posted
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.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 33 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya sound like somebody'd who'd burn all of the assets on lawyers rather than give the girl her fair share.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally consider prenups outrageously tacky, but then lots of people do lots of things I find tacky. *shrug*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.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.
