For me my first marriage ended fairly amicably because we didn’t have a whole lot of possessions to fight over anyway. My second marriage was a whole other story though. I won’t bore you with the details except to say that our net worth was roughly about the same going into the marriage, with her making about 1/3 more than me in income.
The divorce process was pure hell. What should have taken 6 months or so took almost 18 months. In my case I’m convinced that the lawyers on both sides were making things worse*. I have forgotten whose lawyer fired the first shot but if anything they were making matters worse. I was digging in my heals and so was she. This baby was heading for divorce court.
At around the 15 month point my stress level was peaking and I was drinking way to much. I was ready for some sort of compromise, so I e-mailed her a long letter, trying to sound as conciliatory as possible. I even suggested that we just go with her lawyer ( who seemed way more competent than mine anyway ) and I would let my lawyer go.
About four hours later she called me and asked if she could come over and talk about it. I could tell in her voice that she was excited. I guess the stress was getting to her as well.
Over the next few hours and a few cups of coffee we came to an agreement over all of the major issues. Just to be clear, all of these issues involved money and possessions.
The reason I started this thread is that in our case anyway a pre-nuptial in theory should have solved most if not all of our disagreements and saved us a heck of a lot of grief.
What do you think of pre-nuptials? Would you sign one or is this a complete deal breaker for you?
If I ever find a woman that I want to marry I’m pretty sure that I will insist on one.
I’m not bagging on all lawyers, from my perspective though, it seems that the situation was made harder and more bitter because of them.
I think it depends entirely on how much money and posessions each person has coming into the marriage.
If both people are as poor as church mice - well, not much point. If both have about equal assets/earning potential - eh, I think I would skip it. However, if one partner is loaded and the other has nothing, I suppose it’s not a bad idea. Or if both are rolling in the dough.
However, my understanding (based 100% on celeb. weddings and 0% on any actual knowledge) is that there are about 1,000,000 things that will make a pre. nup. invalid, such as having children, or a really good lawyer.
There’s this woman I know…let’s call her Miss Gotrocks. Drives a Benz, has a pricey condo, yadda. She’s always flirting with me (God knows why) and I, Mr. Notgotrocks, have never really taken her seriously.
I don’t know how you get to the point of marriage without money becoming an issue. I.e. how would I date Miss Gotrocks? She’d want to hop a flight to Paris…well, I guess I could drive her to Paris, Texas.
If there’s a real disparity in wealth, I think it will bog down the relationship long before marriage and pre-nups are an issue. I think it’s camouflaged longer if the roles are reversed because men wine and dine women.
My general advice would be to date someone who has roughly what you do so that the pre-nup isn’t an issue.
I wouldn’t get married without one no matter how much money was involved before we got married simply because it provides a pretty clear set of rules in a divorce proceeding should you ever need them. It allows you to decide the way things should be handled if your relationship ends before all of your fantasies involve stabbing him in the eye with a spork. It is about protecting assets and stuff, yeah, but as far as I am concerned it is mostly about agreeing to what is fair and unfair before everything gets out of hand. Hopefully it is never needed and can gather dust in a drawer somewhere, but if you ever do need it you are better off having it than not.
This is how I feel too. It seems sensible to me for both of us to come to an agreement about what’s fair when we both are in a mood to be fair and kind to each other, rather than hoping to be able to come to a fair conclusion when one or both of us might be angry or vindictive.
There usually is an income disparity in my relationships, since I am a future physician who actively avoids dating male physicians. It really isn’t a problem for me in other aspects of the relationship, since I do value the non-monetary things that guys other women overlook for not being wealthy enough can offer.
In a simple situation where no children are involved I would have no problem with someone with a lot more money than I have wanting a pre-nup. It isn’t their responsibility to keep me in the style they’ve allowed me to become accustomed to if things don’t work out, regardless of who is at fault. Even if finances were fairly equal I wouldn’t mind. If something happened to my partner and I decided to get married to someone else I’d definitely make sure that they aren’t going to get my house or my savings.
It is not a dealbreaker at all. Going into marriage thinking that problems won’t occur if we don’t think about them is a really stupid and immature strategy.
As I understand it ** Alice ** the state decides things like alimony or child support if children are involved. I could be talking out of my ass on that point though because I really haven’t done much research on the matter.
** Lobotomy ** As I stated in the OP, we had roughly the same net worth going into the marriage, so in my case at least, being equals money and possessions wise, didn’t help.
I can’t imagine a pre-nup being a deal breaker. Yeah, talking about one isn’t exactly romantic, but marriage is often unromantic. There are practical concerns that you should think about in the beginning, your finances (current and future) and “what-ifs” included.
My husband and I don’t have one, though we did discuss it. At the time, I looked at it like discussing taking out a life insurance policy. You don’t want to talk about dying or becoming disabled, but it could happen and you want to be prepared if it does.
I think a pre-nup is a good idea and like the life insurance analogy. The things pre-nups try to take care of probably need discussion up front. In fact it might be a pretty useful way of getting important things out where we can all deal with them.
>If both partners really mean their wedding vows, then there can be no use for a pre-nup.
The important question is whether people really meaning their wedding vows during the wedding ceremony guarantees there can be no use for a pre-nup years later. Pre-nups really are no use during wedding ceremonies. The trouble is that wedding vows are often not much use later.
See, to me if both partners really mean their wedding vows and have no use for a pre-nup then having one will cause no harm. If both partners really mean their wedding vows and something goes horribly wrong then they will have it in place to protect them. It is kind of like parachutes in a plane…you hope to all that is good and right in the world that you will never need them but if it ever so happens that there is a need you will be glad you have one.
I agree in normal conditions. But I have been married 37+ years. Everything we have is ours and has been from the start.
But there is a time for one. Example Bill owns a business and plans on his som taking over at a future date. Bill is married to Beth. Bill dies, Beth marries Bob and keeps the business going with son running it, but not owning it. Beth still needs the income as owner. Beth dies. Bob descides that he can sell the business and invest the money with a greater rate of return. The sson now has to buy the business he built or he is out of job.
If Beth had a pernup about the business, and in her will left the business to her son, then what Bill had in mind would happen. This is based on a true story.
But just to keep something out of your mates hands that do not have other ties, I think that is the first step to divorce.
>But just to keep something out of your mates hands that do not have other ties, I think that is the first step to divorce.
Yes, maybe so. And still it may be a good idea. I’m pretty ambivalent at the moment whether the idea of divorce lurking in the background is more a help or a hinderance. Maybe this is a dark view, in fact the more I consider it the darker it looks - but I think in a way it’s more honest, too.
Depends on the situation. If someone has familial assets to protect, or children from a previous relationship to provide for, no problem. If not, I really don’t see the point. If we were both fairly established in our careers I’d be bemused, but if we were both starting out with nothing, I’d be actively offended.
Especially when there’s a massive difference in earning potential. The careers that wind up bringing in the big bucks, the early years tend to suck. Really, really hard. Not just for the person with the job, but for the spouse. I wouldn’t relive the years of DoctorJ’s residency if it would save the life of everyone on the planet and earn me a trillion bucks to boot, it sucked that much. To ask someone to put themselves through that and simultaneously make it cheaper and easier for you to get rid of them once you’re ready to trade them in for a newer model…if he’d asked me for such a thing, I’d have told him to go fuck himself sideways with a rusty spike.
If he wants to get rid of me after the years and sacrifices I’ve put into building the life we’ve currently got, he can jolly well pay through the nose for the privilege. Of course, neither of us needs an exit strategy, because neither of us is going anywhere.
I disagree. I think it is, or can be, a way of saying “I don’t trust you”.
A pre-nup would in fact have negated part of the wedding vows I took ( “…all that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you…”).
It’s simply incompatible with my concept of marriage.
Eh? If something goes horribly wrong, doesn’t that indicate that they didn’treally mean their vows?
Nashiitashii and I are having one drawn up and we are the “poor as churchmice” variety. It’s not a deal breaker, it’s just common sense. I have little assets but no debt. She has some assets, and a large student loan debt. It makes sense for us to have a prenup so in case things go disastrously wrong, I’m not stuck with half her debt, and she doesn’t lose half her assets to me just because we were married. Anyone who cannot be objective about such things wouldn’t be marriage material to me at any rate.
A pre-nup doesn’t have to cover absolutely everything, either, setting out the ultimate terms for every issue in a potential divorce ahead of time; it can be limited to a small number of critical questions, or even just one. I dated a woman for over a year who made it clear that marriage would require a prenup because of some property she holds in Europe. It’s been in her family for many generations, and she wants to make sure, no matter what happens (divorce, her death, etc), the property reverts back to and stays with her family, rather than winding up in the husband’s hands somehow. As far as I recall, that was her sole concern when considering marriage. It’s possible a couple of other issues might have wound up in a prenup but that was the main one she was worried about. It makes sense, certainly.
