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.
Yes your assumptions were wrong and it's pretty standard and common sense that anything pre-marriage isn't up for negotiations and that's pretty much the law everywhere. Also it's pretty standard that everything earned within the marriage is split 50/50 which makes it really no need for a prenup.
However there are some people that marry but know they are going to earn a lot during the marriage or they already have a job with a high salary and they don't want to have to split their earnings 50/50 in a divorce. That is the issue I have. Why would not want to give someone their fair share in the marriage? No one put a gun to your head and told you to choose them, so just because things didn't work out doesn't mean they still are not owed their fair share within the marriage.
As for kids, at Timberline stated those assets are generally protected in a trust so a prenup isn't needed for that. That's what trust are for to protect family, I have a trust so regardless of a divorce no one would be entitled to it.
A prenup is specifically for the couple which as I stated if a man didn't want to split things 50/50 in a divorce, he's not someone I would marry. Anyone who wants to keep their earnings to themselves don't need to get married like Oprah. However if you choose to marry then you need to be okay with splitting things 50/50 if they go south. All that you leave the marriage with what you came in with is selfish and is not a true reflection of give and take in a marriage. Both parties are giving in different ways but it doesn't make it any more or less valuable than the other.
It's also exactly why the feminist movement started because men didn't appreciate the "work" wives did in the home and there was no protection for them which is why alimony was passed. Just because a woman doesn't work outside the home doesn't mean she doesn't contribute to the household therefor asking her to sign a prenup is a slap in the face. If you don't want to financially provide for someone then don't get married and now men are complaining about "career" women well maybe there wouldn't be the need for career women if things like prenups weren't thrown in their faces. Why sign a prenup when I can just not marry you and make my own money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney123
Why would you feel entitled to half of what he had before he married you? Sorry, but you are wrong. What sense would it make for a man to try and deny her 1/2 of his earnings in a 50/50 state.? Pre ( before)
nup ( marriage). A prenup in order to try and keep her from getting half of what he earned during the marriage would a fools errand and very unlikely to prevail in court. which I am sure his attorney would point out from the start. Prenups are for people who have assets pre ( there's that word again) marriage that they wish to protect.
You might want to bone up on pre marriage assets. Not all are protected in the event of a divorce.
Did you even read what you quoted? I highlighted and bolded what you misread. Also yes pre-assets generally are protected and there are ways that they you can protect then without the use of a prenup again such as a trust.
Yes there are men who ask the woman for a prenup because he does not want to split his EARNINGS 50/50 in a divorce. Lawyers, Doctors, etc. make a great salary and will earn a lot during the marriage and don't feel the wife is entitled to half of it. So a prenup is to cap what she can receive in the marriage which is my opinion isn't fair. However he feels he's the one making the money so it's his decision how much he feels she's entitled too. Again not something I would agree too.
Anyone with good character wouldn't try to swindle someone out of everything they own. So if that happens then blame yourself for choosing someone with grubby hands and having a poor judge of character.
Did you even read what you quoted? I highlighted and bolded what you misread. Also yes pre-assets generally are protected and there are ways that they you can protect then without the use of a prenup again such as a trust.
Yes there are men who ask the woman for a prenup because he does not want to split his EARNINGS 50/50 in a divorce. Lawyers, Doctors, etc. make a great salary and will earn a lot during the marriage and don't feel the wife is entitled to half of it. So a prenup is to cap what she can receive in the marriage which is my opinion isn't fair. However he feels he's the one making the money so it's his decision how much he feels she's entitled too. Again not something I would agree too.
Anyone with good character wouldn't try to swindle someone out of everything they own. So if that happens then blame yourself for choosing someone with grubby hands and having a poor judge of character.
Yes I pretty much ignored the nonsense part. You and Timberline keep bringing up " what if" scenarios like... The guy who wants to deny the wife 1/2 of of their assets because he makes the lions share. Sure he could try it and she could even sign it because in a 50/50 state.. He doesn't have a leg to stand on, and it would be tossed out in a court of law.
It doesn't matter what he "feels" that she's entitled to... The "law" says she's entitled to half.
Nor would a prenup based on " projected" or "future" earnings hold up if contested.
Having my pre-marital assets " generally" protected doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. Personally I'd like to make sure I was protected to the extent possible.
I am pretty sure that when someone chooses to marry... They're pretty confident that the other person is of outstanding character and would never, lie, cheat, or steal, and that they'd be safe because they're such a good judge of character! Seriously? Ever hear the expression... s**t happens?
Last edited by Sydney123; 04-26-2016 at 05:11 PM..
Did you even read what you quoted? I highlighted and bolded what you misread. Also yes pre-assets generally are protected and there are ways that they you can protect then without the use of a prenup again such as a trust.
Yes there are men who ask the woman for a prenup because he does not want to split his EARNINGS 50/50 in a divorce. Lawyers, Doctors, etc. make a great salary and will earn a lot during the marriage and don't feel the wife is entitled to half of it. So a prenup is to cap what she can receive in the marriage which is my opinion isn't fair. However he feels he's the one making the money so it's his decision how much he feels she's entitled too. Again not something I would agree too.
Anyone with good character wouldn't try to swindle someone out of everything they own. So if that happens then blame yourself for choosing someone with grubby hands and having a poor judge of character.
I find it strange that you have protected your assets through a trust fund, but take issue with someone else protecting their assets through a prenup. Where is your trust when it comes to your funds? After all, if you are choosing the right person then you should be certain that they will do the right thing regardless of whether the money was earned before/after the marriage.
For Drs etc to sign a prenup, it would be prudent for their SO to get it checked out by an independent lawyer so that their interests are protected. Everyone should not sign a prenup prior to independent legal advice. This is why some prenups are thrown out because they are just ridiculous.
I find it strange that you have protected your assets through a trust fund, but take issue with someone else protecting their assets through a prenup. Where is your trust when it comes to your funds? After all, if you are choosing the right person then you should be certain that they will do the right thing regardless of whether the money was earned before/after the marriage.
For Drs etc to sign a prenup, it would be prudent for their SO to get it checked out by an independent lawyer so that their interests are protected. Everyone should not sign a prenup prior to independent legal advice. This is why some prenups are thrown out because they are just ridiculous.
I did not protect my assets my parents did because it's their money that they gave to me and anyone that actually comes from wealth protects their money through a trust and not a prenup. Its common sense that wealth acquired before marriage or an inheritance is not included in EARNINGS. Apples & oranges people.
I did not protect my assets my parents did because it's their money that they gave to me and anyone that actually comes from wealth protects their money through a trust and not a prenup. Its common sense that wealth acquired before marriage or an inheritance is not included in EARNINGS. Apples & oranges people.
Not really apples and oranges. For some of us who don't come from wealth, but have managed to acquire assets through our own efforts, it makes sense to protect those assets by whatever means are available, prenup or otherwise. Essentially what you are saying is it's ok to protect your money, just don't call it a prenup! Call it a trust fund. That's ludicrous. It's also quite difficult to start working out what was earned prior to the marriage etc, whilst you are going through a divorce, so prenup (or other form of protecting your wealth) serves just that purpose.
I did not protect my assets my parents did because it's their money that they gave to me and anyone that actually comes from wealth protects their money through a trust and not a prenup. Its common sense that wealth acquired before marriage or an inheritance is not included in EARNINGS. Apples & oranges people.
Most of the anti's seem to lead with their emotions.. What's he/ she going to think about me if I ask for a prenup? How am I going to look. He's going to think I don't trust her/ him.
You speak of what wealthy people do... Wealthy people ( I come from money too) will say that there's no room for emotion when money is concerned. Might seem harsh, but that's how many of them think. It's not personal.. It's just the way it is. Ask your parents and I am betting that they will say the same thing.
Ask them why they chose to protect your pre-martial assets if they are convinced that they would be protected in the event of something going wrong. I am guessing that they're answer would be to cover as many bases as possible as well as unforeseen contingencies. Kind of like a blanket insurance policy. I don't think it's so much common sense that ALL pre-marital assets are protected, more of a common "misconception" because in reality they may not. Be that as it may.. A prudent person would would try and protect themselves to the highest level possible and a prenup could take the guesswork out of the equation.. ( like a trust fund).
I don't know how your trust fund is set up, but with mine.. You'd have an easier time breaking into Fort Knox than getting to my assets. Trust fund or prenup... Just a rose of a different color.
Last edited by Sydney123; 04-26-2016 at 07:38 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney123
Most of the anti's seem to lead with their emotions.. What's he/ she going to think about me if I ask for a prenup? How am I going to look. He's going to think I don't trust her/ him.
You speak of what wealthy people do... Wealthy people ( I come from money too) will say that there's no room for emotion when money is concerned. Might seem harsh, but that's how many of them think. It's not personal.. It's just the way it is. Ask your parents and I am betting that they will say the same thing.
Nope, they don't and didn't. I'm not rich, far from it, but my family did pretty ok, fairly affluent suburb of Boston (Mitt Romney's town, so its on the nicer side of the spectrum), and they absolutely do not encourage marriage to be looked at like an emotionless business transaction. The purchase of a car? The purchase of a house? Yes, kick emotions out, but who you are committing to for the rest of your life and proclaiming your love to in front of the world... nope, not an emotionless transaction at all. I wouldn't want to emulate anyone that thinks with their wallets before their hearts.
Each to their own, of course, but it boggles my mind that anyone would risk not getting married to someone they're madly in love with and want to spend their life with and have the entire world to know it, over some possibility that they law and rules won't be enforced and perhaps some of their pre marriage assets might be split in the unlikely scenario of a contested divorce. Doesn't sound like those people really are all that madly in love in my book.
Last edited by timberline742; 04-26-2016 at 08:00 PM..
Nope, they don't and didn't. I'm not rich, far from it, but my family did pretty ok, fairly affluent suburb of Boston (Mitt Romney's town, so its on the nicer side of the spectrum), and they absolutely do not encourage marriage to be looked at like an emotionless business transaction. The purchase of a car? The purchase of a house? Yes, kick emotions out, but who you are committing to for the rest of your life and proclaiming your love to in front of the world... nope, not an emotionless transaction at all. I wouldn't want to emulate anyone that thinks with their wallets before their hearts.
Each to their own, of course, but it boggles my mind that anyone would risk not getting married to someone they're madly in love with and want to spend their life with and have the entire world to know it, over some possibility that they law and rules won't be enforced and perhaps some of their pre marriage assets might be split in the unlikely scenario of a contested divorce. Doesn't sound like those people really are all that madly in love in my book.
Rock on Garth! No worries.. You know what they say. It takes all kinds to make the world go round.
Nope, they don't and didn't. I'm not rich, far from it, but my family did pretty ok, fairly affluent suburb of Boston (Mitt Romney's town, so its on the nicer side of the spectrum), and they absolutely do not encourage marriage to be looked at like an emotionless business transaction. The purchase of a car? The purchase of a house? Yes, kick emotions out, but who you are committing to for the rest of your life and proclaiming your love to in front of the world... nope, not an emotionless transaction at all. I wouldn't want to emulate anyone that thinks with their wallets before their hearts.
Each to their own, of course, but it boggles my mind that anyone would risk not getting married to someone they're madly in love with and want to spend their life with and have the entire world to know it, over some possibility that they law and rules won't be enforced and perhaps some of their pre marriage assets might be split in the unlikely scenario of a contested divorce. Doesn't sound like those people really are all that madly in love in my book.
One can be madly in love and still be rational. whomever I choose to marry should have no issue with me making provisions for my dependents whether it's through my insurance, trust fund, will, prenup or any other legal document. One could actually have an open discussion and have everything out on the table, & explain why certain decisions are being made. That to me would be an act of complete trust on both parties. So instead of presenting a prenup as a fait accompli, please sign here, why not draw it together with your partner. I frankly don't care what it's called, but I do want to make sure my dependents are taken care of.
As I previously mentioned, I'm not too worried about signing one as I plan to get married only once & stay married.
One can be madly in love and still be rational. whomever I choose to marry should have no issue with me making provisions for my dependents whether it's through my insurance, trust fund, will, prenup or any other legal document. One could actually have an open discussion and have everything out on the table, & explain why certain decisions are being made. That to me would be an act of complete trust on both parties. So instead of presenting a prenup as a fait accompli, please sign here, why not draw it together with your partner. I frankly don't care what it's called, but I do want to make sure my dependents are taken care of.
As I previously mentioned, I'm not too worried about signing one as I plan to get married only once & stay married.
This is what I was saying early on.. Prenups need not be one sided or adversarial and one should have a legal professional go over it , explain and suggest modifications, ( for your protection as well), but it fell on deaf ears.
Last edited by Sydney123; 04-26-2016 at 08:36 PM..
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.
