Why should that my goal? If I don’t care about my hypothetical fiance’s yaht and his dead grandmother’s million-dollar diamond collection, why should I fight to get any of it? I don’t feel entitled to those things, so it would be no skin off my teeth if I got them or not. That is my point. I could care less what I could get in the absence of a pre-nup. Big whoop. Left with the default, I could also get saddled with a yaht’s worth of debt. Guess I should be clamoring for that too.
Two individuals should be able to agree to the contents of a pre-nup without being adversarial about it. Otherwise, why the hell are they getting married? They clearly have communication and trust issues. And seriously, if anyone is the victim of rose-colored naivety, it’s the person who thinks that not signing a pre-nup means they are more protected from divorce or financial loss than someone who signs it for all these wrong reasons that you claim. If that was the case, these documents wouldn’t exist.
You seem to passionately believe it’s stupid to offer to sign a pre-nup as a gesture of goodwill, when the offerer could potentially lose a lot should a divorce occur. Okay. But using that same logic, any person with a lot of assets to lose in a divorce is being stupid if they don’t ask for a pre-nup. After all, such a person usually has the self-sacrificial attitude of making romantic gestures of pure, eternal love and are not concerned with looking out for their own financial interests. But you’re not calling this attitude stupid. Why not?
I might get married without one if the other person says sure, I’ll sign. It might not be worth it to get one, but the conversation itself is interesting and important.
If I sign one, it will partly be to attempt to limit the amount of my debt my then-husband might be responsible for. The entire basis of a prenup is to attempt to figure out what’s fair, using our own brains and ethics rather than just counting on the law to figure it out, and rather than assuming we’d be nice and giving and sweet-as-pie should it come down to divorce.
Prenups deal with debts, as well as assets. Although a court would likely decide such a thing anyway, I have no issue saying, for example, that the thousands of dollars of credit card or school loan debt I’m bringing into the relationship reverts back to solely being my problem should our marriage not last. Were I carrying a significant amount of debt, I would willingly offer a prenup for that reason alone.
This means that if the person said “no” you would not get married. Saying you’ll forego it if they agree with you is exactly these weird “tests of love” that I find repulsive.
If they can’t have the conversation, they are not a person I can marry. I don’t believe in taboo subjects. That doesn’t mean they have to agree with me. I don’t have an absolute position on prenups. I think the conversation is important in and of itself.
That’s not what I said at all-I said very clearly that you have the conversation, they listen and say “no.” Which means you fall squarely into the category of soft sell-ultimatum.
Although I will say that this conversation has me really excited about the underlying economic principals of prenups! I was typing out a long response to you with the face that got eaten and now I’ve got to jet because I have my finance final tomorrow-but part of me is like “hey, is there a Nash equilibrium here? What about the moral hazard?” Maybe I’ll pitch my econ prof with an independent study.
If they have a good reason to say no, I’ll listen. I might have a good reason to say no, too. There is no ultimatum.
ETA: Your hypothetical didn’t explain anything about a conversation being had. This is a conversation and decision that I feel can be made by the two people in question. If someone flies off the handle at the prospect of having the conversation, they are not a good match for me. But we might mutually agree that a prenup is a waste of time or money. Or we might mutually agree that it’s a good idea. If we disagree on whether it’s a good idea, I would expect a full conversation, with compromise from both partners.
Okay, I would sign a prenup if he were wealthier than me at the time of our engagement. He made it before me, I sacrificed nothing so I don’t deserve any of it. I would have my attorney look over it, and be sure I got more $ if I had kids, and that my kids were ensured full tuition at private schools and private universities and graduate schools, with full health insurance throughout the whole ordeal. I would protect my children first and foremost.
I think it is hardcore BS to sign a prenup in the situation laid out by the OP. If you make money in the relationship, its both of yours. Take for instance Steve Wynn. Married his college sweetheart. Made shit tons of money after that. Cheated on her. Now they’re divorcing, and she’s gonna be one hell of a rich lady. Rightfully so! He made the money with her. That means she supported him emotionally, hell, probably listened to the decisions he made and influenced them. It’s half of hers. Simple.
My dad (an accountant) does most of his work in business valuations. Usually in the case of a business owner getting divorced.
It’s good, steady work for him. But the stories he tells - bitter, bitter acrimony, often ending in court - are enough that I am strongly in favor of pre-nuptial agreements.
Have a current prenup in place and if my current marriage ends and I was to remarry, would get one again. As far as I am concerned, to not get one is naive. However, what I would like added to this question is the age and sex and position in the marriage of the people who are giving opinions.
Position in the marriage? I don’t know what that means.
In any case, I’m 39, widowed, and female. I’m going to be going back to school next fall, so if I get remarried it will likely be with substantial student loans and I would be in favor of a prenup just so he wouldn’t have to worry about having to shoulder those.
When I was younger I was scandalized at the thought of a prenup, now I feel much differently. Like jsgoddess has said, if nothing else, I think it’s an important, revealing conversation.
Being a lesbian the closest I can get to marriage is a wad of contracts, might as well tack on the prenup business.
If I get divorced I’m going to be wrecked anyway. Divorce means losing the person you love and the future you planned. I’m not going to add to the problem by squabbling over money.
No, because, as I’m sure he’s getting tired of saying, there are already laws that cover that situation so that people will not be harmed. And that the status quo is what you are considering harmed. There’s a difference between accepting harm that is inherent, and actively choosing to cause that harm. That’s why suicide is worse than giving your life for a cause.
I hope you mean “a hell of a lot wealthier” because with any two people that get married, one of them is going to be wealthier. But usually the disparity doesn’t rise to the level where there’s much point to a prenup.
Which brings up the question, for those of you who believe a prenup might be a worthwhile thing, what level of disparity of wealth or income going in, or what other circumstances, would it take to make a prenup advisable, in your view?
The circumstances that would make a prenup worthwhile to me would be the fact that marriage is a contract and all contracts should be in writing with all the details spelled out. By which I mean, always.
Oh yeah, I mean “he has 15k more than me” wouldn’t be worth it. My dad had a lot more $ than my mom going into things (they married at 30 and 40) but it was because she was just starting her career and he’d been at it awhile. I’d say if your earning potential is the same or near the same (say, within, 20%) then it’s not necessary. Of course, if you earn the same amount but one of you is a spender and one’s a saver, that’s a whole nother can of worms. If one of you has a large lump sum, of course, I’d say what you came in with remains yours at the end. I’m trying to think of a number offhand, but I’m not coming up with anything. You have to be able to have a frank and honest discussion about it, though. I’ve always found that open discussions about money haunt many people. People are more willing to discuss abortion than money, which is crazy to me.
I do know of a couple, friends of the family, who met in grad school; he was in med school, she was getting her masters. Now, she knew his father worked, she’d met the family and saw that they had an upper middle class lifestyle - luxury car every 5-7 years, have a country club membership, 5k square foot home, but didn’t take exotic vacations type of situation. She intended to be a professor and also grew up in an upper-middle class lifestyle. At some point, either shortly after or shortly before they were engaged, he told her that his family wasn’t just upper middle class but actually were extremely well off. His father had started his own business and his sister managed most of it; still, he stood to inherit somewhere in the realm of 100mil. She was shocked but not upset. He had actively stayed away from the business, and had no role in running it, and took nothing of the profits other than money for college and med school. They had a prenup, but (IIRC) it dissolved once she had children. (I do wonder if the prenup would have been very extreme if she weren’t also Jewish, however). Either way, though, she knew she was marrying the man and not his money. They live a comfortable upper-middle class lifestyle. The only differences were that she never aggressively pursued tenure track positions (she lectures) and their home was paid for in cash, but otherwise they live the life they otherwise would have lived. Their kids aren’t spoiled beyond belief, either.
I have no idea how I’d work things out if one party wasn’t working or planned to not work after having kids. That to me is an inherently lopsided marriage to begin with, not a partnership at all. Stuff like men marrying women 20 years younger; let them hash it out. I have more perspective on landing on the moon.
Major inheritance might be worth it. Big debt (this is the big one for me). Ownership of inherited property including shares in a business. If there are children from a previous marriage whose inheritance might be cut into, that could be a cause for a prenup. I also think alimony should be waived in almost all circumstances if a prenup is being signed already, though I don’t think I’d bother with one just to waive alimony.