posted
First off -- no, I'm not getting married. Perish the thought.
I just was reading an article MSN this morning about prenups and, once again, I have no idea where I land on this issue.
On the one hand, if you're getting married today it's pretty likely you will also get divorced. Should the worst happen you want to be prepared. Prenups are like life insurance -- you don't want to admit that you'll die, but you have to recognize the possibility and prepare for it accordingly.
On the other hand, signing a prenup is admitting the possibility that your marriage will fail, which is not at all the mindset you should take into your marriage. I can easily see how a person could decide that if their partner wants a prenup it shows a lack of faith in their relationship.
On the third hand, prenups are really only useful if there's a significant wealth disparity between the parties, i.e., one of you has a lot more to lose than the other (see Spears, Britney and Federline, Cletus). So maybe for a lot of us they're more hassle than they're worth.
Anybody have any insights on this that I'm missing?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For couples with no children, I don't like them - it is too much like expecting to fail.
However, when there is a signifigant wealth disparity and especially when one or more parties already has children, then I think it is a very good idea, especially when there is both. Not having one is messing your children's financial stability and lives, and that's not okay.
Second marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than first marriages.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, the reason you want to get a divorce is sometimes because the person you're married to no longer seems like the wonderful, kind, sharing person you married.
Maybe it's "Sorry you turned into a nutcase" insurance.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Makes it seem like both parties have the divorce lawyer on speed dial before they even get the ring.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it takes money out of the picture, so if things do get tough, you have one less point of contention when trying to work it out.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: On the other hand, signing a prenup is admitting the possibility that your marriage will fail, which is not at all the mindset you should take into your marriage.
False. A good prenup (and many bad ones) also deals with how certain things (such as money) will be handled during the marriage. It should also include things that will prevent divorce (such as an agreement that the couple will see a therapist for a minimum of x months before getting a divorce will be considered). Some states now have such prenups as an option for couples getting married. Many religious groups do as well -- some for thousands of years.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I can easily see how a person could decide that if their partner wants a prenup it shows a lack of faith in their relationship.
And I can easily see how refusing to sign one can indicate a lack of concern for the other in a worst-case scenario. Relationships aren't magic. Neither is love or marriage. Planning for the worst case is a good way to avoid it. Burying your head in the sand isn't -- quite the contrary.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: On the third hand, prenups are really only useful if there's a significant wealth disparity between the parties, i.e., one of you has a lot more to lose than the other (see Spears, Britney and Federline, Cletus).
Absolutely disagree. In fact, if a wealth disparity is the main reason for a prenup, I think you're in trouble to start with.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then it seems we're diametrically opposed on this issue. Sign #12,786 that you and I will never be married, eh?
Now we're getting somewhere, though. I need a good, solid disagreement to help me figure out what I think and why.
What do you think is the best reason for a prenup? Or the situation in which it would be most beneficial? It seems that you'd want one in situations where I wouldn't even consider one.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Then it seems we're diametrically opposed on this issue. Sign #12,786 that you and I will never be married, eh?
Aren't we in the six digits yet?
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: What do you think is the best reason for a prenup? Or the situation in which it would be most beneficial? It seems that you'd want one in situations where I wouldn't even consider one.
I actually think every couple should have one. And more importantly, should discuss the issues involved -- how they will handle money, what they will do when they have disagreements they cannot settle, etc. -- IN DETAIL before they get married.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people cite prenups as being necessary when the spouses each have children from other relationships. There's also often talk of "protecting" assets from ex-spouses (which would protect one's children from the new marriage).
A prenup can be important in these situations, but it is not always sufficient. Other documents are often needed, especially with respect to claims by ex-spouses. I really worry that people do prenups without doing the other aspects of estate planning that are essential to accomplishing the goal of protecting one's children financially.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: What do you think is the best reason for a prenup? Or the situation in which it would be most beneficial? It seems that you'd want one in situations where I wouldn't even consider one.
I actually think every couple should have one. And more importantly, should discuss the issues involved -- how they will handle money, what they will do when they have disagreements they cannot settle, etc. -- IN DETAIL before they get married.
I agree, but I don't think that anything legally binding is necessary for things like that. If you can't come to an agreement over who will pay bills, how you'll deal with money, and stuff like that then not having a prenup is the least of your worries.
I wasn't aware that prenups typically dealt with stuff like that, so that's something to think about. I do like the idea of setting down what steps you'd take before divorce, counseling or mediation or therapy or whatever.
When I think prenup, I really only think of a document detailing the dividing of assets upon the dissolution of the marriage.
I think many of the things you'd have a prenup cover could be taken care of by mutual agreement and trust. Your way is safer, but I hate to picture the relationship where someone would have to threaten their partner with a signed contract to get them to pay the water bill on time.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: A good prenup (and many bad ones) also deals with how certain things (such as money) will be handled during the marriage. It should also include things that will prevent divorce (such as an agreement that the couple will see a therapist for a minimum of x months before getting a divorce will be considered). Some states now have such prenups as an option for couples getting married. Many religious groups do as well -- some for thousands of years.
Prenups are extremely common in this culture, whether the marriage is an arranged one or a love match. It deals with things like who brings what assets into the marriage, who continues to own them after the marriage, if things change at some point down the road, what happens to those assets upon divorce or death of one or the other spouse. Who controls/deals with monetary matters is also typically covered, I believe.
I like the idea of writing into the prenup clauses for marriage counselling and the like.
I'm not against prenups - I think they're a good idea. I think that they can be very useful for helping couples discuss some important issues before marriage occurs, and I think they can be useful for setting some reasonable ground rules.
A couple of friends of mine, before they got married, had a sort of prenup - not written up by lawyers, but amongst themselves - that involved things like the rules they wanted their family to live by. They hashed out the details beforehand, discussed a lot of important issues like childraising, and came to a pretty decent consensus. I think it's cool. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I believe adultery is the only valid cause for divorce (though other things might make separation necessary), my version of a prenup would go like this:
In the event of divorce, if one spouse has committed adultery and the other has not, the adulterer gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
If neither has committed adultery, the person initiating the divorce gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
Marriage is forever, with one exception. (That's what Jesus said, no I don't want to argue about it.)
I'd be fine to sign a prenup like this. In fact I almost had one drawn up before I got married but I just never got around to it because I didn't really expect it to be necessary.
But a prenup like this I don't see as planning to fail. Rather, the laws used to protect innocent spouses from adulterous ones, and now they don't. It's merely using a specific contract to replace the protections that used to be covered automatically.
The other kind of prenup, "if we get divorced, I keep what I had, you keep what you had" does seem to be a tacit assumption that divorce is inevitable or at least perfectly likely.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Your way is safer, but I hate to picture the relationship where someone would have to threaten their partner with a signed contract to get them to pay the water bill on time.
So do I. Having the document can be sufficient. If it is used as a "stick," not only does it seriously damage the relationship, it rapidly loses any power.
The power of a prenup comes from both parties having agreed to it and keeping it in mind. Not from using it as a weapon.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any general opinions about prenups. I decided that I didn't want/need one, and left it at that. I have no opinion about whether others should/should not get them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My office (estate planning attorneys) does prenups on occasion. Most of them are in cases where one (or sometimes both) party has been previously married and has provisions in their documents for the prior spouse and/or children from the first marriage. Either specific bequests or specific disinheritance.
The vast majority of the prenups we draw up cover details such as insurance coverage (both health and life), ownership and maintenance of residences and vehicles (especially when these are brought into the marriage), employment issues ("salary" for a stay-at-home spouse) and spousal maintenance in case of divorce (including a breakdown of how much is paid based on the length of the marriage).
One memorable prenup we did also included details of how many children the parties agreed to have and financial "incentives" (for lack of a better word) to meet that objective. Very TomKat, frankly, but almost 5 years earlier.
As Dag said, there are several other documents that we do in conjunction with these. Wills, trusts, powers of attorney, living wills, even deeds to homes to make sure they're retitled into the names of both parties as husband and wife. Unfortunately, because they generally make reference to the other party as "my spouse", they can't be executed till the marriage is legal. We've been burned on occasion when we've gotten everything ready and suddenly the wedding doesn't happen.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that prenups are pessimistic by nature and that people who believe they might be necessary should get them.
Those who don't believe they might be necessary may still be best served by having a prenup, but like any other form of insurance you need to consider the costs and risks involved.
A prenup involves going through a number of potentially difficult processes: apportioning assets, custody of children, support payments, etc. This could be an emotionally trying and contentious discussion to have with your spouse or spouse-to-be. That cost has to be weighed against the risk that a divorce may occur and that you and your spouse will not be able to have the same conversation equitably at the time of the divorce.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT do you keep count on the number of reasons you're not marrying each female hatracker? If so what number are we at? I don't do numbers.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: One memorable prenup we did also included details of how many children the parties agreed to have and financial "incentives" (for lack of a better word) to meet that objective.
Financial incentives to have children could get very strange if fertility issues came up. Particularly if the "incentivizer" was the one with the problem.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see where it be a good thing - especially if there are chattels from another marriage, or indeed children whose interests need to be protected.
However my gut reaction is that a prenuptial agreement is a cold cold thing. I agreed to better or worse and 'til death us do part, and I like to think I'm a man of my word.
True, I was 33 when I got married, my wife 35 and it was not something we rushed into, but nevertheless...
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I actually think every couple should have one. And more importantly, should discuss the issues involved -- how they will handle money, what they will do when they have disagreements they cannot settle, etc. -- IN DETAIL before they get married.
I am totally with you on this. I can see the value of a prenup because, as someone else said, it makes money less of an issue. And aren't finances a huge reason that a large number of marriages fail? I think I'd like to not have to worry about that kind of thing if I got married, and we were having problems. Less opportunity to become bitter and angry toward one's spouse. And if you did get divorced, I expect it'd make for much less nastiness.
posted
I will insist on a prenup. The person I marry will understand this or, more likely, be as vehement about it as I am. A person I'm in a relationship with not wanting a prenup could and likely would be a deal breaker for me.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: JT do you keep count on the number of reasons you're not marrying each female hatracker? If so what number are we at? I don't do numbers.
Not generally -- the women of hatrack are overwhelmingly safe from me. But if you want, breyer, I can start you at #1 -- you don't do numbers. Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...you only list reasons for those Hatrackers with whom marriage is conceivable and therefore reasons must be listed in order to prevent an error?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT and I can never be married because he didn't answer the phone when my idiot friend locked us out of the bathroom, and I needed to find someone who knew how to use tools.
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Since I believe adultery is the only valid cause for divorce (though other things might make separation necessary), my version of a prenup would go like this:
In the event of divorce, if one spouse has committed adultery and the other has not, the adulterer gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
If neither has committed adultery, the person initiating the divorce gets 0% and the other gets 100%.
What are your thoughts regarding spousal abuse? Should someone being abused (for the sake of example, let's say several trips to the ER with black eyes and broken bones) be only permitted a legal separation, not divorce, from his or her abuser [and if a divorce is granted, be permitted none of the marital assets]?
----
Edited to add: I'm asking because this strikes me as an intriguingly bare bones view of divorce leniancy, and the conclusions I draw from it about what you believe in certain cases would be unexpected ones for me. I'm not trying to get you to defend yourself, by the way, just to clarify whether or not you intend to mean what I take you to mean.
Of course, if you want to explain or elaborate, that's totally up to you. I won't be pressing the point of why you believe it, though.
posted
Maybe he has a broad definition of adultery--that if your spouse abuses you, he or she has already committed a severe betrayal of your marriage vows.
On the original topic...
I like to look at prenups as contracts to protect your spouse if YOU ever go crazy and lose your mind. And the other party should look at it in the same way. However, I don't have a prenup. We both came to this marriage with nothing, and we're not getting out of it alive. Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Maybe he has a broad definition of adultery--that if your spouse abuses you, he or she has already committed a severe betrayal of your marriage vows.
*nods
I would find that less surprising. It would, of course, mean that a lot of complexity gets packed into one of the words of an otherwise very straightforward sentence, but that happens all the time.
I do find it more useful when that complexicity is explicitly acknowledged, though, since without the acknowledgement, the evaluation of the situation looks more straightforward and simple than it really is.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A prenup involves going through a number of potentially difficult processes: apportioning assets, custody of children, support payments, etc.
It should be noted that agreements concerning the custody of children are not inherently enforceable.
I see a large value to agreeing to elements that can't be enforced in court, but I think it's important that people explicitly acknowledge that such elements of an agreement are not intended to be legally binding.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Divorce isn't something that takes a couple by surprise, against their will, like a lightning strike or a plane crash. It is something that at least one of the partners must choose. If you do a prenuptial agreement, you are choosing to leave the option to divorce open. My fiancee and I already made our decision that we will never divorce. *That* is our prenuptial agreement.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that couples who decide not to have prenups are somehow romantically superior to those who decide to have them somewhat irks me. Signing a prenup is not equivalent to going into a marriage expecting it to fail.
posted
I believe in estate planning, and open and clear communication between husband and wife regarding finances. If my husband died and I re-married I would want to do all I could to safeguard my children and the assets I bring into my new marriage for the sake of my children's inheritance. I have, unfortunately, seen it too many times where a person remarries after a death and the new stepfamily gets everything and the other children get nothing. I'm not even talking about money necessarily, but things like family heirlooms with no real value except sentiment, sold or given away by the new stepmom out of spite, just to keep the adult child from having it. Ugly, ugly situations - and I've seen it more than once, in my own family when I would have told you before that nothing like that would ever happen.
So, if either Wes or I remarry after the other's death, we have both expressed how we want our four children to be protected. And with my cancer diagnosis last year, we did discuss these issues. Everyone should discuss them, not just after a diagnosis of a serious illness.
But pre-nups in a first marriage situation where neither person has children - no, I can't see me ever wanting to do that.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they can be useful too! I like the idea of signing an agreement that's completely symmetrical (that is, whatever one spouse is held to, the other spouse is as well), and each spouse thinking of it as protecting the other in the event they themselves go crazy.
At the very least, it means you've thought about what your life together will be like in detail, and that you agree. Also, words written down do have a weight that words spoken don't have. I think it can be a wonderful extension of one's marriage vows.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I want to watch that movie with N.O.M.A.N. In it. I'd never associated that with Noemon before. But now I will. "let Noemon put us asunder."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's cute when people say that they will NEVER consider divorce (who goes into marriage thinking, "I'm probably going to divorce this one in 5 years, but it will be fun until then"?), but at the same time it's so naive.
I had no intention of getting divorced, but when my ex flipped out and started behaving completely differently from when we got married, lying to me regularly, refusing to come into physical contact with me in any way, and refusing to make any efforts to do anything about it, divorce seemed like the better option to a life of misery for the both of us.
Call me whatever names you like, I'd much rather be a quitter and a sinner and a horrible husband or any other judgments you care to make, and be happy and in a healthy relationship.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess that makes two camps: the "cute" and "naive" camp, and the ones that suspect they may be called "sinner" and "quitter" and "horrible."
I've decided not to be a horrible quitting sinner *or* a naif. I'd decide not be cute, but some things just can't be helped.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's important to plan ahead for all possibilities in any undertaking, and marriage is no exception. Maybe it is cold, but that doesn't mean it isn't the smart thing to do. People can change. Unexpected things happen. I don't think I will ever get divorced (I figure, hey, I'm so impossibly rational that I wouldn't get married unless I thought it was a sure thing), but I'm still going to get a prenup.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Qaz, you don't see how it could be a little irritating to read responses like, "Well, I'M never going to get divorced, so obviously signing a prenup is like deciding ahead of time that your marriage is going to fail. Just don't get divorced!"?
I'd like to think that most people don't go into their marriages thinking that this is just something they're going to try out for a while. That doesn't mean that divorce can always be avoided just because it generally doesn't happen overnight. I think the most damaging part of divorce is the squabbling over property. That's when people seem to get the most vindictive. I also don't think most couples really do thoroughly think about finances before they get married, and I wish that more of them would.
A prenup may be a sign that one is planning for failure.
Lacking a prenup may be a sign that one is not planning at all.
Its like Sex Ed and Free Condoms in schools. They may be planning for failure in regards to virginity, but I think its better than no planning at all.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
