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.
Nope, I've never walked out of a marriage with more than I had when I went into it but I don't work outside of our home now so I would ask for enough to get me through for about six months to get my own place and find a job. I think that is reasonable but nothing more than that.
I have wondered about this. If a man is required to be a part time husband after divorce and take care of his ex-wife financial needs, why don’t the courts also require women to be a part time wife as well? All this while she gets back on her feet. I mean, one might say “Well, she deserves to be taken care of because she took care of the house” but let’s not forget that she was taking care of a house that was there thanks to the husband’s work. Unless there is a place where houses, bills, basic luxuries, transportation, food, etc. are all free and the house was taken care of by the wife while the husband was out fishing. Nope, someone has to work to pay for all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafChick
I would sign one provided that I can add some conditions to it.
For older people, people with children, and for young people who actually have assets it makes sense. But most people don't have a pot to p*ss in when they marry. I'm not sure what they're going to protect. Now, if they're going to attempt to protect assets acquired while married, I don't think that's legal and it's a snake in the grass red flag for the future spouse.
Not necessarily. They are newlyweds. He has an IT degree from a prestigious school. He works sixty hour weeks. She has an art degree and stays home doing her thing. There are no kids. She strikes up a relationship with a stay-at-home dad . . . you see where this is going?
Now maybe if she is an accountant and works just as hard the story would be different.
If they have to sign a piece of paper to gain my trust, there are bigger issues there. I shouldn't have to rely on a legal document to prove that they are trustworthy. If I really felt I couldn't trust them without that document, I wouldn't get married.
That's true, and the tone of some of the pro-prenup people here is what's disturbing. It's not being approached as "I want to be responsible and protect my assets," it's more "that cow/jerk is not going to get half of my stuff." If you think your partner is a jagoff and you can't fathom sharing with them, then perhaps marriage shouldn't be on the table.
Yeah, and the fifty percent of people who have gone through divorces ending up wanting to pulverize each other said the same thing once. It takes a bit of hubris to think you are so different than that.
No, it takes knowing myself and the fact that my actions over the last 30-something years prove that. I have not lived a charmed life. I've been wronged before... I will just always choose the higher road.
Maybe you feel as though you would become some vindictive, seething person because of a divorce. I know I wouldn't. I've come before adversity before and I can walk away without turning into something I know I would despise.
That's true, and the tone of some of the pro-prenup people here is what's disturbing. It's not being approached as "I want to be responsible and protect my assets," it's more "that cow/jerk is not going to get half of my stuff." If you think your partner is a jagoff and you can't fathom sharing with them, then perhaps marriage shouldn't be on the table.
Well said.
Basically, people can only be married to one thing at a time. Either their spouse, or their wallett. In a marriage, everything is shared. Also, that doesn't mean a 50-50 split, like some suggest. Sharing is not drawing a line down the middle of everything and declaring one half yours.
If you were dating a nice RICH man and later on along the road you talked about marriage and he asked for you to sign a prenup...would you do it?
I think this would be better stated as:
Ladies, if YOU had maybe a million and a half in savings and met a wonderful man with only a hundred thou, would YOU ask for a prenup?
Would your answer change if you were both in your forties and he had already had a few failed marriages?
By the way, are people here aware that in England there are more people living together without marriage than not? The big trend there is that most do NOT marry, even with kids.
I have wondered about this. If a man is required to be a part time husband after divorce and take care of his ex-wife financial needs, why don’t the courts also require women to be a part time wife as well? All this while she gets back on her feet. I mean, one might say “Well, she deserves to be taken care of because she took care of the house” but let’s not forget that she was taking care of a house that was there thanks to the husband’s work. Unless there is a place where houses, bills, basic luxuries, transportation, food, etc. are all free and the house was taken care of by the wife while the husband was out fishing. Nope, someone has to work to pay for all that.
She doesn't deserve to be "taken care of" because she took care of the house
If they both agreed that one spouse would stay home and take care of the kids/house then that person has given up their salary for those years, plus any opportunity to advance.
I guess if the working person had issue with paying for this person until they got back on their feet (within a reasonable amount of time), maybe instead they could pay lost wages for all those years that their spouse stayed home to improve the quality of life for everyone? Would that be the better compromise?
Nope. I wouldn't sign a pre-nup for anyone. It's not about the money. It's about the implication that he doesn't know me well enough to marry me if he thinks I'd be a vindictive, greedy witch if the marriage were to fail.
Maybe not. Maybe he doesn't know your lawyer or your boyfriend and what they'd be telling you.
The problem with trying to answer this question is that marital property laws depend on the state you're in. In some states, ANYTHING one person acquires after marriage becomes marital property -- income you earn, inheritance, gifts you receive, stuff you buy. In some states, marital property excludes inheritance & gifts. Some states have no concept of joint marital property.
And each state can define what happens to joint marital property, however that's defined.
So a prenup should address, based on the laws of your state, what happens to (a) property you each had individually prior to the marriage and (b) property acquired by either of you during the marriage. The latter could say that you retain the right to separate property, there is no joint property, and should the marriage dissolve, you take what YOU individually acquired. It could say that you split joint property 50/50. It could say you split it 80/20. It could say that wife gets houses, husband gets cars & cash. It's entirely up to you to specify, within the boundaries of the laws of your state.
I am a huge proponent of a pre-nup. I've had one. It was the best thing we ever did, and we were happily married until he died.
In my experience, the people who criticized me for having one and "not trusting your husband" were the very same people who bi***ed mightily and regularly about their spouse's spending habits or having to ask for money from him/her. I laughed -- mostly to myself, but sometimes in their face.
Were you a 26-27 year old girl, fresh out of college (or not), with no assets and likely debt when you married? That is the situation for the vast majority and that's what these conversations really come down to. Married people, on average, build wealth together, not separately. Older people or people coming from wealth are a different matter. Although, if you were one of these young people how did you decide that your husband would get 70% of the house, you'd split the 401k, and you would get the car? Was it based on your current income, potential future income, level of education, college major? Did that change when he put you through advanced education or when you put him through advanced education?
I've read somewhere that prenup agreements get routinely tossed out of consideration if a person can prove that the agrement "wasn't fair" to begin with. is that true?
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.
