Would You Sign A Prenuptial Agreement?

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Muffin *
**Not quite. It’s more along the lines of this: marriage is one law of many that together comprise the family law regime. These various laws are intertwined. The rights and obligations that a person has under the overall family law regime will vary upon the circumstances, with marriage being one of the circumstances.

Here is an example from where I live (please note that YMWV, so don’t anyone rely on this).

A couple live separately for a few years and have a baby, then they break up. Custody, access and child support apply, but spousal support and property division do not apply.

A couple live together for a few years and have a baby, then they break up. Custody, access, child support and spousal support apply, but property division does not apply.

A couple marries and have a baby, then they break up. Custody, access, child support, spousal support and property division apply.

In each of the above examples, there are two people who are a couple who have a child. If the couple is married, then property division under the family law regime applies. If they are not married, then property division does not apply, even if they live together and raise a child together. In other words, substantive property rights accrue to married parties by virtue of their marrying.

These property division rights would not be exercised if the parties never separate or divorce, but there is a difference between having rights and exercising rights. Getting married creates the property division rights; and separating triggers the exercising of those rights. The only way to get married without accruing such rights is to make a pre-nup that waives those rights.

I think that what it comes down to is that either a couple recognize that there will be rights upon marriage and try to sculpt these rights to fit their preferences by way of a pre-nup, or a couple recognize that there will be rights upon marrigage but do not care about what those rights are on the assumption that they will never need to exercise those rights. **

I still disagree; rights may be implied, but nowhere have I explicitly ‘signed up’ to a scheme of division - I have, on the other hand, very explicitly ‘signed up’ to a scheme of merger.

[Dangerosa]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**
That and my belief that statistics are descriptive, not prescriptive - that 1/3rd of marriages end in divorce does not make mine only a two-thirds certainty. **

And on that we completely concur. I can say with certainty that the risk that my cousin and her husband (well suited, deeply religious, very stable people with three children) is very minimal while the risk that my brother in law and his wife will divorce (not very stable, financial problems, marriage entered into without full disclosure on either part, no religious qualms about divorce, no children to stay together for and well suited in that they are both flaky) is significantly higher. In my cousins case, a pre-nup is not needed (although they have one, he is a doctor whose previous “very religous, well suited, stable” wife left him after a year for a friend of theirs), while my brother in law (who is the one who discovered the extent of his wife’s debt after they got married, and then inherieted a bunch of money and moved to a community property state), would have been very useful - and would have probably kept the high risk marriage from occuring in the first place.

[White_Ink]

I had a great post on Friday, alas the hamsters ate it.

It had to do with the thing that clauses regarding “penalties” are usually not enforceable. I do not know if that’s because a state permits no fault divorce or for some other reason, but there it is.

Mangetout, I think I’m basically where you are on this.

[Mangetout]

I realise I have posted rather too much in this thread and that it has almost turned into a debate; I hope nobody is offended.

[Muffin]

No, you have not posted too much. I very much appreciate learning of your opinions, and why you have those opinions. I think we have been having a good discussion of an interesting topic, not a debate in which positions are being assailed.

[JRDelirious]

Oh, in no way, Mangetout, to the contrary, yours has been a most valuable contribution. The nature of the title question pretty much guaranteed that at one point or another we’d be called upon to support our answers, and it is of great value to have the “No” side presented as something that is arrived at reasonably and sensibly from a set of basic premises, even if we disagree on them.

[sirtonyh]

Question for all the Christians opposed to pre-nups 'cause the whole moral thing;

If undisputed, factual evidence cropped up that the big bang thing is correct, and that there is no god, would your views on a pre-nup change?

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by sirtonyh *
**Question for all the Christians opposed to pre-nups 'cause the whole moral thing;

If undisputed, factual evidence cropped up that the big bang thing is correct, and that there is no god, would your views on a pre-nup change? **

Only if the giant squids absolutely insisted on it.

(Not all Christians have a problem with the Big Bang, or feel that the absolute proof of the one negates the existence of the other).

But to answer your question in the spirit it was asked, my views on pre-nups would probably only change if my views on [what marriage actually is] changed; this might well be the case if I lost my belief, or never had it in the first place, but it might not.

[Mangetout]

To elaborate: If (for some reason) I felt that it was still important that marriage was a binding and complete union, then my views would be pretty much as they are now, in fact I’m not really sure how much of my view is ‘religiously influenced’, or whether it is the other way around and my ‘religious tendencies’ actually spring out of my rather firm views about this, that and the other - who can say?

If the crime of murderdeathkill were stricken from the law books tonight, would you go on a killing spree? Most people wouldn’t because killing people is a shitty thing to do, whether or not it happens to be illegal.

[Fuji_Kitakyusho]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
** To me, marriage is absolutely a forever thing, and I’m not jumping off that cliff with anyone whose motto is not “Failure Is Not An Option.” **

Failure to have a plan for every possible contingency is not an option.

-Fuj

[Mangetout]

Actually, I think I’ll go out on a limb here; people who believe that morality derives solely from God and that the only thing stopping us all from committing every possible grievous act is [God And His Big Bad Stick] aren’t Christians, they are merely restrained psychopaths.

[PiscesPrincess]

I see signing a prenup as a symbol of one’s commitment to that person - after all, you’re marrying HIM (or HER) - not their assets.

I would hope however, that this is something that has been discussed and agreed upon by both people … and that it’s not sprung on someone as some kind of night-before-the-wedding surprise.

[JRDelirious]

*Originally posted by PiscesPrincess *
**I would hope however, that this is something that has been discussed and agreed upon by both people … and that it’s not sprung on someone as some kind of night-before-the-wedding surprise. **

Ideally, IMO, the parties should at least have a general sense of what each feels about critical issues such as this before actually committing to getting married. Before engagements or proposals. Which may even, not quite paradoxically, reduce a need for actual prenups. And definitely, if one of the parties is using the prenup as a bludgeon or holding the wedding hostage, there are bigger problems there than property protection.

Of course, there is having the issue “discussed and agreed upon” and one of the parties standing firm for his/her principles and a respectful conclusion is reached to the process, and there is having even the mentioning of it held as some sort of gross personal insult or crime against morality.

I can see myself engaging in a discussion with someone I were dating who held Mangetout’s beliefs, and having figured that out agreeing that if/when the real Time Of Decision comes up, that decision will be made knowing it would require committing ourselves to making it work even if it kills us ( :eek: that’s hyperbole, son), and never mind even talking further about prenups.

[White_Ink]

I would hope however, that this is something that has been discussed and agreed upon by both people … and that it’s not sprung on someone as some kind of night-before-the-wedding surprise.

Altho’ IANAL my understanding is that those kind you generally don’t have to worry about (except for the payment to get it contested). It’s one of the key factors that get examined for contestability.

To have an unbreakably valid agreement you generally have to meet a certain set of criteria

• no last minute right before the wedding prenups

• both sides have to have their own legal counsel

• in some states with no fault divorce law penalty provisions cannot be enforced and can break the entire agreement

• other conditions apply.

This last one is the stumbler for me. If it’s an amicable break-up, I’ll play nice, and thus, no need for a prenup. If it’s not amicable, then I have no need to play nice, and then I would have no need for a prenup.

Seems pretty simple, eh?

[JRDelirious]

What if the OTHER person wants to play nasty… and is in the position to be nastier to you than you to him? Simple, right.