My husband suggested a pre-nup, but to protect me, not him. Both of us have our own family money, and I wouldn’t have been offended if he wanted one to protect himself, too. Planning for the wedding was so hectic, though, that neither of us signed a pre-nup. We might still sign something along those lines, though I doubt it. (We’re both fairly lazy when it comes to stuff like that - I’m still not on the deed to the condo, but will be sometime eventually. We don’t even have a joint account because neither of us has gotten around to it.)
Anyway, I can’t imagine why being asked to sign a pre-nup would be offensive. Divorces can be very ugly. I think that something that protects both parties is a good thing.
Once I got old enough to start dating seriously, I told my mother not to let me get married without a prenup (both for money and for a get.) That way, when my hypothetical fiance and I are all starry-eyed and in love, I won’t be forced to bring up the awkward topic myself when I probably won’t want to even think about it.
I would not have signed a pre-nup, and I would have been pretty offended had my SO (now wife) asked. Then again, we both agreed, so it’s easy for me to say that. I’m not sure how I would have felt had it actually happened.
I was going to say I’m against the whole idea, but I suppose there should be exceptions. I think it depends on how the marriage breaks up. If the party that came into the marriage with less blatantly cheats on the spouse, then perhaps I could agree that s/he should get zip. But if the marriage breaks up due to irreconcilable differences, loss of consortium, or any other reason besides a willful violation, then I think the poorer spouse should be entitled to something. Not half of the other spouse’s property, but something.
Legal question. In community property states, can a prenup trump the law?
Sooner or later the marriage is going to end (death or divorce. Hopefully, the former - after many, many happy years. But still, then it will be over), and something has to be done with the stuff.
And it is better to have that discussion up front while everyone is happy than during a time of grieving and/or out and out hatred and hostility.
So, no, being handed a pre-nup would not automatically be offensive. The terms of the pre-nup that I was handed might be, though.
Count me in with the once burned crowd. The courts told me to cough up $20K owing to increased equity in the house that I owned before the marriage, while my ex carried on an adulterous affair with a co worker. If I ever marry again, 8 lawyers, 3 judges, 2 nuns, my doctor, and a big spotted dog will all have to witness the prenup.
I didn’t have kids before I got married or I could understand a prenup for that reason. Neither of us had lots of money when we met or were married. Honestly I would not feel as committed if there was a prenup because I would see it as the future terms for when we were getting divorced, not if.
Like many others have said, yes if there was a reason like kids or a situation that needed the protection. Otherwise if I didn’t think it was going to last or wasn’t in it for the long haul I would just shack up.
In this country (though varying by state) not having a pre-nup is the functional equivalent to signing a pre-nup heavily in the woman’s favor, especially if she is the one with less assets or earnings when entering the marriage.
Also, as anyone divorcing will find out, in the end, marriage is a contract, like any business contract. Act accordingly.
My sister and I have just barely acquired the pissing pot (due to money my mom got when our brother died, which will go to my sister and me when Mom passes), but when my sister got married (in 2000), my mom insisted that her hubby-to-be sign a pre-nup.
When I got married (in 2003), I was just waiting for my mother to bring it up, so that I could tell her to keep my share of the pissing pot. Not the smartest move, perhaps, but I had the same feelings as some here have shared regarding pre-nups. Besides, I figured if Skip was still willing to marry my ass after full disclosure of my massive debt, he couldn’t be in it for the money (he made more of that, anyway).
But of course, my mom LOVES Skip (my sister’s husband she doesn’t like at all), so she never brought it up . . .
Until AFTER we were married. I can’t remember exactly what we were talking about, but she said something, and then added, “That way Skip won’t have to sign a prenup.”
Me: "Uh . . . Mom . . . we’re already married. It’s a little too late for a PRE-nup . . . "
I think at some point after my marriage she started feeling guilty about the fact that my sister’s husband had to sign one, but mine didn’t. I told her then, however, that I would have given up my share of the loot (which, let me reiterate, is not that much–I won’t be hosting any Trump-style reality shows or anything) before asking Skip to sign a pre-nup, whereas my sister obviously felt differently. Her husband wasn’t HAPPY about the pre-nup (he felt as though he were being treated like a criminal), but eventually gave in.
We knew each other’s financial situation and figured we’d treat each other fair if something did come up. So we didn’t feel that a pre-nup for a divorce chance was needed.
Neither of us is/were/are wealthy - the only reason I would have considered signing one would be for legal liability reasons - for example, one of us being in a high-sue-risk occupation - sign one to keep assets as safe as possible to avoid losing it all in some frivolous (or not so) lawsuit.
Should one or both of us get into a high-sue-risk category, we’d probably sign a post-nuptual agreement on division of assets, or work the stuff through a limited liability corporation, or set up a trust for the care of our children - construct whatever legal architecture is necessary to avoid outright destitution on the part of death or legal liability of the other partner.
Your mother actually has a lovely solution - particularly if the money in question is family money. “Sweetie, I love you, and I know we will be married forever. But a pre-nup is a condition of my trust fund.”
If I ever set up a trust fund for my kids, I’ll put that clause in there.
Hey, I’ve got no problem with that, or with anyone who DOES ask for a pre-nup. It’s just not something I’d want to do (unless the trust fund was really, really, BIG, in which case I could make it up to my betrothed by promising him a fleet of motorcycles).
Which is the beauty of it. If the trust fund is big enough, its understandable and only an idiot wouldn’t sign. If it isn’t very big, its easy to give up on principle (as you were willing to do). And I’d respect my children if they gave it up on priciple (think they were naive, but respect it).
I haven’t pitted my soon to be ex-sister-in-law (Brainiac4’s brother’s wife), because now that he is here, I don’t want to air his family;s dirty laundry in public, though I’ve been tempted. (When he wasn’t here, I’d have vented here, now I vent other places). - She managed to spin through a sizable inheretence (his). A prenup doesn’t keep her from spending money while they are married, and it sounds like the laws in the state they are in will work to his favor in this regard. So it wouldn’t have helped. But working it through before the marriage might have helped him understand some of his future wife’s financial behavior (she was heavy in debt and didn’t disclose it prior to the marriage).
I wouldn’t have been all that offended, once I stopped laughing. An E-4 doesn’t really have all that much to offer, and neither did I. Once I graduate, though, the game changes a bit. But not enough to worry about.
There are other ways to set things up so that the intended person keeps the money. For example, I’ve got assets outside our marriage that are intended for me and Aaron. Airman benefits from them while we’re married, but it’s set up in such a way that, should we split up or (Og forbid) he dies, I have immediate access to them because they’re not part of the marital assets. With him being in a relatively high-risk occupation, it made sense to do it this way.
I wouldn’t sign one, besides they’re classed as contracts-against-public-interest in England and therefore void ab initio- totally unenforceable. A contract to divvy up possessions made after the marriage has started to fail is enforceable.
… and yet, a substantial number of those couples that are like that, that truly believe they will be together forever, end up divorced a few years later.
