Should a married couple separate, there will be rules that apply to their financial affairs --either legislated rules, or rules agreed upon by way of a pre-nup. Since there will be rules, why not at least take the opportunity to pick the rules, rather than be stuck with rules that you have not picked.
It would not be a deal breaker for me. I’m too old and too cynical to be a romantic with respect to practical issues. If either one of us are walking into the marriage with substantial assets, each or both of us have a right and a duty to protect them… Even more important if there are children from previous marriages involved. Love is love and money is money and the are equally capable of destroying each other! Divorce is a fact of life. I tend to look at facts as opposed to fantasies and dreams when making practical decisions.
Well, if otherwise division of the assets would be 50%, and your pre-nup specifies a 90/10 split, I’d argue that one person is protecting their 90% at the expense of the other’s 40%.
Having fire insurance implies that you don’t trust the electrical wiring in your house, or your oven, or your ability to be mistake-free with candles 100%.
Having disability insurance implies that you don’t trust other drivers, or your automobile’s engineering, or your balance while standing on a ladder, or your genetic predisposition to diseases 100%.
But having “divorce insurance” implies that you just plain **don’t trust your spouse as a decent human being **100%.
Now, given the divorce rate in this country, that’s a practical stance to take. But it certainly goes against the fundamental “till death do us part” aspect so heavily ingrained into the concept of marriage.
The assets will not necessarily be divided 50-50 if there is no prenup. You might actually need a prenup to ensure that the assets would be divided that way!
So as long as your spouse is a decent human being, there’s no chance that you will end up getting a divorce? I don’t think I agree with that.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. My perspective is that a pre-nup doesn’t really protect you against having a divorce (it’s not really “insurance” in that regard, and shouldn’t be treated as such), but protects you if the other person gets spiteful/greedy/unfair during the actual divorce proceedings, something that an otherwise decent human being would abstain from.
I think most normal people would grow somewhat spiteful, greedy, and unfair during divorce proceedings. Divorce is a horrible experience and it brings out the worst in people. If you don’t believe there’s any chance at all that your spouse would act badly under those circumstances, I’d say you have illusions about your spouse.
It certainly can and does go that way sometimes.
But, say a man is wealthy…maybe he has $10M in assets. He has his prospective bride sign a pre-nup and they marry. Maybe later on, he meets another woman and starts having an affair with her because…well, because he has no fear of being cleaned out in a divorce.
I.e. hypothetically, does a pre-nup sometimes give one person carte blanche to do whatever they want? Forget the affair, maybe the person won’t feel they have to work at the marriage. Human nature, absolute power corrupting absolutely, all that…
It seems like the person requiring one may be saying, “I don’t trust you…but you have to trust me.”
I don’t know about that. I want my wife to have carte blanche to do whatever she wants. That’s what makes it meaningful that she doesn’t. Or doesn’t want to do anything destructive to our marriage.
Personally, I think that I’m just not the type of person that would act that way, even under those circumstances, so I’d like to think that my spouse isn’t either. I’m willing to take that risk.
But I’ve never had to experience a divorce before, nor did my spouse and I have an income disparity when we got married, so perhaps I’m just naive.
/shrugs.
I don’t think that’s an accurate description of my position.
Because I view marriage as a union, not just a co-operative partnership. There isn’t any longer a ‘my half is bigger than your half’.
I disagree that it’s a ‘gauze of goodwill’ - it’s a fundamentally different approach and view. It’s just impossible to reconcile a pre-nup with the vows I made - it would have been dishonest to try that. The vows could be altered to suit, then the whole deal is different anyway - not jinxed - different.
Right. No one is saying you are retarded for not having a prenup. There are those of us that feel that someone being willing to set ground rules up front and not only protect themselves but also protect you from a long, drawn out, emotional situation. While they love you and will fight to the bitter end to keep what you have alive and well they also realize that the world is not perfect and that it is smart to take precautions to protect yourself and to protect your spouse from you should either of you end up being petty and vindictive for some reason some day. To us it isn’t about a lack of trust, it is about love and protection. It is a fundamentally different approach and view. To say that someone can’t have a prenup and trust their spouse 100% is as ignorant a view as saying that someone who doesn’t get a prenup is asking to be anally reamed in court one day.
If you’re talking about my post, I was basically agreeing with another poster that the fact of a divorce doesn’t mean the vows were never meant. No, I don’t think anybody puts that sort of thing in a prenup. I don’t think you can, and I don’t think it’s necessary. As far as I know, prenups only account for a few situations differently- there may be different splits depending on who wants the divorce or how long the marriage lasted, but I’ve never heard of one where the underlying reason for the divorce made a difference.
I don’t see it as an issue of trust (or lack of), but rather, commitment.
When I say commitment I’m not talking about emotional investment, but rather: without a pre-nup, everything is committed to the union, with a pre-nup, some things are reserved and uncommitted.
You may feel that unconditional commitment is inappropriate, unnecessary or risky - I don’t know. I consider it essential.
Like so many of you I have an overactive imagination. Here’s how it would work for me.
I’d buy a lottery ticket and win $250M or something. I’d meet a lovely girl and want to marry her. But I’d think, 'Gee, maybe I need a pre-nup." She’s be upset but genuinely love me and sign it.
Then, I’d get in a car accident. They’d have me on life support and she, being the next of kin, would be the decision maker. ‘Let’s see…if he’s dead, I’m a widow and get it all. If he’s alive, nothing.’
:smack::eek:
That depends on the jurisdiction.
You know, this really is a framing issue. Because everything that can be laid out in a prenup, and seen as one party reserving something and protecting himself can also be seen as the other party making a gift. Let's say I'm widowed, and I decide to remarry. When my first husband died , I was left with a house and his business which I want to leave to our children. Second husband and I sign a prenup in which this house and business are kept out of any potential property division. Have I reserved something? Has he given me the gift of not having to worry about being able to pass them on to my children? Could it be both? I don't see how you could tell from the outside who was protecting who.
As it happens, in my state separate property is generally not included in a property division and if I wanted to unconditionally commit in the way I think you mean, I would have to sign a prenup which included my separate property in the division. If I left the division to the court in case of divorce, the separate property wouldn’t be included.
I’m another of the “poor as a church mouse” variety and we also didn’t have a pre-nup. However, if I were ever in the position to consider marriage again (which ain’t bloody likely), I’d think it was a smart idea no matter what either of your stations are in life. Just another thing that you hope never happens (like accidents or unplanned pregnancies), but that you plan your best for anyway just in case.
I don’t think it negates your commitment or means your that much more ready to throw in the towel. It simply means you’ve both got an extra layer of protection, like insurance.
I see my marriage as bringing another person into my family. I don’t have written agreements with my brother or sister. My parents didn’t ask me to sign any documents when I was brought into the mix. Should any of them have trouble or get old they are trusting me somewhat to do the right thing just as I trust them. Yeah, I may be a big jerk and take my family for all I can get, it happens, but you have to trust somebody sometime and after enough years go by we do learn who can be trusted and who can’t. That’s the same way I feel about my spouse and my sibling’s spouses. They are in the family now and there is no separate contingency for dealing with them. Yes, my spouse could make off with my great aunts ring, the same way my sister made off with that chest of my grandfather’s or my cousin somehow ended up with his beach house (conniving ass-kisser.) Ah, family… At least I had a chance to get to know my wife before handing her the reigns of power.
If you don’t find that argument as contrived as I do, that’s fine, really. But gifts aren’t usually something you have to ask for. It’s not a gift, it’s more like a wish list.
It’s absolutely more like a wish list if it was asked for. But how do you know from the outside if it was asked for? You don’t. That’s what I mean about framing. It doesn’t occur to you that second husband could have come up with the idea on his own. Change it around just a little. Instead of signing a prenup saying that my house remains separate, we sign papers adding his name to the deed. Do you assume he asked me to do that? Is it possible that it was my idea?