Many wonderful, touching books/movies have been written/filmed about the affairs of the heart. Unfortunately, the heart has proven time and again that it isn’t very intelligent. It makes decisions based on emotion and not logic, which often leads to pain and regret later on.
I would view the fact that my prospective mate is refusing a prenup as a big red flag. Hasta la vista, big guy. 
Maybe I’m wrong on this (because I’ve never looked into prenups myself) but couldn’t one also cover inheritance as well? So that the children from a prior marriage by the less-wealthy spouse don’t wind up suing over the estate later on down the line?
Also wonder if they’re useful in some jurisdictions to ensure that if there IS a breakup some assets aren’t split?
^ This.
Love and emotion are all very well, but money should be addressed with logic and a clear head.
Was he a minor or mentally incompetent?
I think “family’s attorney’s wouldn’t permit” should be read as “The family’s attorney told him he could count on being written out of his rich ancestors’ wills & trusts were he to do something so foolish as marrying an ordinary person without a prenup to keep all the family money in the blood family.”
I know what you mean, and I’ve been told many times I’m wrong about it, and it’s weird, because in many other contexts, it’s completely sensible to plan for the failure you hope will never happen - fire evacuation plans, cyber incident recovery plans, heck, insurance policies in general.
But something about the pre-nup seems different to me. IMO, marriage involves exposing your soft underbelly to your partner. If you covered it with armour, it’s not your soft underbelly - it’s important to me (YMMV) that I am purposely, knowingly vulnerable to my partner, because it means that when I am vulnerable in other ways that I can’t necessarily control, I am not alone in that predicament. Not sure if that makes sense, but it works for me.
Then it’s not HIS money. It’s his parents’ or grandparents’ money.
If they don’t approve of who and how he marries they can not leave it to him, or attach conditions to the legacy.
His personal wealth is all he could reasonably seek to protect in a pre-nup.
Maybe I haven’t been hanging out in the right circles.
I’m like 90% there on this. The exception being if I’ve made commitments to my children from a previous marriage/relationship or even my elderly parents that could be compromised.
Depending on his age and involvement in the family business, his personal wealth could already include interests in the personal business, such as voting shares. The family may want to ensure those voting shares are protected by a pre-nup, and could state that if they’re not, he may not be included in any future property distributions, trusts, or inheritances.
They could do all that if he converts to Buddhism. He owns what he owns, and he controls that. Future interests are by definition not his.
Not quite sure what your point is.
It sounded at first like you were disagreeing with “permit”, as if some attorney had a legal veto over his marital decisions. My response was that (as I read the post) the attorney has no legal veto, but that, acting on orders of his clients the ancestors, the attorney may have a practical veto, or at least present a major obstacle to the would-be groom’s total motivations vs. marriage.
Agree 100% that future interests are by definition not his. But AFAIK there is nothing preventing a pre-nup from containing restrictions about just such future reasonably foreseeable interests. Nor is there a prohibition against his (grand-)parents acting on their opinions pro- or con- about his GF/soon-to-be-wife.
Is the oldster’s position coercive as f***? You bet. [Mobster Voice]“Darn nice inheritance you have there. Be a shame if anything was to happen to it.”[/MV]
Is it uncommon where serious money is involved? IMO not. Wish I could say “IME” too, but that’s only vicariously through reading the trust industry trade press years ago.
I guess we are talking past each other. And this may have something to do with my quaint middle-class notions of self respect and personal autonomy.
The idea that if I already have millions, I can be forced to crawl on my belly by the prospect of taking away tens or millions I could have in the future, is pathetic and dehumanizing.
How about the idea that if you are part of a family, you feel a sense of belonging and obligation that makes you want to help further the goals of the family? I can see how a person could feel that making sure the family wealth is preserved and passed down intact is a serious responsibility: after all, they benefited from that wealth, it’s only fair they pass it down. In that context, the family lawyer is the professional on how to do that.
Since none of you are idiots, this is obviously something I have a blind spot on. And I mean this sincerely. Thanks for your civil responses.
In the alternative, how about you grew up in a rich household, had lots of privileges like private schools, fancy cars, fancy college, etc., and got a good education and good job earning significant money. You’re now 30-ish. You don’t in fact have much wealth yet at all. You’re just used to living as if you do, powered by at first your parents’ money and now by spending a big hunk of your low-but-growing 6-figure income.
You’re in line for serous inherited wealth. But you have none of that yet. You’re reasonably in line to earn a lot by ordinary middle-class college graduate standards, but you’ll never earn or invest your way to the kinds of numbers you stand to inherit.
Again, I’m not defending the coercive nature of the ancestor’s decision to pressure the guy about the marriage. Morally it stinks. All I’m saying is this stuff happens regularly and does not require special circumstances like the guy being a minor or mentally disabled.
Said another way, every man has his price. The rest is just dickering over what that price is. I personally have never faced a dilemma like this over an amount that would influence my thinking. In other words, I don’t know what my price is, only that it’s bigger than I’ve ever encountered. It sounds like you haven’t found yours either.
I would insist on the prenup. I’ve often thought prenups should be standard for all marriages because it forces both parties to face & discuss the financial aspect of the relationship, something often overlooked and very, very important in the long term. In OP’s scenario, the partner’s refusal to sign a prenup tells me they aren’t willing to have this discussion, which doesn’t bode well for the future – finance will play an especially big role in a relationship like this. Prenups may not be romantic, but settling finances up front might actually save the marriage down the road. This assumes the prenup is fair to the partner, and places appropriate value on their nonfinancial contributions to the marriage.
Aye, that is the rub.
I’ve heard Marla Maples pre-nup was a flat $1M – take it or leave it. I think she should be grateful she got anything from an a-hole like Trump.
No, he was not a minor or incompetent.
If you had read further in my post you would have seen:
Before I answer the OP, I have to address this because it is so far off the mark. Everyone I know who voluntarily retired doesn’t fit that at all. My buddy Marc retired at 55 a few years ago. He is constantly busy with projects and volunteering and the Big Brother program and did lots of world travel prior to Covid. I retired two years ago at 56. I simply don’t have stress anymore. I have been to well over 100 concerts since the start of 2022, I’ve finally been getting my house fixed up, I date a lot and see friends, exercise most days. Work would have killed me way before my current lifestyle. Why would you think retired people don’t have drive or goals? My personal goals are way more important than whatever corporation employs me.
Anyway, I met my future ex-wife when we were in our mid-20s. I was a grad student and she had a dead end hourly job. We owned crappy vehicles, some clothes and a little furniture and had a negative net worth because of debt. We got divorced in our early 40s with retirement accounts, way more stuff and a house. No need for a pre-nup and we just congenially split stuff down the middle. I bought her our of the house and easy peasy.
Seventeen years and a few relationships later, all to much less wealthy women and I guarantee you that a pre-nup would have been a requirement. I would insist on it regardless of my partner’s wealth and especially if they were much more well off.
I don’t agree with the idea of pre-nups being standard for all marriages - in large part because it would have been a waste of money in just about every first marriage I know of. There’s not much sense paying lawyers for a pre-nup when both people are coming in with similar assets.
As far as the OP - I really don’t know what I would do , assuming I didn’t have any kids from a prior relationship. Because I do think that if I had kids from a prior relationship (even grown ones) and especially if I was widowed , I would have a pre-nup. I’ve seen too many people’s relationship with their kids/parents go south when it looks like widowed Dad and his second wife are spending every cent that Dad and Mom ever made and I can only imagine it must cause even more problems if half of it went to the second wife in a divorce.
According to the true crime podcasts I listen to, all this means is that your spouse will die mysteriously a week before the 15 years are up. Congrats on making it over that hurdle.