at the nature of those marriages. Prenups then were worked out by lawyers long before the couple even met. Only when all the major points were agreed upon would marriage seriously be considered. After the marriage, the husband and the wife basically led separate lives. They each had their own household with servants, bedrooms and a social calendar. They addressed each other as "Sir" and "Madam", or "Husband" and "My Lady" -- never ever would they call each other by their first names. Their interactions were most stiffly formal. If they wanted to have sex, they would fix an appointment through their respective household servants. And naturally, more often than not, their real relationships were elsewhere. Marriage is not a business transaction. Marriage is marriage. It is its own creature. I understand that's not very comforting to a lot of people, but nothing will give you security against the messiness of life, least of all a prenup.
As a lawyer (who's reviewed and participated in drafting a fair number of prenups) I have several thoughts:
FIRST, it's stupid to say that every couple needs a prenup as a matter of course. Understand, that's the lawyer in me talking. Every situation is different. A prenup can be a nifty device to accomplish very specific things, and under certain circumstances, it is advisable. In most cases, however, it's 75% exercise in ego-boosting and 25% attempt to **** over your future spouse. In some cases, it's more overt and blatant than in others, but that's the theme.
SECOND, by law, prenups have nothing whatsoever to do with children. It's a cardinal principle of contract law that a contract cannot be used to bind a non-party. Guess what? They may lack "capacity", but children have independent legal identities. They aren't parties to the prenup, so the prenup can't be used to bind them. You can draft whatever you want, frame it, dip it in bronze, whatever -- you'll still have to pay child support.
THIRD, people who enthusiastically push prenups generally have very unrealistic expectations of them. The first thing I ask a client who is contemplating a prenup is this: "What do you expect a prenup to do for you?" Get the following facts straight: A prenup will not prevent a divorce. A prenup will not prevent litigation. A prenup will not prevent your spouse from acting bitter and deranged, and as a result being very litigious in the event you break up. A prenup will not save your children from being dragged through the divorce. A prenup cannot be used to contractually obligate your spouse to behave a certain way, to be nice, to sleep with you, or otherwise to act better than you think she would act if not kept on a short leash.
FOURTH, if you approach your future marriage in a blatantly mercantile fashion, don't complain if your fiance does the same. Play this scenario in your head: You tell your fiance you want a prenup and hand her the draft. Her response is: "All right. I'll have my lawyer look this over and get back to your lawyer with proposed changes. Also, before I even consider going over this in any sort of detail, I want copies of your tax returns for the past 10 years and a schedule of assets and liabilities in the form of an affidavit." Oh, what's the matter? Did you expect her to sign it right then and there? Because she should just trust you on this?
FIFTH, it is unethical to put off the discussion of a prenup until after the couple is engaged, and the engagement is announced to the family and friends. The pressure that this puts the other person under is really unfair. (Springing up a prenup hours before the wedding used to be common, before courts began invalidating such prenups with a relish.) If you intend to ask your future spouse for a prenup, you should articulate it the very first time the subject of marriage is discussed -- before the engagement. Long before.
SIXTH, it insults my intelligence when people define a prenup as an insurance policy that protects both parties. It isn't. At best, it's a compromise. By its very nature, however, doing a prenup is an adversarial process. If you hire me to do a prenup, I certainly will not draft something that "protects both parties" -- I will draft something that's designed to scroo your virgin bride to the fullest extent allowable by law. Because that's my job. If you then gave her my draft and told her it's meant to protect both of you, you'd be lying. Under the best of circumstances, she will go out and get her own lawyer, who will redraft the prenup in a way designed to reorient the scrooing. After considerable back-and-forth *****ing, we might come up with something that you both could live with. Or you'll break up. Either way, don't pretend it's something you do together, for the both of you. After all, you wouldn't be marrying someone that stupid, would you?
SEVENTH, I don't understand the aversion to marriage being based on love. Seriously. Marriage is a "business transaction"? Whatever. People often pontificate about that, but no one wants a true mercantile arrangement devoid of any affection, a terse exchange of sex for goods, or breeding for room and board. Why are people so ashamed of wanting to be loved? One thing about business transactions is that they are conducted at arm's length. Marriage doesn't fit the bill. Well, it sort of worked that way with aristocratic marriages centuries ago, but look at the nature of those marriages. Prenups then were worked out by lawyers long before the couple even met. Only when all the major points were agreed upon would marriage seriously be considered. After the marriage, the husband and the wife basically led separate lives. They each had their own household with servants, bedrooms and a social calendar. They addressed each other as "Sir" and "Madam", or "Husband" and "My Lady" -- never ever would they call each other by their first names. Their interactions were most stiffly formal. If they wanted to have sex, they would fix an appointment through their respective household servants. And naturally, more often than not, their real relationships were elsewhere. Marriage is not a business transaction. Marriage is marriage. It is its own creature. I understand that's not very comforting to a lot of people, but nothing will give you security against the messiness of life, least of all a prenup.
Excellent treatise on the subject. Thanks. Certainly good insight . Given the high divorce rate in the USA, how marital love and commitment can turn south over time, retirement being not far off for me, and how its almost always the Man who comes into the marriage with considerably more assets....I would either insist on a Prenup or remain Divorced. The trouble is : People change over time as do circumstances and a marriage can go from bliss for years 0 thru 3 and hell on earth thereafter. I think if a person has it within them to stay single/divorced and be reasonably fulfilled and happy...that they should stay that way --- marriage is NOT the goal in life per se...and is wrought with all kinds of highly potential problems. I admit my opinion is tainted from going thru a very bad divorce sometime back.
Last edited by 007.5; 02-17-2010 at 07:44 AM..
Reason: add
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.
