What do you think of them? Do they plant the seeds for future distrust?
Have you ever made one with your spouse, or know someone who has? Has it come in handy?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Prenuptial agreements are just another form or title for a marriage contract. Marriage contracts exist in pretty much all arranged marriages and while they're very similar in form to prenup agreements, they're called marriage contracts. They can include things like how much wealth each set of parents are giving to the marriage as well as how much the bride and groom bring to the marriage and who gets what should the marriage dissolve or what happens upon the death of either spouse.
I know a LOT of people who had arranged marriages, so yeah, I know a lot of people who've therefore had marriage contracts.
They're so common here that no one blinks an eye at them. They'd probably be shocked if there wasn't a marriage contract.
It tends to make expectations clearer, and in the event of a dissolution of marriage, can make things a lot easier to sort out.
Here, they have absolutely nothing to do with sowing seeds of future distrust because they're so common.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"What do you think of them?"
I think they are gross, and do more to confuse the sanctity of marriage than gay marriage ever could.
[ November 26, 2006, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think they are much more important for people who marry later in life, when they've already had time to establish themselves, than people who get married younger and are just starting out. Or, for that matter, for people regardless of age who have substantial assets.
If I marry, I will have one. My preference would be that it specifies that if the marriage ends both people keep what they brought into the marriage and split evenly what was accumulated during the marriage. I think it's reasonable to expect the best but prepare for the worst, and that's what a pre-nup would be to me. I'm 33 years old, and have made some investments that I am counting on to provide for me later in life. If I end up marrying someone and having it not work out, I can't afford to lose half my assets. But if I would have married straight out of college to another person who had nothing or very little, I wouldn't have wanted one. Some people think love and pragmatisim don't mix. . . which is fine for them, but I won't be marrying one. Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: What do you think of them? Do they plant the seeds for future distrust?
Have you ever made one with your spouse, or know someone who has? Has it come in handy?
We have one! Ours states that we will keep separate bank accounts for our personal finances, and only contribute jointly to things that we both benefit from (bills, housing, saving for a home). When it comes to jointly owned property (like our future home), if we can't decide nicely that one person or the other would keep it, we sell it and divide the profits equally. Either spouse wanting to have children is an automatic grounds for a divorce, unless we both decide together to have kids.
The biggest thing has been keeping our finances separate. I think that has allowed us both a lot of peace of mind and security. Neither of us is a crazy spender, but it is so nice to not have to worry about our joint finances if I want to buy a book or go on a road trip with my friends. I know how much "spending money" I have, and it doesn't matter whether my husband also wants to do something fun for himself that involves money, because the only "jointly owned" money we have is used to pay our living expenses and necessaries.
I don't feel that it sows any seeds of distrust, but it does feel good to know that if something were to happen to our marriage, we have a contract to follow to help us get through the stickier parts of divorce. We both come from families with divorced parents, so neither of us wants to go through any more insanity than is necessary if it comes to that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I've said this and been yelled at for it before, but I will never get married without a prenup. In fact, it's extremely unlikely I will marry a woman who disagrees with me about the importance of a prenup. I am far too interested in protecting the interests of both parties - far more so than protecting the "sanctity of marriage."
It's important to note, though, that marriage, for me, isn't a religious union, only a civil one.
It's also important to note that I'm only 22, have never been married and do not plan on getting married anytime soon, and my opinion on the matter may change.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Irami, have you ever been cheated on? I own a house. I've been cheated on, by someone I was engaged to, and was totally blindsided by it. Had we been married, and had I not had a pre-nuptual agreement, I might have had to sell my house, which I had bought and made payments on for 6 years by myself and had over $100,000 in equity in, and given half of it to him, who had lived with me and paid half the mortgage for 6 months at the time.
So, there's something gross about that, but it's not wanting a pre-nuptual agreement. Ideally, no one would cheat. But that's not the way the world works, and it never has been. And yes, there are a lot of examples that are less cut and dried, but it's like buying life insurance. You don't want to think about the possibility that you might die young with dependants, but if you have dependants you better have considered it and made arrangements.
Posted by JimmyCooper (Member # 7434) on :
When I first opened this thread I thought it was the 'Why are baby polar bears cute?' thread. So I was very confused when I saw Euripides' lines:
quote:What do you think of them? Do they plant the seeds for future distrust?
Have you ever made one with your spouse, or know someone who has? Has it come in handy?
(lol, sorry I had to share that.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by JimmyCooper: When I first opened this thread I thought it was the 'Why are baby polar bears cute?' thread. So I was very confused when I saw Euripides' lines:
quote:What do you think of them? Do they plant the seeds for future distrust?
Have you ever made one with your spouse, or know someone who has? Has it come in handy?
(lol, sorry I had to share that.)
Oh, man, thank you for that.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
HA! so funny, I had to read it out loud to my husband.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If one of the potential partners is divorced, a prenuptial agreement is virtually mandatory. Otherwise after marriage, one partner could be liable for an increase in alimony payments to the other partner's ex-spouse. Similarly, an increase in child support payments if ones formerly married partner is the non-custodial parent. Might be anyway, but it would be based on just your divorced partner's improvement in lifestyle. Without a pre-nuptial, it might be based on your combined financial assets, which could mean a considerably greater financial outlay.
And there are a lot of other etceteras concerning debts/liabilities which ones partner's ex-spouse might accrue that one might possibly be held responsible for without a prenuptial agreement. eg Without a prenuptial agreement, it is quite possible for your partner's ex-spouse to have run up a debt during their marriage, and for you to be held totally responsible for them. Even if your marriage partner should die, even if you should decide to divorce.
Even without an ex-spouse or children involved, the death of one partner in a marriage could bring out a feeding frenzy on jointly held assets by the deceased's surviving relatives. Better to clearly spell out in a pre-nuptial agreement what property is jointly held and what is held separately; especially if one owns a business or if one prospective spouse has a lot of assets while the other does not. How would you like to find that you owe your in-laws half of the house that you bought, or the business that you built, or the pension plan that you paid for, or the life insurance that was purchased for the benefit of your own(nuclear)family?
Then there is the degree of liability one has for accidents caused by or other debts accrued by ones spouse after the marriage. Care to lose a business that you owned before marriage cuz your spouse is held financially responsible for damages after a traffic accident?
Of course, a lot of these potential liabilities depend on which state you live in. Better to find out what they may be through legal consultation so that you aren't bushwacked after the fact. You can always decide that a pre-nuptial agreement isn't necessary. And have your future spouse also get a good independent evaluation by her/his own lawyer. A lawyer working for her/him may find assets that you want to share -- eg a pension plan that will benefit you only as it is now written -- that your own lawyer might not be inclined to seek with sufficient diligence or to be inclined to mention if found.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: I am far too interested in protecting the interests of both parties - far more so than protecting the "sanctity of marriage."
You can call it "protecting the interests of both parties," but it sounds a lot like you are protecting your money and goods. Am I the only one who finds this sentiment down right unmusical. "I love you. I would spend my rest of my life with you, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, but if we break up, I want my Ottoman! And this is a deal-breaker.
quote: Irami, have you ever been cheated on? I own a house. I've been cheated on, by someone I was engaged to, and was totally blindsided by it. Had we been married, and had I not had a pre-nuptual agreement, I might have had to sell my house, which I had bought and made payments on for 6 years by myself and had over $100,000 in equity in, and given half of it to him, who had lived with me and paid half the mortgage for 6 months at the time.
I don't know if I've been cheated on, but I've been profoundly dumped many different ways, and the last thing I've ever cared about is the allocation of assets. You are ending a relationship with the person you thought you would hold hands and share a world with for the rest of your life, does it really matter who gets 50,000 dollars and the house?
[ November 27, 2006, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep, especially if it means ones children will hafta suffer to pay off the slimeball.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: You are ending a relationship with the person you thought you would hold hands and share a world with for the rest of your life, does it really matter gets 50,000 dollars and the house?
Compare:
My relationship with the love of my life is ending.
And
My relationship with the love of my life is ending and I'm destitute and will have to work for the rest of my life because they took everything I had saved for retirement.
Personally, I think one is worse.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I guess I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm not attached to anything anyone could sue me for. I imagine that I'd be intimately attached to my wife, though. I'd give up all my worldly goods for the girl, and if girl leaves, the goods aren't worth a damn.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ya sound like somebody'd who'd burn all of the assets on lawyers rather than give the girl her fair share.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it is quite possible for your partner's ex-spouse to have run up a debt during their marriage, and for you to be held totally responsible for them.
This result is possible, but the more accurate way to think about it in most states is that the debt might be attributed to the joint marital assets. Since many people have only joint marital assets and little or no personal assets, the debt would be able to reach all or most of the survivor's assets.
So, as I said, your summary is functionally correct. Thinking about it in terms of personal and joint property/debt, though, will help understand when this is more likely.
It also varies widely from state to state.
I'm purposely not giving an opinion on pre-nups except to say that each party should have a lawyer if one is signed. Too many people sign the pre-nup from the richer party's lawyer without consulting one of their own attorney.
It's also an area rife with conflicts of interest. A depressing number of lawyers will give legal advice to the other party, which is basically forbidden, but still done.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
In this case, I had spent 3 years with the guy. Obviously, there were problems with the relationship if he felt the need to cheat. But yeah, I was devestated. I cried for months. I had made what I felt were some pretty major compromises to be with him, because I loved him. I would have given up $50,000 to have had the relationship work out, but that wasn't an option. (He wouldn't go to counseling, and I don't consider living with cheating "working out.") So since I wasn't going to be with him anyway, am I glad I didn't have to give him 50 grand? Darn straight I am.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I don't know if I've been cheated on, but I've been profoundly dumped many different ways, and the last thing I've ever cared about is the allocation of assets.
You've never been dumped and been angry that the ex kept your stuff? I have. I don't know how I'd feel about having a prenuptial agreement for myself, but I can understand the need for them. And really, I can see how they might decrease the tension in marriage, either because of an arrangement like Libbie's or because if things get rocky you probably don't automatically think of the spouse as some vindictive monster who's going to try to take the kids and the house from you.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
blacwolve, well put.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with prenups -- the traditional Jewish marriage contract IS a prenup. And in the past 10-15 years, an additional prenup (specifically to help deal with the potential problem of agunot, among other issues) has become fairly accepted in many Orthodox circles. Unfortunately, it was not yet common when I got married.
(The link is to the version for NY state. I believe slightly modified versions are used in other locales.)
In general, I think a prenup gives both partners the peace of mind to enter into the marriage wholeheartedly, without having to worry about what-ifs -- because the what-ifs have already been taken care of.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think prenups are important in the following circumstances:
1) One member of a couple has a lot more pre-marital assets than the other member of the couple; or one member has some complications in their finances that the other member of the couple needs to be protected from (to the extent possible under the law), and/or
2) One or both members of a couple have people they intend to leave their stuff to (other than their spouse) when they die, and/or
3) There's reason to believe that one or the other member of a couple might not "do the right thing" in case of divorce or death unless there was a legal document spelling it all out, and/or
4) There's reason to believe that if the pre-marital assets were converted to joint assets, one member of the couple might go a little wacky and do things that irreparably harm the couple's finances and create an inextricable problem for the other person in the relationship.
Sadly, I have seen all of those situations in marriages.
Having said all that, if I found myself feeling like a prenuptual agreement were in order, I'd probably have a hard time getting married in the first place.
Maybe if I'd had a LOT more assets or kids from a prior marriage I'd think differently. But not being in those positions, I can't say how I'd feel about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: What do you think of them? Do they plant the seeds for future distrust?
Have you ever made one with your spouse, or know someone who has? Has it come in handy?
We have one! Ours states that we will keep separate bank accounts for our personal finances, and only contribute jointly to things that we both benefit from (bills, housing, saving for a home). When it comes to jointly owned property (like our future home), if we can't decide nicely that one person or the other would keep it, we sell it and divide the profits equally. Either spouse wanting to have children is an automatic grounds for a divorce, unless we both decide together to have kids.
The biggest thing has been keeping our finances separate. I think that has allowed us both a lot of peace of mind and security. Neither of us is a crazy spender, but it is so nice to not have to worry about our joint finances if I want to buy a book or go on a road trip with my friends. I know how much "spending money" I have, and it doesn't matter whether my husband also wants to do something fun for himself that involves money, because the only "jointly owned" money we have is used to pay our living expenses and necessaries.
I don't feel that it sows any seeds of distrust, but it does feel good to know that if something were to happen to our marriage, we have a contract to follow to help us get through the stickier parts of divorce. We both come from families with divorced parents, so neither of us wants to go through any more insanity than is necessary if it comes to that.
If I were to ever get a prenup, it'd be something like that. I've always thought that when I get married, both paychecks from my wife and I would get pooled together, then the household expenses would come out, some joint savings for emergencies and what not would come out, then what is left is split evenly and we get that money to do whatever we individually want with. That way if I want to save that money for a Christmas present for my theoretical wife, I can, or if I want to save up to get myself a more extravagent car, I can, but everything is fair. I suppose there'd have to be a joint credit card or something to pay for a dinner out or something, but that's not too difficult.
I don't know how any of that works legally, or anything involving liability or accidents or what not, but I think financially it's the fairest way to work a married couple's finances, at least in the early parts of the marriage.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm purposely not giving an opinion on pre-nups except to say that each party should have a lawyer if one is signed.
That's great, Dagonee, but I care much more about your opinion on pre-nups as opposed to legal advice. ________
A profound part of marrying is opening all that you are to the other person. Part of the ennobling aspect of marriage is the vulnerability. I see the idea of a limited liablity marriage as monsterously tacky. _________
quote:I certainly don't see anything wrong with prenups -- the traditional Jewish marriage contract IS a prenup.
This way of thinking may explain why there are so many Jewish legal theorists dealing in positive law.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Years ago I saw a biography on A&E about Grace Kelly. Before she married Prince Rainier of Monaco, she had to sign a prenup saying that if she and the Prince ever divorced, she would give up all rights to any children they might have. She signed it without a qualm. All her girlfriends were shocked: "How could you agree to give up your babies?!?!?!" She replied, "Well, there's never going to be a divorce, so it's never going to be an issue." And there wasn't a divorce.
That story really impressed me.
Not sure how I would feel personally about being asked to sign a prenup.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:I certainly don't see anything wrong with prenups -- the traditional Jewish marriage contract IS a prenup.
This way of thinking may explain why there are so many Jewish legal theorists dealing in positive law.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you please clarify?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
I think an important point that you may be missing, Irami, is that if there are children in the marriage, it may not only be you who's financial wellbeing is at stake. As a woman, I feel that I have a moral obligation to have a prenuptial agreement for the child(ren) I hope to one day have. Of course I do not plan to take vows with someone who I believe will ever be fiscally irresponsible, abusive, mentally unstable, etc., but this is life - it happens. People change. And if something should, heaven forbid, go so wrong that I must seek a dissolution of marriage, I am going to make damn sure my kids are cared for. Even if they're quite young and need a lot of time still. I will NOT end up in a position of having to put them in daycare for eight+ hours a day because Daddy went crazy and took all the money, and now I have to work full-time even though they're under the age of five. That's my duty as a mother.
So while you may feel that you would be fine with losing all your financial assets in case of a marriage failing, please think of your dependents as well. You could also wind up unable to fund your parents' nursing home costs or unable to care for a disabled friend or sibling who has no one else. This isn't about being selfish, it's about being responsible. I am first and foremost responsible for caring for myself so no one else has to, and then those in my family, and then my friends, and then my community, and then my country, etc. And if you don't have yourself and your children taken care of, you're just a burden on society.
I think prenups are an intelligent choice, and I will not marry a man who does not understand why I think this. I would honestly consider him quite selfish.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think Irami is a hopeless romantic.
-pH
Edit: Teh speeling!
[ November 27, 2006, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Rivka,
Positive law, the idea that a binding law can be put down, made rigorous, negotiated, changed according to a procedure, for example, the idea that Grace Kelly could be stripped of her duties as the mother of her children in virtue of some document, I find ridiculous.
I also don't think that there is that much of a difference between quibbling the finer points of Deuteronomy or Numbers and a hundred years of California Community Property statutes. It's the same faculty applied to different texts. Rivka, you can make me out to be a anti-semite because I'm disgusted by legal reasoning, or because it stunts true believers like ergosomiac's moral development, or because it gives people who know better like Dagonee a beard to hide behind-- while earning a goodly profit-- but all of this turning to a text of rules as a substitute for moral thought and development-- because the rules are safer and the rules are fixed and the rules are enforceable-- all of this rule worship, contract worship, insurance worship, belies morality.
I doubt there are too many people who agree with me, and probably fewer with the courage to baldly admit it.
I read a column a few years ago about the parents of the Columbine shooters. The columnist asked something like, "When your kids shoot up a high school, what do you do with the rest of your life?"
There is no fair way to end a divorce, and if both parties aren't so mortified by the fact that it's come to a divorce so that they are willing to give each other whatever is asked for, they aren't quality of people I wish to be around to begin with.
ph,
I don't think that marriage should be easily or carelessly entered, and the way a married couple treats each other should never be determined by some doomsday contract. Marriage is a huge deal to me, if that's what qualifies me as a hopeless romantic, then so be it. I think that if more people took it as seriously as I did, we'd have fewer divorces and better, more thoughtful couples in general.
[ November 27, 2006, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah. Thank you for that clarification.
Well, while I would quibble with your use of the word "quibble," mostly I simply flat-out disagree with you. Your ideals are all well and good, but they have, IMO and IME, very little to do with the real world.
I am a realist, and feel no shame in that.
As for this,
quote:if both parties aren't so mortified by the fact that it's come to a divorce so that they are willing to give each other whatever is asked for, they aren't quality of people I wish to be around to begin with
I guess we won't ever be hanging out together. Alas!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Irami,
The only time I've seen people seeking divorce willing to give the other person whatever is asked for is when there's an abusive relationship and the other person (the victim) would do anything legally possible to get out of the relationship. Sadly, those things generally end very badly (from a financial perspective) for the victim. Things like "yeah, I have to pay off his new Harley, but at least he's not around to beat on me and the kids anymore..."
In every other case I've seen, the goal is as close to an equitable split of marital assets and debts as to be satisfactory to the court.
Depending on the state, and the differences in earning potential of the two persons involved, the split of marital assets can be pretty lopsided in order to be considered "fair."
I've seen some pretty bizarre things when people who formerly loved each other decide that it's time to quit being partners. Frankly, if there weren't lawyers and courts, I suspect our society would eventually self-destruct over divorce.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
If Chet and I ever bother to get married, we probably won't have one. I'm 25. We've been dating for 10 years and living together for 4. Anything we have, we acquired together anyway.
We don't have much, but what we have is ours.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I feel (felt) no need for a prenup personally in the relationship (marriage) I am currently in, but I think it is a personal decision that each person must make for him/herself depending on his/her individual circumstances, and I will not criticize people either way.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I did not enter my marriage with the idea that divorce would ever be something to consider. I honestly don't know what I would have done had Wes asked for a pre-nup. It would have seriously upset and bothered me. Not sure if I would have refused to marry him or not - but the thought would have crossed my mind, for sure.
In our case, it didn't come up, because we knew marriage was a lifetime commitment. I'm not naive, I know there are people every day who get divorced who felt the same way initially, including my mom and my brother and my sister-in-law to only name those in my close family. I just know for me, it would have been deeply painful and upsetting had my fiance asked for one. I'm glad he didn't. Even gladder that there seems to be no reason for us to have one. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote: I am far too interested in protecting the interests of both parties - far more so than protecting the "sanctity of marriage."
You can call it "protecting the interests of both parties," but it sounds a lot like you are protecting your money and goods. Am I the only one who finds this sentiment down right unmusical. "I love you. I would spend my rest of my life with you, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, but if we break up, I want my Ottoman! And this is a deal-breaker.
Read it how you want, cutie pie, I'm not marrying you. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't think that marriage should be easily or carelessly entered, and the way a married couple treats each other should never be determined by some doomsday contract. Marriage is a huge deal to me, if that's what qualifies me as a hopeless romantic, then so be it. I think that if more people took it as seriously as I did, we'd have fewer divorces and better, more thoughtful couples in general.
Many people think this, and many of them are wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it is especially important when there are children involved. The assets that one brings into the marriage are then not designed only for the person but for their children. Not having one and risking your children's welfare as well as your own isn't responsible.
I agree with ElJay that it's a lot easier to be blase about the risk when you are bringing next to nothing financially to the marrige.
I'm all for love for forever, but in the horrifying-and-unlikely-but-sadly-does-happen event he decides to run off to Vegas with a waitress, I'd rather he not take my assets (security) with him. I like the idea that what people bring belongs to them and what they accumulate together gets split evenly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I personally consider prenups outrageously tacky, but then lots of people do lots of things I find tacky. *shrug*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you find tacky about it? Mixing love and money? Claiming assets? The contract aspect? The inherent aknowledgement of the possiblity of a less than fairy-tale life?
I don't think I'd have one right now, but I don't have that many assets and I have no one but myself to consider.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QUOTE] You can call it "protecting the interests of both parties," but it sounds a lot like you are protecting your money and goods.
Well, it is protecting assets, of course - but isn't that the interest in question? Assets are security - if there is a breakup, both parties need to be able to support themselves. Personally, I think prenuptial agreements are preferable to alimony payments!
quote: Am I the only one who finds this sentiment down right unmusical. "I love you. I would spend my rest of my life with you, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, but if we break up, I want my Ottoman! And this is a deal-breaker.
It isn't the most romantic thought, is it? However, when we had ours done, we felt we were being realistic. As much as we loved each other at the time, and as much as we love each other now, there is always the possibility that our marriage won't last. If that happens, it's comforting to us to know that either of us could make it on our own financially.
quote:You are ending a relationship with the person you thought you would hold hands and share a world with for the rest of your life, does it really matter who gets 50,000 dollars and the house?
Well, to my husband and me it does, because it means whether each of us can get by! But I guess this is why it's a good thing PNAs aren't required by law. They're there for those who feel comfortable using them, which is great. They work for me! That's all I know.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The inherent aknowledgement of the possiblity of a less than fairy-tale life?
See, this is where the communcation breaks down. Acknowledging the possibility for divorce isn't my issue, the deeper issue is trust.
When you introduce a prenup, not only are you insuring against a divorce, you are saying that you don't think that the person you are marrying is going to be reasonable throughout the divorce process. That's the kicker. How do you walk down the aisle if you don't have trust at this level?
Not only are you looking forward at a divorce, you are presupposing that the partner is going to be vindictive about it. This isn't about two people losing their love. When you introduce a prenup, you are assuming that the person is going to bilk you for everything he/she can under the law, that's the great insult and injury.
I can't tell you if I'll ever get a divorce. I'm hard to live with. I completely understand why someone would say "Enough!" and scoot, but I can say that she can have whatever she wants. When I walk down that aisle, I'm going in whole-hog, and getting divorced does not change that commitment.
[ November 27, 2006, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
3) There's reason to believe that one or the other member of a couple might not "do the right thing" in case of divorce or death unless there was a legal document spelling it all out, and/or
This is exactly why we opted for it. If things ever got bad enough to warrant divorce, who KNOWS what frame of mind either or both of us might be in? It's possible we'd both go nuts and get all crazy and vindictive on each other, which isn't necessary in any divorce circumstance! And so, our PNA was born.
Although, now my husband is looking into becoming an alpaca farmer in the near future, with the intent that I'd help on the farm, so we'd have to decide how to divide up the added asset of multiple alpacas, which can be worth up to $25,000 each. Looks like we may have to make an additional clause on our PNA. "The Alpaca Clause." It could be a legal thriller novel. Or a Christmas movie starring Tim Allen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If two people are getting divorced, clearly they feel differently about each other than they did in the beginning. Getting divorced itself means that the trust is already broken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What do you find tacky about it? Mixing love and money? Claiming assets? The contract aspect? The inherent acknowledgement of the possiblity of a less than fairy-tale life?
Yes, actually.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:When you introduce a prenup, not only are you insuring against a divorce, you are saying that you don't think that the person you are marrying is going to be reasonable throughout the process. That's the kicker. How do you walk down the isle if you don't have trust at this level?
I think you're being a bit melodramatic. A prenup doesn't say, "this is how we'll handle our breakup when you go crazy", it says, "in case the absolute worst should happen we know we're on the same page, since we may not be thinking clearly at the time."
A prenup doesn't mean you expect the marriage to fail, but any rational person should acknowledge the possibility that divorce could happen. You hope it won't, you think it won't, but there's always that sliver of a chance.
And, as kat said, it's easy to be cavalier about not protecting your assets when you don't have any assets to speak of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's great, Dagonee, but I care much more about your opinion on pre-nups as opposed to legal advice.
Sorry, my opinion on pre-nups is too personal for posting here. However, I do know that a bad pre-nup is far, far worse than a good one and leads to far greater injustice. Therefore, no one should enter one without independent legal advice.
Also, I did not give legal advice. I advised people to see a lawyer, which is very different and a very important distinction to make.
quote: or because it gives people who know better like Dagonee a beard to hide behind
Irami, quite frankly, you are utterly unqualified to make this statement.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:And, as kat said, it's easy to be cavalier about not protecting your assets when you don't have any assets to speak of.
If you think that the size of wealth to be divided is what is at play here, we really are speaking from two different worlds.
Kat,
Contracts are between parties who don't belong together. *thinks* I don't know if this is true, but I had a professor who said that in old Westerns, you could tell the good guys from the bad because the bad guys always had to tie up their horses, and the good guys never had to do so. I don't know if that's true, but I think it's an appropriate metaphor. Go ahead and have a contract between business partners, but leave them out of marriage, or anything that matters between people as people.
____________
Dag,
What, I need qualifications to make a statement now? Do I need to be approved by a board? Fill out some paperwork? Pay an credentialing fee or risk being thrown in jail by the thought police?
I don't like your profession. I resent that it's necessary, and I hate that it's respected. I don't like the distance it creates and enforces between what is legally permissable what is morally defensible.
There are a great many other people who exalt the rule of law, so much so that we are trying to export it by the barrel of a gun across the world.
[ November 27, 2006, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't be flip, Tom - what, exactly, do you object to? Or is it all visceral and you haven't been able to articulate your concerns to yourself?
---
Irami,
Marriage IS a business contract - love and money are already mixed up. To separate them entirely, you'd have to make marriage NOT a contract in the eyes of the law.
That's the problem - marriage already ties people's money and goods together, and the terms under which they are tied together are already dictated. A pre-nup doesn't create terms - it changes them from the default.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:You are ending a relationship with the person you thought you would hold hands and share a world with for the rest of your life, does it really matter who gets 50,000 dollars and the house?
If that's the difference between being able to support myself and becoming financially insolvent, then yes, it does. For one thing, I think it isn't as difficult to get over a relationship, even one as deep as marriage, when the rest of your life isn't in a shambles as well.
I've been saving for retirement for a few years now. In order to retire, support myself, and ultimately leave something behind (to hypothetical descendants or to charity), I'll need roughly 40 times the amount of money that I have saved now, as a minimum. If I get married without a prenup and it ends in divorce, any forfeiture of those savings would make it impossible for me to make up the difference in accrued interest. There simply wouldn't be enough time; that's how compound interest works. In that event, I'd not only have bankrupted my present, I'd have bankrupted my entire future.
You seem to be saying marriage is so important that if it ends your life may as well be over, since nothing else will matter in comparison. I don't buy that for a second. Life goes on, even after the breakup of a marriage. If my hypothetical marriage broke up, I'd be devastated, but I would want to at least have the option of carrying on my with my life if I so chose.
On a gut level, I dislike the idea of prenups, but that isn't enough to dissuade me from exploring one with the aid of a lawyer if I ever find myself wanting to get married.
quote:When you introduce a prenup, not only are you insuring against a divorce, you are saying that you don't think that the person you are marrying is going to be reasonable throughout the process. That's the kicker. How do you walk down the isle if you don't have trust at this level?
Does trust at that level even exist? The most level-headed of people can go completely bonkers when they're in a really bad frame of mind.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:If you think that the size of wealth to be divided is what is at play here, we really are speaking from two different worlds.
That's not what I think, or what I said, but the latter half of your statement is undoubtably true. I'm a realist, for one thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, twinky said that very well. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I find this debate has many similarities with the Gay Marriage debate. Both are more about the definition of marriage than about the related issues.
Is marriage a legal contract that promotes the growth and betterment of society? If yes than these civil unions need written agreements to cover any legal loopholes the future hold.
Is marriage the ultimate affirmation of true love? If yes than these romantic pairings can only be weakened by thoughts of money and fear of future failings.
Is marriage some mixture of both? Probably.
What I like most about prenups is that they force the couple to communicate. Money is an important part of any relationship. Expectations and responsibilities need to be spelled out or when they are not fulfilled feelings of betrayal will grow.
If you can't talk about money when you are in when you are feeling the closest, how will you be able to talk about it later?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does trust at that level even exist?
It certainly does. I would not have married had I not met someone I trusted that much.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What, I need qualifications to make a statement now?
To comment on whether or not I use it to hide, yes, you need the minimum qualification of knowing what the hell you are talking about.
quote:I don't like your profession. I resent that it's necessary, and I hate that it's respected. I don't like the distance it creates and enforces between what is legally permissable what is morally defensible.
The use of a government entity to coerce another individual to act in a certain manner is a use of force. People are used to thinking that way about criminal law, but the same thinking extends to civil law as well.
The words "legally permissible" are another way of saying "should not be enforced at the point of a gun by a government official."
When someone states that they want to use the law to ban specific behavior, they are either saying they wish that behavior to be stoppable at the point of a gun or they are advocating some action other than a ban. I am very comfortable with there being a huge gap between that concept and the concept of what is morally defensible.
I am also extremely uncomfortable with the idea that I must somehow favor using that gun to ban a morally indefensible action to avoid being accused of covertly supporting that action.
The rule of law is exulted precisely because we believe that, if someone is going to be subject to coercive force, that person ought to have notice of the requirements being imposed, that person ought to be given a chance to comply with those requirements and to demonstrate that compliance, and that the purpose for which the coercive force is applied is important enough and proved to a sufficient level of certainty to warrant the amount and type of coercive force being applied. We call this due process, but it really is what people mean when they say "rule of law."
I, for one, think it worthy of respect - not respect above all else, but a great amount of respect nonetheless.
The idea that you resent the necessity of people who make this their profession makes me glad you have only one vote, because the world where legally permissible and morally defensible are separated by a small or zero distance is one where I don't want to live.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Does trust at that level even exist?
It certainly does. I would not have married had I not met someone I trusted that much.
I'm not convinced that trust at that level isn't simply self-delusion -- that is, I'm not sure the assumption that a given person will be reasonable in all circumstances is ever justified. It certainly isn't true of me, for example.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Marriage IS a business contract - love and money are already mixed up.
That's controversial. Marriage is a business contract the same way that a wedding dress is piece of chiffon and a child is an issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your post doesn't actually mean anything.
Marriage means that spouses are liable for all sorts of things that they do not themselves do, and can be sued for such. It's a contract, even if you're married by Elvis in Vegas. It makes the spouse the next of kin. It makes the spouse the de facto heir in absense of a will. It makes a spouse liable for a dozen different things. No matter what else is involved, in this country you need a license to be legally married and a court to be legally not-married-anymore.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:When you introduce a prenup, not only are you insuring against a divorce, you are saying that you don't think that the person you are marrying is going to be reasonable throughout the process. That's the kicker. How do you walk down the isle if you don't have trust at this level?
I think you're being a bit melodramatic. A prenup doesn't say, "this is how we'll handle our breakup when you go crazy", it says, "in case the absolute worst should happen we know we're on the same page, since we may not be thinking clearly at the time."
A prenup doesn't mean you expect the marriage to fail, but any rational person should acknowledge the possibility that divorce could happen. You hope it won't, you think it won't, but there's always that sliver of a chance.
Personally, I think that going into things with the attitude that divorce is never ever ever a possibility would put much more pressure on the relationship and make it much harder to make things work and to work to keep both people happy. But that's just me. I think that it's really important for both people in the relationship to feel that they've freely chosen to be there, and I can see how a prenup could ensure that feeling because you know that you aren't going to be in complete ruin if something goes wrong.
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Spang,
-------------------------------------------------
quote:------------------------------- And, as kat said, it's easy to be cavalier about not protecting your assets when you don't have any assets to speak of. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that the size of wealth to be divided is what is at play here, we really are speaking from two different worlds.
------------------------------------------------------------------ That's not what I think, or what I said, but the latter half of your statement is undoubtably true. I'm a realist, for one thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know what you think, but I'm looking at your words right now and I've a working and appropriate understanding of the words "easy, "cavalier," "protecting, "assets." Unless I'm screwing up on the pronouns and prepositions, my paraphrase is what you are saying.
Kat,
You'd be shocked how much you sound like King of Men. I'm waiting for you to say that making love is just the rapid exchange of fluids and friction.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Irami,
The insults are unbecoming to you. If you cannot respond to what I said, at least have the grace to refrain from the ad hominems.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Your "understanding" notwithstanding, I'll go ahead and be the judge of what I was saying. Especially given the reading comprehension issues I've seen you exhibit on a regular basis.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Does trust at that level even exist?
It certainly does. I would not have married had I not met someone I trusted that much.
I totally agree. I would not marry a man who trusted me so little he wanted a pre-nup.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Irami,
You still have not adressed the points I made on the last page. In brief, I stated that children and other dependents are an excellent reason to have a prenup. While I might feel alright with becoming financially insolvent in case of a divorce, I cannot accept the potential of being in the position of being unable to care for my children or parents.
Also, are you aware of the fact that certain injuries and diseases can in fact render people utterly different from who they were when they entered the marriage? Studies on people with brain damage which makes them incapable of feeling emotion, including remorse, come to mind. People can also have chemical imbalances with make them angry and abusive, or incapable of spending wisely. Sometimes these things can be treated and resolved, and sometimes not. An individual has to go through the stress and expense of losing their partner, attempting to treat an illness, deciding that it's unsafe for them to remain in the relationship, divorce, and caring for children on their own. How exactly would all of this person's assets being lost due to their partner's debts be a moral thing?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
romany:
What if he had children, including a child who would need care all his life, had his assets tied up in a family business, and paid alimony to his former wife, which payments would increase dramatically without that prenup preventing your assets being counted as his net worth?
This is a serious question. I think recognizing that a spouse has financial obligations outside of the marriage that must be protected no matter how blissfully happy he is is only fair to those who count on him for protection and care.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'd marry a woman who approached me with a prenup. Not doing so seems small. I would be sad about it. We'd talk about it. I'd sign it and prompt forget about it.
quote:Also, are you aware of the fact that certain injuries and diseases can in fact render people utterly different from who they were when they entered the marriage? Studies on people with brain damage which makes them incapable of feeling emotion, including remorse, come to mind.
I thought marriage included in sickness and in health. The children don't change the situation.
[ November 27, 2006, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Given that I have always been poor, I'm not sure I would have married a man with prior obligations. Cold but true.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
My philosophy on prenups can best be described as "Hope for the best, plan for the worst." Of course I wouldn't enter a marriage if I thought divorce was a real possibility! I would save myself the heartache. But if, God forbid, something should go wrong, I love this person - and I love myself. I want us both to come out the other side as intact as possible. And that means being able to pay for gas and food and childcare and medical expenses.
I actually mention prenups offhandedly at some point during dating to gauge whether the guy is going to say he thinks they're horrible or something. Most say they think they make a lot of sense, but are slightly distasteful. Most women I know feel more strongly that they make sense, perhaps because women often wind up responsible for children. I agree that prenups are kind of a downer - it's not especially fun to hash all of it out while you're wearing your shiny new engagement ring. But it's also a form of insurance - like saying, look, I love you enough that I'm willing to shove aside my soppy romantic side for a few hours and be pragmatic and make sure we'll both be ok if something awful should happen. How do I know that *I* won't go stark raving bonkers at some point or get a pole stuck through my head and come out a completely different person?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Given that I have always been poor, I'm not sure I would have married a man with prior obligations. Cold but true.
That's certainly your call.
Given that a pre-nup could make it possible to marry in those circumstances, it could be seen as very romantic.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've never really thought about what I would do if the object of my hypothetical affections insisted on not having a pre-nup. I think it might make me a bit wary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Samarkand, well put.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
There are a great many other people who exault the rule of law, so much so that we are trying to export it by the barrel of a gun across the world.
Frankly, I believe that an absence of clear and enforceable legislation is more conducive to violence than the rule of law. Often moral imperatives come into play where law is absent, and we will never agree on absolutes.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
I find this debate has many similarities with the Gay Marriage debate. Both are more about the definition of marriage than about the related issues.
Is marriage a legal contract that promotes the growth and betterment of society? If yes than these civil unions need written agreements to cover any legal loopholes the future hold.
Is marriage the ultimate affirmation of true love? If yes than these romantic pairings can only be weakened by thoughts of money and fear of future failings.
Is marriage some mixture of both? Probably.
What I like most about prenups is that they force the couple to communicate. Money is an important part of any relationship. Expectations and responsibilities need to be spelled out or when they are not fulfilled feelings of betrayal will grow.
This is a great point. As Samarkand said, I think a pre-nup can actually be a sign that you care for the wellbeing of your spouse (after all, you might be the one who is not in a rational mindset, trying to screw her/him over) and yourself, equally.
Love is not about sacrifice. Personally I don't think I could truly love someone who, in the process of falling in love with me, surrendered everything to me. I don't see that vulnerability as ennobling in the least. I see marriage as a social contract between two equal partners, which will usually only hold up if love is there.
That said, I think that pre-nups should always be about the personal choice of each couple. If you deem the possible financial ramifications of not having a pre-nup to be less important than the emotional confusion that discussing a pre-nup would cause you and your intended, then don't make one.
I don't know, if I ever get married, whether I will have a pre-nup. I do believe in planning for the worst, but I also do recognise the emotional downside of having to ask for one. If I decide not to get one though, it won't be because I see marriage as holy and separate from money and material property.
---
I've been offline for a while and am a bit late, but this one's for Jimmy:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My philosophy on prenups can best be described as "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
These are two mutually exclusive things. Unless those of you who're Christian are sneaking the occasional prayer to Allah in when you think Christ isn't listening, just in case.
Seriously, marriage is one of those things that, like religion, must be taken on faith, because as it stands it is almost never a rational decision; people who marry for the legal and financial benefits are considered to have missed the point, for example.
Individual people may draw the line in different locations; perhaps they can say "there's a very real possibility that my God doesn't exist, and that the Satanists are right, so I'll keep this goat in the closet just in case I need to whip up a quick animal sacrifice" without shaking their faith in God, but I cannot say "my marriage is statistically likely to fall apart, and I thus must remain prepared for that contingency" and remain willing to enter a marriage.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
How are they mutually exclusive? Sorry, I just don't see it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My philosophy on prenups can best be described as "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
These are two mutually exclusive things. Unless those of you who're Christian are sneaking the occasional prayer to Allah in when you think Christ isn't listening, just in case.
You're either joking, or uninsured.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would you consider a prayer to Allah to be God insurance? Neither do I consider a pre-nup to be marriage insurance. My house will continue to exist even if I lose faith in it; can you say the same for a relationship?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
A pre-nup only comes into play once the relationship no longer exists, and it's a personal matter whether the pre-nup will cause you to change your feelings about your partner. Frankly, I think two lovers in a solid relationship are more likely to be able deal with the emotional baggage of a pre-nup, and then move on to enjoy their marriage.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Did Hatrack die temporarily for anyone else?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Would you consider a prayer to Allah to be God insurance? Neither do I consider a pre-nup to be marriage insurance. My house will continue to exist even if I lose faith in it; can you say the same for a relationship?
My point is that "hope for the best" and "plan for the worst" are not mutually exclusive in all contexts, as you implied.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Hatrack went down for me for a bit.
I just wanted to say I think this thread has changed my opinion slightly about the prenupital agreement. Before, I probably would have been entirely opposed to it; it just seemed to me like saying divorce was inevitable or something (as illogical as that sounds). Now, I could see some values for it. I'm still not sure I would be fully comfortable with discussing a prenup with a future spouse, but at least now I'm not fully discounting it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I am not entirely comfortable with discussing it, either. My one experience of doing so was with the aforementioned ex-fiance, who was vehemently opposed to the idea. But there are a lot of things that I am not always comfortable with that I think are important, and do anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
One thing that I think has been ignored by almost everyone (myself included), despite Libbie's references to it, is that many pre-nups deal with more than the "what ifs." A good number also put in writing agreed-upon financial (and other) arrangements for the marriage itself.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Ugh, these things are so tricky. There are so many varying scenarios and strings pulling and all this other crap.
In the case of two people with substantially different net worths (but no previous marriages and/or children), a prenup forces you to lay out who is more powerful in the marriage. (This presupposes that both parties make enough to reasonably support themselves alone, and a divorce would not render the poorer party a financial invalid.) This is fraught with emotional potholes because asking for a prenup is very literally like saying that what's mine is mine and will stay that way, as opposed to what's mine is ours. I mean...if the prenup says that the money will stay with the richer party, and then the richer party covers most of the down payment on the house you buy together and pay a joint mortgage on...whose house is it? If I were the poorer party, I think I'd probably get pretty hung up on this pre-marriage outlining of who is worth more.
That said, I can understand how the richer party would want to be avoided taken advantage of. But part of me says that this is where the trust thing comes in: If you're worried someone marrying you for money and then bailing to take his/her share, well, you probably shouldn't be walking down the aisle to begin with.
That said, I think the scenarios in which previous marriages or children are involved almost require a prenup. If I were marrying a man who was paying alimony and child support, I'd want him to suggest a prenup to protect me from having to pay for that - and, by default, protect our marriage and our assets (since, obviously, my money would be used to for this second marriage's benefit).
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
A prenuptual agreement is a purely subjective matter. Period. This issue, like gay marriage, affects no one but the parties involved. A prenup is a contract - nothing more. It doesn't SAY anything - about the sanctity of marriage, about trust, about protecting your assets. These are personal agendas/opinions. I, like Irami and Tom, personally feel that the absolute trust I share with my fiancee would be compromised by a prenup. However, I can completely understand why others would want one. It works for them, not for me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think people have an overinflated sense of how much "protection" a pre-nup can create for couples' assets during the term of the marriage. Protecting assets in the manner people are speaking of requires a full-blown estate plan, not just a pre-nup. Most of the protection will arise out of other elements of that estate plan than the pre-nup.
This will vary widely from state to state and from situation to situation, of course. But many of the reasons people are giving for pre-nups are really reasons for estate planning, which can be done perfectly well without a pre-nup. When someone has protecting assets from third parties as a reason for a pre-nup, it's even more imperative to get a lawyer.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Kasie, I disagree on a fundemental level that who has more money automatically equals who has more power in the relationship. That has never been the determining factor in any of my relationships, and I have been on both sides of the wealth issue.
Also, what I would want personally is an agreement that in the event of a divorce each party would retain what they came into the marriage with, which would be laid out in the PNA, but split evenly what was accumulated during the marriage. My preference is for that to be the case even if one person is making more money during the marriage than the other. But of course, that is something that I would have to discuss and come to an agreement on with my hypothetical future spouse.
Finally, I think saying you wouldn't want one normally but you would if the guy has kids from a previous marriage is pretty hypocritical. You're willing to combine lives and finances and what's mine is his and what's his is mine. . . except for if what's his includes providing for his children? To me, marriage includes shared responsibilities, including that of any dependants.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A good number also put in writing agreed-upon financial (and other) arrangements for the marriage itself.
See, I also find this enormously distasteful. But, then, I find separate checking accounts unacceptably tacky, too. *shrug*
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: But I guess this is why it's a good thing PNAs aren't required by law. They're there for those who feel comfortable using them, which is great.
I disagree. I think if prenups were required by law, it would stifle many of the objections being raised to them. If it's a legal requirement, then trust certainly isn't the issue. And since the law has to decipher what belongs to whom in the event of divorce, it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to require of a legal marraige contract. I wish that the government required prenups. If nothing else, it would force people to discuss and think about these issues. It would also completely take away the feeling of distrust that comes from talking about it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:A good number also put in writing agreed-upon financial (and other) arrangements for the marriage itself.
See, I also find this enormously distasteful. But, then, I find separate checking accounts unacceptably tacky, too. *shrug*
Why?
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not the feeling of distrust I mind, actually, as much as it's the feeling of separation. When I married, the assumption I made is that everything I have and everything I am was made available to my wife as a resource; the idea that I'm holding a little bit back as a reserve, while perhaps "sensible," is profoundly unromantic. And until we get around to replacing marriages with civil unions, romance will still figure prominently in my idealized vision of 'em. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not the feeling of distrust I mind, actually, as much as it's the feeling of separation. When I married, the assumption I made is that everything I have and everything I am was made available to my wife as a resource; the idea that I'm holding a little bit back as a reserve, while perhaps "sensible," is profoundly unromantic. And until we get around to replacing marriages with civil unions, romance will still figure prominently in my idealized vision of 'em.
See, I like the idea of separate checking accounts if only because it means you can buy surprises for your partner.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It also means you don't accidentally cause each other to bounce checks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course, I suppose it helps that we don't actually write checks for anything besides daycare. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ever since my bank made online billpay free, I hardly ever write actual checks either. But I used to, and I still write a handful each month.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Couple of things.
One: I'm definately getting a pre-nup. I've never personally gone through a divorce, but have been through many. As a supervisor in the military, the people that work for me, their problems become mine. My problems become my supervisor's. That's just how it is. An' with this I have seen a lot go down, where the guy was left on the shoulder of the road because of the courts. Not all the time. Here and there a case where the guy deserved it, but not always. I remember a few times I sent guys home just because his wife mentioned the "D-word."
Two: Not all divorces are due to a lack of trust. I had one of my supervisor's go through a divorce. I have to say it was the smoothest going one I have ever seen. They just didn't have it in them to continue anymore. They were still good friends, but weren't where they wanted to be. He made sure she had the house, kids and what she needed to keep everything in check. Tell the truth, he was more concerned about her than himself. Abusive? No, I knew the guy too well. We were a very close knit division. We had a habit of picking up on things pretty quick.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Stan- I'm incredibly grateful that you're on hatrack. I don't think I've mentioned that before.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Oh, one more reason to get a pre-nup. NO ONE is getting their fingers into my retirement trip account. I throw most of my money at the moment into this account so I can do a 6 month backpacking excursion when I retire from the military. Hopefully it will be more than enough when it is time to bring a wife along if there is one (and she is willing to go). I'm not going to impede her goals, she won't impede mine.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Thanks blacwolve. I have my moments like anyone else. I know I don't thank some people as much as I should. Such as yourself. Just for being here. There's a few here that, if they weren't here, I would have no reason to post anymore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They were still good friends, but weren't where they wanted to be.
It dismays me to think that I, as an atheist, take my promises to God more seriously than this.
quote:I'm not going to impede her goals, she won't impede mine.
While perfectly sensible, I'm not sure that this is the healthiest foundation on which to build a marriage. A relationship, sure, but not a marriage.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
We have separate checking accounts because we just never got around to consolidating them.
It really doesn't bother me. I guess we should, if only to save on bank fees.
I do like being able to buy suprise presents for Tony though.
We don't have a prenup (not so common in Australia, anyway) but this thread has made me rethink some of my attitudes towards them.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I've already said my goodnight in the good night thread, but I will stay up for this. It was a mutual decision of both parties. It is not my call on how they decide, or the outcome.
Tom, we all have goals in life. My current gf likes to work with children. she has given up the idea of being a day care worker to owning her own day care. She wants to have a good one, with good people working there. If we decide to cement our lives together, then I can only hope to support her in this and to be a part of it. Mainly because I want to be a part of her life. However, should all life sacrifices be made in one direction? I'm not selfish, I can hold my trip off till we find a better time. However, I have set this goal of mine in stone. The only thing stopping me is if I die before I retire. I figure at 39, it isn't too off to actually accomplish my goal to backpack a 4000 mile trail from ND to NY.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I'm going to second some of what Samarkand said. I've experienced some subtler influences on my outlook and behavior due to depression. I wouldn't say that it fundamentally influenced my personality, and I find it hard to imagine actually acting with extreme malice toward anyone, depression or not. However, it's not outside the realm of possibility that I might, say, end up with post-partum psychosis and behave in ways that could damage my hypothetical husband and children. If a pre-nuptial agreement could help protect my loved ones from myself if I go crazy, then I might consider it. I don't trust myself enough to forever be a good spouse, because I know that bad things can happen. I don't know...maybe that means no one should marry me.
I don't think I'd want separate accounts, unless there was a significant financial reason to do so. I'm not even sure I like the idea of a pre-nuptial agreement, but I can definitely see the benefits of it. And maybe I'm not romantic enough, but I do like to plan for as many eventualities as reasonably possible.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Honestly, the idea of not having seperate checking accounts never occurred to me.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
And the idea of separate accounts never occurred to me.
My husband and I have a joint account, through which all expenses are paid. Neither of us carries the checkbook, it stays home unless one of us needs it for something (like Sam's). We do have debit cards though.
We sit down together every two weeks and pay the bills together. We balance the checkbook together. We decide on every purchase together, even at the grocery store. All gifts to each other are useful items that the other needed anyway, and we agree together to purchase them.
The only thing we don't do together as far as finances go is we each get an "allowance" in cash every pay day. This is a set amount of money we each get to spend however we see fit. We don't even ask questions of each other about how it's spent.
For instance, my husband likes eating out at work. Instead of taking his lunch, he frequently spends some of his cash on food at work. His perogative. I don't get mad, even though it'd be cheaper for him to take lunch, because that's how he chooses to spend his money.
Similarly, I enjoy taking the kids to do fun stuff, like bowling. Since it's not a necessary expense, and he doesn't enjoy it, I spend my money on it. If there's something else I want, like a book or something, I can spend my cash on that instead.
So basically, if we agree on the expense, we pay for it out of our account, but if we don't, or we just don't want to discuss it, we spend our own cash.
There is absolutely zero chance either of us could overdraw our account by accident, because both of us know to the dime how much is in it at all times.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
My husband is quite bad at not knowing how much is in his account, and overdraws it sometimes.
That would really irritate me if we had a joint account.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They were still good friends, but weren't where they wanted to be.
It dismays me to think that I, as an atheist, take my promises to God more seriously than this.
As a hardcore atheist myself, I find this statement confusing.
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
We don't have a prenup (not so common in Australia, anyway) but this thread has made me rethink some of my attitudes towards them.
Likewise with me. My intial gut reaction was 'That makes good sense, but I'll never ask my future hypothetical fiancee.' You see, I harbour an image of love that is romantic and idealistic in the extreme; 'there's one girl somewhere out there I was meant to be with, and once we meet I will dedicate my life to her absolutely'. The more rational half of my mind says that love is like a house you build with someone over time. Physical attraction can serve as a natural starting foundation, but the house is made of character, personal values and communication.
[ November 28, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think if prenups were required by law, it would stifle many of the objections being raised to them. If it's a legal requirement, then trust certainly isn't the issue. And since the law has to decipher what belongs to whom in the event of divorce, it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to require of a legal marraige contract.
Preups required by law is a horrible idea, mainly because no one has the information needed before a marriage to definitively say what they want to happen if that marriage ends. The law contains a "default" set of rules for dividing assets at the dissolution of a marriage, one that generally allows great flexibility to fit the resolution to the actual facts. Expecting people to bind themselves to an outcome without having any idea of what's really involved is unrealistic. Requiring it is wrong.
I'm also not sure a prenup makes divorces any easier to through or less contentious. I wonder if there's a study on that somewhere.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not selfish, I can hold my trip off till we find a better time. However, I have set this goal of mine in stone.
Aren't you confident that the woman you marry will understand that? I mean, I really, really like roleplaying games, but I didn't put "I get one night a month to game with friends" in a prenup.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boon: And the idea of separate accounts never occurred to me.
I didn't mean that as a moral judgement. I just tend to go with the default option in most circumstances.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
quote:When you introduce a prenup, not only are you insuring against a divorce, you are saying that you don't think that the person you are marrying is going to be reasonable throughout the divorce process. That's the kicker. How do you walk down the aisle if you don't have trust at this level?
Umm... I'm not sure that *I* would trust myself to be entirely reasonable throughout a divorce process. After watching friends break up, divorce and my parents divorce I have to say that during these situations people often think the other person is being unreasonable no matter what and the situation deteriorates from there.
I'm not sure what I think about prenups, especially since I'm a grad student so I don't really have any finances.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm not selfish, I can hold my trip off till we find a better time. However, I have set this goal of mine in stone.
Aren't you confident that the woman you marry will understand that? I mean, I really, really like roleplaying games, but I didn't put "I get one night a month to game with friends" in a prenup.
I haven't had a gf since making that goal that didn't want to join in on it. So I guess I may be lucky in that aspect. I'm sorry if that is the point that is getting across though. But this trip means a lot to me. Over the past few years, I have gone completely broke setting aside money for this. I have since gotten out of that, now that I have a good solid base for things to work.
If she can't accept the fact that I like to be out of doors camping and the like, than I don't think I would want a life long commitment with them. I would kill myself if I were trapped inside of a house all day after work (excluding chores).
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Preups required by law is a horrible idea, mainly because no one has the information needed before a marriage to definitively say what they want to happen if that marriage ends. The law contains a "default" set of rules for dividing assets at the dissolution of a marriage, one that generally allows great flexibility to fit the resolution to the actual facts.
You raise valid points. Perhaps a default prenup, that mimicks the current laws, could be available to all. Then people still have to think about it and sign it. Now I don't think is likely to happen or anything, but it is something I would like to see.
quote: And the idea of separate accounts never occurred to me.
The first time I ever heard of seperate accounts was while watching the Joy Luck Club. I have to say I don't like the idea. Not wanting to share money seems like such a stark difference from what I perceive marraige to be. And Boon, I think your system sounds very wise and good. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Kasie, I disagree on a fundemental level that who has more money automatically equals who has more power in the relationship. That has never been the determining factor in any of my relationships, and I have been on both sides of the wealth issue.
This is obviously a matter of personal opinion, but from a purely financial perspective I don't know how this cannot be the case. (Emotional power is another subject entirely.)
quote:Finally, I think saying you wouldn't want one normally but you would if the guy has kids from a previous marriage is pretty hypocritical. You're willing to combine lives and finances and what's mine is his and what's his is mine. . . except for if what's his includes providing for his children? To me, marriage includes shared responsibilities, including that of any dependants.
On this...you're probably right. I should amend what I said to include alimony toward the ex wife. But even this is hard to say just because it probably varies so much from one circumstance to another. In a case where my husband and his ex wife had an amicable, respectful relationship, I see few issues. But what if they had a bitter divorce and she goes vindictively after everything she can get her hands on? Then, well, I'd probably want one. And I feel like this wouldn't be an unreasonable or hypocritical thing, probably something the husband would want as well.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm not sure that *I* would trust myself to be entirely reasonable throughout a divorce process. After watching friends break up, divorce and my parents divorce I have to say that during these situations people often think the other person is being unreasonable no matter what and the situation deteriorates from there.
I guess I don't think that all people should get married or have kids. If you can't expect yourself to be reasonable, isn't there a bit of negligence involved in getting married to begin with?
[ November 28, 2006, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
You might be surprised what a large proportion of the human race would be barred from marriage by your criteria, Irami.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's not that I think that it should be illegal, but there is something immoral about getting married when you know you aren't emotionally equipped to handle it. It's not like drinking and driving, but in a way, it's kind of like drinking and driving.
[ November 28, 2006, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure there's a single person on this earth who can be trusted to be reasonable in all circumstances.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Then we'll just limit the cases to divorce and childrearing.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I doubt that increases the number significantly.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Ah yes, since most people are at their most reasonable when dealing with people they love behaving in ways they don't like . . . rational is certainly a word I would use to express the way parents feel about their children . . . or the way people feel when someone they thought they would bury or would bury them decides to run off with a cocktail waitress . . .
Irami, you don't make any sense.
Also, it's equipped.
[ November 28, 2006, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Samarkand ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm not sure there's a single person on this earth who can be trusted to be reasonable in all circumstances.
I, OTOH, am quite certain that there is not one. Particularly if we're dealing with such stressful and emotionally fraught things as divorce and child-rearing.
I submit that anyone who truly thinks otherwise has not dealt with either.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Aren't divorce, losing a job, and death of a parent always the top three on those lists of most stressful things an adult can have to deal with? I find it absolutely ludicrous to say that no one should get married who isn't sure they can remain reasonable during a divorce, no matter the provocation.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My husband and I do not have a prenup. We married in college so our assets were (and still are negligible). As far as who makes the most money, probably half the time he has, half the time I have and I could not even begin to guess how it will go in the future. So, we didn't see what good a prenup would actually do for us. But before we got married, I warned him that I would destroy him if need be to make sure our kids were ok. I figure that if we got a divorce, I wouldn't much like him, but I would still like the kids.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm not sure there's a single person on this earth who can be trusted to be reasonable in all circumstances.
I, OTOH, am quite certain that there is not one. Particularly if we're dealing with such stressful and emotionally fraught things as divorce and child-rearing.
I submit that anyone who truly thinks otherwise has not dealt with either.
Seconded, and thirded (my personality split just for this purpose!).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm not sure there's a single person on this earth who can be trusted to be reasonable in all circumstances. [/qb]
I, OTOH, am quite certain that there is not one. Particularly if we're dealing with such stressful and emotionally fraught things as divorce and child-rearing.
I submit that anyone who truly thinks otherwise has not dealt with either.
Isn't that sort of on the same hand? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not really. You are unsure. I am sure.
(I feel like a deodorant ad.)
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: The first time I ever heard of seperate accounts was while watching the Joy Luck Club. I have to say I don't like the idea. Not wanting to share money seems like such a stark difference from what I perceive marraige to be.
Separate accounts doesn't necessarily mean not wanting to share money.
While my husband and I have separate accounts, we absolutely share money! We both buy groceries, pay the mortgage, petrol etc - whosever account we use is simply the one with the more money in it (and as I am paid monthly in arrears and Tony is paid fortnightly, this cycles). If one of us is running short in their account, the other will transfer money over. We use each other's EFTPOS cards and know each other's PINs. (Tony even lost my eftpos card and then found it an hour after I cancelled it - but that's another story).
We make financial decisions together and know what we're spending our money on. We just do it from two different accounts.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It makes me wonder why you two even have separate accounts, since you treat them as a single account.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: My husband is quite bad at not knowing how much is in his account, and overdraws it sometimes.
That would really irritate me if we had a joint account.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thank you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I remember because it is essentially the same reason why my ex and I used to have two separate joint accounts -- both names on each, but one was "mine" and one was "his."
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
That is one reason.
But the main one is we're lazy! These are the accounts we had before we met, and we've just never changed them.
Oh, also Tony has to have his account with a certain bank for work reasons (boring and convuluted). For whatever reason, he can't set up internet banking on that account. I have internet banking on my account and I like it.
So if we were to consolidate, I'd have to first make sure I could set up internet banking on Tony's account (which would probably stop him overdrawing so much) and then do it. And... meh. That's where laziness comes in again.
(We each pay about $5/year in bank fees - so the cons of separate accounts are pretty low).
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: My husband and I do not have a prenup. We married in college so our assets were (and still are negligible).
This describes us too ( and we've been out of college for 13 years). Once when we were fighting and DH wanted to throw in the towel, I told him we couldn't afford to divorce. He had to allow that while not impossible, we'd have to really, really hate each other to deal with the finacial repurcussions. I guess it's a wierd kind of security.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
We didn't get one either. We couldn't afford it. That brings up the question, do those who can't afford them statistaclly need them more? Are they more or less prone to ugly divorces that leave one or both spouces financially devestated?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I have a friend who is still married to her husband although she has not even seen him in five years. They have a son, and he owes her a ridiculous sum in child support, but apparently he moved across the country and takes under-the-table jobs, so no one can find him to nail him for that. She can barely pay rent, much less get a divorce.
I don't know what the point of that story was except that sometimes, crazy things happen.
-pH
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm still not understanding how having a prenup is a "realist" approach, when I'm saying that if you feel the need for a prenup you really shouldn't get married. To me, it sounds like these prenups lower the bar for what is acceptable amount of understanding one should have about the dedication entailed in marriage. If you are saying you responsible to get a prenup, and I'm saying that it's irresponsible for you to get married.
[ November 30, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:I'm still not understanding how having a prenup is a "realist" approach, when I'm saying that if you feel the need for a prenup you really shouldn't get married.
Don't confuse Realist and Feel.
Many people have questionable feelings, easily confused by hormones, lies, and assumptions.
Your saying, "If you think you need a pre-nup you aren't committed enough to get married." is like saying "If you think you need car insurance, you aren't committed enough to safe driving to own a car."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:That brings up the question, do those who can't afford them statistically need them more?
I don't know about need, but I have read that the poorer you are, the more likely it is you will divorce.
Whether that is causation or correlation or a complicated mixture of the two, I don't know.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
quote:I'm still not understanding how having a prenup is a "realist" approach, when I'm saying that if you feel the need for a prenup you really shouldn't get married.
Don't confuse Realist and Feel.
Many people have questionable feelings, easily confused by hormones, lies, and assumptions.
Your saying, "If you think you need a pre-nup you aren't committed enough to get married." is like saying "If you think you need car insurance, you aren't committed enough to safe driving to own a car."
You're also projecting. You see the difference between "I wouldn't marry someone who felt they needed a prenup" and "If you feel you need a prenup you shouldn't marry".
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Looks like we may have to make an additional clause on our PNA. "The Alpaca Clause." It could be a legal thriller novel. Or a Christmas movie starring Tim Allen.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
They have a son, and he owes her a ridiculous sum in child support, but apparently he moved across the country and takes under-the-table jobs, so no one can find him to nail him for that. She can barely pay rent, much less get a divorce.