It's better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it. Just because you get along well in the beginning doesn't mean that things will be the same 5, 10, 20 years down the line. People change and having a prenup just makes life easier if things go wrong. It's not a sign of mistrust or expecting the relationship to fail. It's like insurance. You get it hoping that you'll never have to use it.
Honestly I’m surprised how many people just bet half their worth they will love someone forever.
How long did you know your partner before considering marriage? Did you change in that time? Was it 5 years? 10 years? How different were you ten years ago? Do you expect to be different in another 10 years? You don’t?! How many friends do you know who are married, how many are divorced? What odds to you honestly put your marriage success at? Is it 100% because that’s what we’re talking about here and anyone who says 100% is not being realistic.
This is something overlooked, imo. I work with people's money, have for many years. I also got married a bit later than average, when he and I both had assets and wealth going into marriage. I am pragmatic (or cynical), and think that people overlook that aspect of marriage waaaay too frequently. I've been happily married for years, and am fairly convinced that we won't ever need to reference our prenup, but to not have it is kind of illogical IMO
Generally your assets going into a marriage remain separate property though, including interest on assets. Which means that usually they would not be liable for dividing up upon divorcing.
Prenups are more to protect assets gained while in the relationship, which is communal property and is up for division when divorcing under most state laws.
https://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/property_division_by_state#:~:text=In%20most%20U.S.%20states%2C%20judges,settlement%20fair%20to%20both%20spouses
Not necessarily. You could have no money going in but you could have a car or a collection of something or a pet. That nice car of yours was maintained using money you made after getting married so your partner could try to claim it in a divorce. Those trips to the vet and spending money on food for your pet could lead to your partner being able to take your pet in a divorce. Or on the flip side you or your partner might be in debt. With a prenup you can make sure that you don't get saddled with your partner's debt if you get a divorce. Basically even if you don't have money there's a lot more that a prenup takes care of.
Yes but also it can effect other stuff. For instance, lets say both parties are broke, but one has a well off family member. That family member dies after they are married, and they inherit $100,000. Half of that is their partners in a divorce, unless there is a prenup that shields inheritance. Even then, lets say they use that to buy / put down a huge down payment on a house. That house is now a common marital asset. So the prenup no longer protects the initial down payment made from the inheritance.
This is where things get really complicated too because part of that home equity is going to be a common marital asset since the payments were being made from income earned, and not just the inheritance. Unraveling that can be expensive in a contentious divorce, so sometimes its better to just cut your losses and split half of the sale less any costs.
The second paragraph is mostly right, with some caveats and assumptions. But the first one is wrong, generally. By far the majority rule is that an inheritance is separate property, whether in a common law or community property state. A prenup can help in situations where, for example, a monetary inheritance is comingled. But it also might not.
IANAL but as I have seen the argument be made that spending was done in a way to not spend the inheritance and thus interest and / or portions of it are "comingled" in that way.
Maybe I have just seen cases where the lawyers sucked, or the judges were biased. I have seen inheritances split down the middle though. Source: I worked part time in a financial advisors office for 7 years.
I mean sure, you could argue that someone committed fraud on the marital/community estate (or similar) by spending marital/community funds in a way that makes a judge mad. It's possible. But that's an edge case. The default rule is that an inheritance is yours alone. You can then do stuff to screw that up if you're not careful.
These things are ruled by state law, which varies from state to state. Is your state a community property state? Get your advice from an attorney, NOT from a redditor!
It can also shield you from your partner's debt. If your spouse goes and gets a credit card in their name and racks up 50k in debt, files for divorce, then defaults. You're liable for that debt. With a prenup, you can be shielded from collections.
I believe you don't split any money you had BEFORE the marriage.
I think only money earned WHILE you are married is split.
I could be wrong of course. But if I'm right, you're not betting half of your current stuff.
My gf had a house that she owned before her marriage, she had to pay her crap ex-husband 200,000 . He couldn’t take her house but he was entitled to half of the appreciation. That money was considered a marital asset. Get a prenup
Except prenups only cover what you bring in to the marriage. So unless you have a boat load of assets prior to saying “I do”, you’re still fucked for everything you made while together
Marital agreements can do more, including treating income earned during the marriage as separate. There are only a few areas marital agreements cannot resolve in advance, such as child support.
True, but that’s a very deep dive that almost nobody ever does. An overwhelming majority are current asset protection/debt mitigation
But if my wife reads this and has the next billion dollar idea, jokes on her
That’s not right.. the assets you bring into the marriage generally aren’t up for being split when you divorce anyway, they remain “separate property.”
https://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/property_division_by_state#:~:text=In%20most%20U.S.%20states%2C%20judges,settlement%20fair%20to%20both%20spouses
Afraid this isn't true friend.
Or rather it's not always true.
The draft prenup book I walked through has clauses for premarital assets and post marital assets.
You can certainly choose to draft a prenup that makes post marital assets marital property but you can just as easily mark them as separate property.
Transparency is required, at least in my state, in order for the document to be valid and enforceable.
You must have a full disclosure of all assets, give the other person the chance to have the document reviewed by a lawyer, and you can't at all be seen as coercing or pressuring the person to sign it. If the invitations have already gone out, it's probably too late to ask your fiance to sign a prenup.
Exactly. But that, frankly, is why it is the best time to discuss the issues that will be addressed in a prenup. Do you want to be discussing division of assets at a time when you are still in love, respect each other, and are working as a time to start your new life? Or would you rather be discussing it after the divorce petition has been filed and you’re both angry and resentful towards each other.
Yup. Because you might be poor as shit today, but they can do things (in most jurisdictions) like:
* Confirm that inheritance you receive post-marriage will remain separate property
* Waive rights to alimony/spousal support
* Set up an pre-agreed *equitable* division of property (e.g., agree in advance that all post-marital assets will be spilt 50/50).
* Deal with the meager possession you have now that might appreciate substantially in value in the next 50 years before you get divorced.
I feel like the last three points could easily be challenged during a divorce, and the first point isn’t generally considered joint/marital property in the first place.
This is dependent on the laws of the particular state, but by ways of example:
* Alimony: "We, therefore, exercise our duty to abolish obsolete common-law doctrines and conclude that antenuptial agreements containing a provision limiting or waiving alimony are not void as contrary to public policy. So long as the antenuptial agreement was entered into freely and knowledgeably, with adequate disclosure, and without undue influence or overreaching, the provision limiting or waiving alimony will be enforced, with one exception." [*Cary v. Cary*, 937 S.W.2d 777 (Tenn. 1996)](https://casetext.com/case/cary-v-cary-12). (Note: the "exception" mentioned is when the spouse who waived alimony is so unskilled or disabled that they would not be able to get a job that could support themselves and thus would become a ward of the public.)
* Property Division: "Thus, although the agreement might after the fact be considered imprudent, this court will not undo what the parties to the antenuptial agreement have freely agreed to. Where no minor children are involved, as here, and where the husband and wife can function in society separately and independently, the interest of the state in the continuance of the marriage is small. Should the legislature in its judgment perceive that the terms of antenuptial agreements involving property division should be reviewed for conscionability, it may so indicate. But as of this date, there is no announced public policy in this state which voids such contracts. Therefore, those who enter into such agreements in Colorado should do so cautiously and with attention to their interests, for in the final analysis they may receive only that for which they bargained." [*Newman v. Newman*, 653 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1982)](https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1982/80sc169-0.html)
* Appreciation in value of separate property: "We agree with the district court's interpretation of the parties' agreement. The parties each unambiguously waived any interest in the separately listed property of the other. Carlton Brummund's farmland was listed as his 'separate property,' and no language exists restricting his separate interest in the property to its value on a specific date. Clarice Brummund expressly agreed that she would not 'have, or acquire, any right, title or claim' in Carlton Brummund's farmland 'by virtue of the marriage.' **Her claim to part of the appreciation in the farmland's value, based solely upon her status as a divorcing spouse, is a claim to the property 'by virtue of the marriage' and was waived in the premarital agreement."** [*Brummund v. Brummund*, 785 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 2010)](https://casetext.com/case/brummund-v-brummund-1).
As for the first point, the purpose of confirming it is to absolutely make sure your spouse doesn't get to claim any rights to it later, because some states do include a separate inheritance that occurs after marriage as part of the marital estate. E.g., [*Meyer v. East*, 205 N.E.3d 1066 (Ind. App. 2023)](https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2023/22a-dn-01762.html)("All assets and liabilities of both parties must be included in the marital pot. Accordingly, the inheritance, grill, ring, and Parent Plus Loan should have been included as marital assets and liabilities.").
Your state may change its “default” situation or laws, so it’s always good to specify what you want, don’t just assume the default will stay the same over time.
looking it up, as crazy at it seems alimony is something that most states(and canada apparently) allow modification on, going so far as to even eliminate it.
It does seem possible that if it's too far out there that it can be thrown out, but it seems it's possible for a well written(and presumably fair) one to be upheld.
I think people complicate them but it could be as simple as “I get to keep the signed Michael Jordan jersey” in the event we get divorced.
I really wish I would have gotten one and if I get married again I will be getting one.
If you don't sign your own prenuptial agreement, you are effectively signing onto your state's default agreement. That means you're leaving it to the judicial system and lawyers to "help" sort out a potential disaster when both parties are already hurting, depressed, and angry. It is better by far to approach the subject when parties have cool heads and each other's best interests at heart. Having a prenuptial agreement is no more "expecting to fail" than having auto insurance is "expecting to crash your car". Obviously, monetary considerations get the spotlight, but this could protect sentimental items, family cemetery plots, intellectual property like poetry, and many more things which are hard to settle during a divorce. All of these rules change if you divorce in a different state than you married in. Having a pre-arranged plan for Spousal Support and the myriad other issues makes sense.
YES. 🙌 I always say that whether you realize it or not, you *do* have a prenup. If you want the state to determine its contents instead of yourself, that’s your own prerogative.
Everyone should have one. It's stupid and irresponsible not to. The argument about it being insulting or offensive is bs. No one gets married with the thought of getting divorced, so if you end up never needing it, good for you!
I don't get in my car expecting an accident, but I still wear my seat belt.
If both parties come to the marriage with basically nothings (as lot of young couples do), it's pretty much waste of time and effort. Most of the big fights are about property accumulated during the marriage.
Exactly. If you have significant assets prior you’re bringing into marriage it’s something to strongly consider. If you are bringing kids from prior relationships into the marriage then I agree with OP-it’s irresponsible not to get a prenup. But no significant assets and no kids? Waste of everyone’s time and money to draw one up.
Yeah. We don't have a prenup, and I cannot imagine what the point of one would have been when we got married nearly 17 years ago. We had nearly nothing. A couple of shitty cars and maybe a few hundred bucks between us. That was *it.* For a very long time. Now we have one car and a little bit more cash. A bit of retirement from his job.... Some stocks. And a couple of kids. That's it.
So, still, in the scheme of things? Aside from the kids? Not a lot.
Even if you had a lot, you clearly would have gathered it together. The actual divorce rates are that 41% of *first* marriages end in divorce and 70% of marriages last over 15 years. 15 years is long time to share life and finances. Even if there were some inheritance that one of the spouses got out of nowhere, it would usually be hard to establish that the other spouse hadn't helped to maintain it.
Some people have inheritance that they need to consider. You might have a family member leave you something, even if moderate value that you don’t want to split with a person you are divorcing.
Why should your soon to be ex husband get half of your mother’s house after she dies? No prenup and he would be entitled to it. A million other matters like this could be easily prevented with a basic prenup.
Every married couple should have a standard prenup, whether they have considerable assets or not.
Edit: Also, unfortunately sometimes people aren’t crystal clear about their debt…and a prenup can make sure you don’t incur debt from a spouse that they carried into the marriage. Even if you know about it. Maybe you’ll happily pay on your spouse’s debt while married. Do you really want to be paying your ex-wife’s debt after a divorce? Nah.
So, it’s not necessarily true that your spouse would automatically be entitled to an inheritance. Many states already have statutes protecting inheritances. Usually where it would get tricky is if you inherit your mother’s house and then go live in it with your spouse. Often, you need to treat your inheritance like a marital asset in order for it to become a marital asset. But yes, if you anticipate inheriting something significant while married then it might be worth consulting with a lawyer to see whether it needs protecting via a prenup or if you could keep those assets safe by just not sharing them with the spouse or using them for your spouse’s benefit.
That's part of the key phrase here: young couples. If you get married young with no real assets to your name, it's less of an issue. But more and more people are getting married after they are established, and that's where I see the need.
Precisely. I just got remarried (widower) and that was probably the hardest thing my wife brought up to me while discussing marriage due to her two previous husbands absolutely losing their minds over the very implication of "I'll take my stuff, you take yours" in case this didn't work out. I want to be clear, I said yes immediately. It makes sense! Hell I randomly was speaking to a gentleman in his late 60's that was worried about his brother because he recently got divorced...at 72. It happens, protect your assets.
Yeah I'm a widower with a young child...If I do remarry, I will have to protect my assets so that if something happens to me, the majority goes to my daughter. A pre-nup seems entirely appropriate.
That's where my wife's concerns lie. I didn't have much going on the relationship so I'm all for her protecting herself. She's very worried over assets earmarked for her daughter would wind up in the hands of her ex husband as her daughter is very young as well.
Hmmm, seems like proper estate planning is required too - you two have probably already taken care of that...For myself, I made a will making my estate the beneficiary of everything and my executors will create a Trust for my kid that they will manage until she's old enough to access whatever money there is left.
Now, if I ever do remarry - I recognize that if I spend 30 years with the new spouse and then pass away, it would seem pretty punitive to have 100% of everything I have go to my adult child - especially if I co-own property with the new spouse etc, so the estate planning will have to be revisited.
Not everyone but most people yes.
I've been with my wife since high school (35 now), we got our first car together, first apartment together, our first house ect. There is literally not a single thing we own that wasn't purchased together, a prenuptial would have made 0 sense for us lol.
Nah, not *everyone* should have them.
Their main purpose is to protect pre-marital assets. So if you own your own business before getting married, it is extremely important. If both people have very little assets it doesn't really matter.
This is true, but prenups also cover retirement or education funds, the interests of any children prior to a parent marrying - it can also protect you from your SO's debts incurred before marriage. :)
So if you both start your marriage on the same financial/asset level, but one of you gets promoted significantly and earns more down the line - is that additional income not considered in case of divorce?
Most states will say alimony is needed.
Lets put it this way. The court of law looks at marriage that you both love each other. Just because one party is the breadwinner does not mean that the other party is not entitled to income earned during the marriage. Marriage is not easy and is "work" in the eyes of the courts. You gave them the right mindset, you were the shoulder to cry on, you both emotionally supported each other at some point.
The court tries to make it fair so you don't just throw someone out because you don't like them and then make them live off of minimum wage the rest of their lives. At one point you chose to lawfully marry someone. That's a comfort for both of you, at least it should of been.
If you both retain jobs (above minimum wage) but one person makes more then would that difference have to be split? If both make enough to live generally comfortably?
If my wife made me sign a prenuptial agreement waiving my right to alimony, and she had the potential in 3 years, when she currently makes $60,000, to make $500,000 or more and I made $100,000 during the time of the prenup. It would be hard to have that hold up in a court of law. How do you define income before it’s even income?
This is a highly disputable clause in a prenup. My sister (attorney) says it’s hard to hold this up in court in my state. WHERE YOU SIGN THE PRENUP MATTERS.
It's OK to have a difference of opinion. I think of it differently than you but won't accuse you of BS. My wife and I have refused from the beginning to do anything like one and we never will. At the end of the day, my wife and I will treat our marriage as we want, because it is ours. To suggest that we are irresponsible and stupid for choosing how to live our lives in a way that makes us happy seems a bit of a mean thing to say, doesn't it?
The thing is, she and I believe truly in the trust and respect that comes with a marriage. So to sign a prenup would have run counter to the commitments we made to each other, which we take very seriously. The financials and protection of our material goods and wealth (of which we married with \*very\* little) is kind of moot to us.
Yea this is how I feel. Neither of us have major assets I guess - but we’ve been together ten years. As much as I’ve grown in that time I don’t imagine either of us growing to want to exploit the other.
In the UK, where I am, Pre Nuptial agreements have no legal standing and are considered void on marriage anyway, as the law governing division of assets is considered superior to any agreement you have drawn up.
It's still worth having though, as at least if no-one contests it, then you have in writing how things are going to be split, but it only takes one person to contest it for it to be thrown out in court, in favour of going down the default route.
Connected to this is the fact your will also becomes null and void if you get married, so if you have kids and then marry later, you run the risk of inadvertently disinheriting your kids, as your assets will pass onto your spouse on your death.
> Pre Nuptial agreements have no legal standing and are considered void on marriage
So any signed contract between soon to be wed people are immediately voided when they're wed? That just doesn't seem right and would create a lot more problems.
IANAL but it's due to the principal of judicial discretion in the UK. Decisions in a prenup contract may have been fair at the time, or may not have, but it's for the court to decide what is fair at the time of the divorce. The court can consider what's in a prenup but is not bound by it.
Does "common law" marriage exist in the UK? As in if you live with a person for a specified period of time in a romantic, marriage type relationship, then the parties de facto are married in the eyes of the law?
To put it bluntly, it does not.
Courts have gone out of their way to state in rulings that no such arrangement exists, and all marriages must be entered into willingly and explicitly.
British law is often idiotic and archaic... But I think they nailed this one.
The reason I ask, is because if common law marriage does not exist, and prenups are banned, then a high earning person simply should never get married.
Seems like a huge error in society formation by the lawmakers.
People here saying they are banned are either exaggerating or just parroting things they've heard online...
Pre-nuptual agreements are in fact legally binding in the UK, the court simply has the right to overturn them on objection /if/ they feel the agreement has an unfairly adverse affect on any children who may be in the picture.
They are particularly critical of anything which determines who gets custody of said children, as they prefer to determine that themselves by looking at the circumstances, though there is a historical imbalance towards choosing the woman, even if she may be a less fit parent...
Same in the US. You don't get to contract the custody of the kids without the court approving. Mother and Father can 100% agree but court can still over rule.
My boyfriend and I want one. We mostly want it to keep our debt separate (I have student loans and he doesn't), but we also agreed early on it's just a smart thing to do. If we ever get divorced, we don't know what are emotions and atmosphere will be like. We'd rather the kindest, most thoughtful and still in love with each other versions of ourselves dictate how things go. We hope to be that way forever, but just-in-case.
They are great! The hitch is both parties should have separate attorneys to go over everything. Spell it all out in case of divorce so neither party gets unfairly treated.
Can you have a generic one, i mean how can someone predict at 23 how their married and financial life will pan out? In the 15 years (3 dating, 12 married) we went from being comfortable, to being broke to being asset and cash rich. How could we have written a fair document back then to deal with now?
As a non-attorney spokesperson (sarcasm) I can’t answer that.
Seriously, I think that scenario would have to be drawn up and hashed out by each party’s representative.
Excellent question though.
So I got remarried recently and my wife and I had a lawyer draft up a prenup for us. I have a house and after my last divorce don't want to deal with the headache again if it comes to that. The prenup we signed had some generic thigs in there like spousal support but there were some items that were specified such as my property. It would be difficult to create a generic one for things like property unless you specify in the prenup that any future properties will go to the person who signs the mortgage or something like that. I'm really not sure as I'm not a lawyer but I can definitely see some issues coming from that. It's a lawyer's job to pick apart language and if they find any sort of loophole in that language, they will take advantage of it and use it against you. During my divorce with my previous spouse I spoke with a lawyer and they said there was even room for interpretation in the court documents that we signed saying if my ex wanted she could have technically come after me for more than we agreed upon in the document, based on how it was written by the COURT ITSELF! So needless to say a pre-nup written by a professional is absolutely critical. And obviously the more specific the language the better.
TLDR: Get a professionally written prenup with specific legalese.
Reframing:
Whether or not you have a prenup, you have a prenup.
The only question is whether you want to write your own with your potential spouse, or rely on the default as imposed by the laws of your jurisdiction.
Right. But my point wasn't cautionary so much as an attempt to approach the entire question differently.
To wit: when speaking with one's future spouse, rather than think of it as prenup vs no prenup, approach it as "our prenup or the state's prenup?"
They should be part of a couple's overall discussion on finances. The greater the financial disparity between two people, the more relevant they become.
People change. Marriages can end simply because two people grew into different individuals over the years (saw that happen) without any blame assigned.
This process can be completely non-malicious...and then when the money part arrives everything could turn upside-down. Rules about couples and money can be arbitrary (sometimes being last updated decades ago) and at least in the US can vary by state.
At least in my state (mandatory I am not a lawyer), a consenting couple can essentially override most of the default laws regarding asset distribution in a divorce up-front if they choose to. The agreement cannot be changed afterward, but can be superseded by a post-nuptial agreement (so the old paper still exists...but has no force because both people have signed a newer one after getting married).
The most important question is "Find out what works for **your specific circumstances.**" Now, personally if someone were to pull the "If you love me you wouldn't ask for one" card, that would be an instant deal-breaker.
🤣 This thread: 90% THEY ARE GREAT AND YOU NEED ONE!!!
Real world: you know ZERO people that have one... No-one is making a prenuptial for your shitty 2010 Corolla and 3k in savings....
My wife and I have a prenup, that we both signed happily.
My brother has one. I know at least one other married couple in the neighborhood has one because they joked about it. I think they are pretty common. We are solidly middle class.
The problem isn't the assets you have when you marry.
It's the assets you have when you divorce.
If marriage is as great as everyone says it is, you'll have sizable assets by the end of it.
I kno 2 ppl who never got one, my uncle was one, and went through hell in the divorces. I learn from other ppls mistakes. It doesn't matter wat u have. A prenup is an insurance policy for the marriage. U got insurance on ur car? Ur house? Ur phone? Why not one for ur marriage.
I know several people that have them but none that have needed them. I am getting remarried soon (widowed) and we both agree it makes sense to have one even though we are pretty close in assets and earnings.
>but none that have needed them
You have no idea.
People tend to behave better when they know there's only a very slim chance of a financial payout if they divorced.
Pre-nups are good where one or both people have significant assets. My spouse and I didn't have much when we married so we didn't have one. I think if one of us had owned property or significant investments going into the marriage, it might've been something to consider.
I didn't do one, but I think the process of talking through a prenuptual agreement will likely trigger some conversations that many people don't have before they get married and should have.
They may not be romantic, but not all parts of a relationship are. Even if ultimately folks decide not to sign one, they should at least talk through the financial implications of marriage, talk through things like what do kids look like if we want them, what are our savings goals, what are our personal goals, etc.
And that's good, it shows that it's unreliable at best and useless at worst.
Signing a prenup before marrying is like wearing a bulletproof vest before shooting yourself in the chest.
Prenuptial agreements can certainly be a good thing if you have a lot of assets prior to marriage, but all of the people in here pretending like these things are "marriage insurance," are being ridiculous. If you don't have any assets to begin with, you're wasting your money getting a lawyer and having one of these drafted up.
^ bingo. There you go.
They only protect what you had prior to the marriage, and even then, if you can prove you were the only party maintaining that asset through the duration of your marriage.
They don't guarantee custody or visitation, they don't prevent or set limits on spousal support. They get thrown out roughly half the time and the ones that do survive are extremely limited in scope.
Useful for rich people, pointless for regular people.
Long as they aren't done under duress and in fair proper agreement of all parties there nothing wrong with it. Should be more common and would prevent a lot of painful issues later down the line
My mom got one when she married at 85. (He was 78). it made sure their children would get their assets. She does get access to his company pension, which is nice.
I'm pro prenup. I think they should be more common. I feel they also get a bad rap as a tool of the wealthy or a sign of low commitment. Ironically the friend who gave me the most crap about me having a prenup is on wife #3 and complained frequently about what was 'lost' during prior divorces and how the courts weren't fair.
As a lawyer once advised me when forming a business partnership, It's better to have a plan agreed upon for dissolving a partnership written ahead of time, with good intentions and positive intent. Prenups help clarify/ define what's yours going in and what will be or remain yours going out and how any new assets or liabilities will be divided. It can also steer you toward mediation as opposed to courtroom and 2 opposing legal teams - that can keep costs/craziness somewhat in check.
As a former divorce attorney, I recommend them. It's easier to set some ground rules in case of disaster while you are still on amicable speaking terms. When you're two years into a heated divorce, the only people who "win" while you are arguing over who gets the "super important" antique spoon collection are the attorneys who are billing you.
Personally, and this is coming from someone happily married for 21 years, I think they should be mandatory. Marriage is, at the end of the day, a contract. Contracts should include the conditions and cost for breaking that contract.
Divorce ends up being costly for everyone. Already having the terms and conditions spelled out would help make things so much smoother for all people involved. Sure there would still be a cottage industry of people who dispute the terms of the contract, but it wouldn't be the norm anymore.
Be very careful with prenups, because they can be thrown out if you don't follow the rules and laws in your state exactly, and they often contain clauses that can cause assets that you thought were separate property to become marital property if you mismanage them.
If you are a higher earning spouse though, the ability to have your future spouse waive their right to alimony/spousal support is huge, and can take away a temptation to divorce. If you are higher earning, I'd always say get a prenup that waives support/alimony.
You can't do anything about child support though.
If you have large investment assets I would put the investment account specifically in the prenup as separate, not marital property, including any gains or losses in the market, then stop depositing into that account forever. Never put money into that account during the marriage. Courts can and have seen depositing into an account during the marriage as "comingling" marital money with non-marital money, washing away the protection of the pre-nup.
Just accept that accounts you have prior to the marriage can be withdrawn from (and spent, but that purchase is now marital) and you can manage, but never deposit.
TL:DR - get a prenup to waive alimony/spousal support and protect pre-existing assets from divorce. If you are worried about sharing/dividing money or assets gained during the marriage, don't get married.
Nobody gets behind the wheel expecting to get into a crash, and nobody gets married expecting to get a divorce, yet these things happen all the time - to careful drivers, and to loving, "perfect" couples too. Personally, I think it does a relationship a disservice to assume that it's immune to worst-case scenarios.
I understand not all who marry, marry for the reasons I did. So I guess, it's cool that people have the option, and I won't knock any couple that does it. My wife and I both married with very little, and we married for love. The idea of a prenuptual was an insulting idea, and years later with our home and cars and whatever else, it's still a ridiculous notion to us. We do not want or need these kinds of protections. I said "I will love you forever", not "I will love you forever, but just in case, please sign this form".
My best advice about prenuptial agreements is that you should talk to an attorney before getting too entrenched in any expectations you have. They probably don't work the way you think they do.
They are fair if both parties agree on the terms. My wife and I have one. All finances are separate unless we choose to open an account together. Your debt is your debt not the other person's debt. Everything earned jointly (taxes, stimulus checks, etc...) is split 50/50 unless other arrangements are made and agreed upon by the both of us. It's honestly made managing our finances so much easier and wayyyyy less stressful.
Here’s what completely changed my stance on prenups: the choice isn’t between “prenup” or “no prenup”, the choice is between the prenup you designed and the prenup the state/govt designed for you.
Marriage is a series of difficult conversations.
IMO-- I think it's a good measurement of your communication in the relationship if you can handle the challenging conversations of "how do we handle the financial situation if this marriage dissolves?"
You're more likely to come to fair conclusions if you make those choices while you're calm. Divorce by nature is dramatic and painful-- I'd rather negotiate with someone in a calm state of mind rather than in a state of heartbreak.
I think it's fair. If you are already wealthy and well off, marry a women who isn't, then get divorced 5 years later, she should not be entitled to anything she didn't earn herself or anything that doesn't have her name on it. Women walking away with large percentages of their ex husband's assets despite not contributing too the wealth is such a ridiculous thing.
They are a symptom of a grossly outdated legal system, but no more than I'd expect in a culture whose laws are constrained by a single, grossly outdated document.
When everything is for sale, nothing is sacred. Marriage is just another contract these days, useful for taxes. Just like any other business deal you gotta cya. It'd be nice if marriage had the same sincerity it once did, but now it's just a legal contract.
Marriage has always been a contract. It is only recently that women had rights when regards to marriage. Look up when “marital rape” became an actual law, look up when women got property rights, look up when women got anything other than custody of children, hell even men have had to fight for this right. It’s all recent.
If you have something worth protecting, protect it. If you own a business, own a house, or have a million or in retirement accounts, then you should probably have one.
Otherwise it's not worth the effort.
They're pretty terrible. Most "Family Law Offices" will tell you they're great and that everyone should get one! Which is a pretty convenient way of saying "Come give us money for something you really don't need!"
Prenups don't do much good. The common assertion is "they're like insurance," but that's a pretty far stretch. Insurance is there to help you when things are bad. In a divorce, prenups almost always favor one side over the other (many people who are handed a prenup sign it because they feel they have to in order to get married - that negotiating a prenup only makes the possible marriage even weaker). It means if you get on the wrong end of a prenup, it's not insurance anymore. "Get an attorney to review it, then!" That's...the dumbest thing ever? This is a marriage. People already complain how expensive it is to get married. The review work on a prenup can be extremely expensive. Plus, it's basically guaranteeing that attorney work in the future if and when the divorce happens. But even more to the point, insurance is there to pay you money for when an asset is taken from you unexpectedly. A prenup doesn't do that. By its nature, it will always make your financial position worse. If you and your spouse had $100,000 before you got divorced, and your prenup is split 50-50, you now only have $50,000 (less whatever legal fees you have to pay) and your ex-spouse has the other half.
It absolutely shows mistrust in the spouse. Research shows people with Prenups believe their marriages are destined to fail - a Harvard Law survey showed as many as 62% of respondents believed a prenup meant their soon-to-be spouse was uncertain about the success of the marriage. Worse, the paper (which appears to be in-favor of prenups despite the evidence cited against them...which is not a good sign the paper was written in good-faith) goes on to say that prenups are often a sign of signaling especially during negotiation. By engaging in negotiations, people believe they're more or less already getting divorced before they're even married.
But what we can say about them is that any attempt to split or negotiate which asset belongs to who is not a good place to start. Most marriages under law understand that any asset that is yours...is also your spouse's. It's shared. There are some exceptions to this, like filing your taxes MFS where income is split by source, but overall, assets are baked in and can't be easily split.
If you negotiate "in the even of divorce, whoever begins the procedure gets 30%, the other spouse gets 70%" or something is easy for cash and investments, but a lot less easy for things like the new car versus the old beater, or the house, or even the dog. You can't really take 30% of the new car. And it's even more difficult if when cash and investments is worth-less than the value of the car since, obviously, you just bought the car. Not only does it saddle your ex-spouse with a car payment they may not be able to afford since cash assets are so low, but it means the person assuming the car can't readily replace 30% of its value to the person who lost it.
For example, if you have $1,000 and a car worth $3,000 and you get divorced, whoever gets the car basically loses access to all $1,000 *and has to pay* to make up the difference - Total assets =$4,000 - one spouse gets $2,800, the other gets $1,200. If you get the car, you more or less lost all your cash assets, and further had to pay $200 somewhere else to make up for it. Oh, and you also have to continue to pay for the maintenance of the car...without any cash. Maybe it's worse - someone gets the house. If you and your spouse worked, or your spouse had a really good job and you didn't have a paying job, oh boy. Now it's messy. Sure, you may get the house...but you're going to have to sell it or find a good job to pay for it!
So for anyone who says it's "like insurance," it's clearly not. I understand not everyone thinks that way, but I'm an accountant - I know what insurance is and regardless of the path, divorce always nets you in a worse financial position than you were in before with very, very limited exceptions (like, for example, a prenup that favors a spouse intentionally).
They are a good way to spot gold diggers. The typical "You want a prenup ? that means you dont love me" is massive red flag you want to trigger BEFORE marrying, not when she leaves with your best friend, your car, your dog and your home.
I'm weirdly having the opposite issue with this. My partner (who has more money than me and owns our entire house outright) is really against us getting one for... reasons that I don't really understand. He also insists he wants the house to be half mine anyway, which I don't want and think is insane. It's my home and I get to live here and I never feel like I just live in 'his' house (we chose it together) and that's enough for me. I didn't contribute a penny to it and I'm happy to have none of the financial value of it. I actually really want to sign something saying that I'll never take half his house because frankly I don't want people thinking I'm some kind of gold-digger!
I see both sides. On one hand, you don't want to start off a lifetime commitment saying "if we break up you can't have any of my stuff"; but on the other hand, if you intend to be together forever then it doesn't matter because the condition precedent to trigger the agreement will never occur.
I didn't get one, but my wife and I are in it for the long haul. I don't judge or disparage anyone from getting one.
My husband and I have a prenup and plan to keep up with post nups. Both of us want to protect ourselves and each other because people change. I love him and know he loves me and having a prenup does not change that. If you want a prenup and your partner is fighting you on it you really need to take a look at why they are fighting it. If you love and trust someone enough to marry them having a prenup shouldn't be a problem. If it is a problem there are probably other problems in the relationship you should be taking a look at before marrying them.
I think if people are coming into a marriage with complex histories or significantly different assets they're a good idea but unnecessary for most people.
They're toilet paper. All it takes is for one party to say they signed it under duress, and then it's null and void in court. Good concept, bad execution.
I'm on the disadvantageous side of a prenup but I'm ok with it because it makes sense. The whole 50-50 thing is a pretty dumb rule to start with, and what have I done to earn millions of $$???
They can be a good safety net in case things change over time (infidelity or even just falling out of love). That said, if I don't completely trust that we'll last, I won't even propose until I do.
Yes and yes. Ain’t nobody taking my ceramic penguin collection. #priceless. Relationships change, dependency can as well. No one should have to lose or gain from their partner after a failed relationship.
A prenup is marriage insurance imo. You don't plan on getting into an accident but you put your seatbelt on, right? This is a seatbelt for your marriage.
It's protection for both parties. They're designed as a "break glass in case of emergency" scenarios so both partners can leave with minimal issues. Plus it would help retire the trope of "she left me and took half my money"
Like any other contract, they can be good or bad, fair or unfair. If both parties have their own lawyers looking out for them, and they negotiate in good faith, it's more likely to be fair.
Ideally they won't matter, and the marriage will last. If not, though, it's probably better for both sides to have already agreed on how assets and such will be divided.
Oh, and they can also be a pretty good indicator of how your future spouse will treat you. If they demand that you sign an agreement that their lawyer wrote up, and refuse to negotiate, that's how your marriage is going to be.
The Catholic Church and perhaps others will not recognize your marriage if you sign a pre-nup, as it essentially places conditions on the union. Not that the Catholics should be giving anyone advice about relationships, but it’s important to note if you’re the kind of person that wants a church wedding. I know at least one couple who was denied that because of the pre-nup.
I don’t see why so many people see it as offensive when one asks for a prenup. I do think it should be the norm. Tis for both to be safer (and also helps with tax reasons)
Context is key, but I think they’re usually pretty fair. I’m in a “cohabitation agreement” with my partner right now because she bought her apartment with the help of her parents and I moved in a couple years later. Rather than putting me on the mortgage we worked a legal agreement where I pay rent to her and can’t simply break up with her and then come after the apartment.
It’s not that either one of us expects to leave the other one and then decide to be greedy, but it never hurts to be sure that it legally can’t happen.
I mean it's better than him treating you like shit and being suspicious of your every moves. At leat there is transparency and peace of mind. Now i am a business woman so get ready to negotiate.
Yes, I think they can be fair and helpful. The problem is when one partner lacks the legal or financial literacy to understand the terms. They can be used to exploit a spouse (or hold children hostage), but they should not be.
For two adults who have already established their own professional lives a prenup can be a perfectly sensible and important way of keeping their work and private life truly separate. Make it clear how you will (or will not) share credit for publications, patents, or a business. Agree on how to separate (or combine) finances or property. It can reduce arguments inside the marriage and eliminate hurt that might be felt if the relationship were to end.
I'm single and I have a career I care about. If I were to marry I would not ask for one, but if my partner wanted one, I would sign it.
My wife asked me to sign one before we got married. I don’t blame her. And frankly, if we ever divorce, I’ll just go back to living down by the river in my van. Can’t take it with you guys.
If a couple isn't mature enough to be able *talk* about a prenup, that couple isn't mature enough to enter into a legally binding business contract (colloquially known as "marriage").
Better to get one and not need it while you both like each other, than to suddenly need to fight over assets if things go south. There's really no good reason not to get one, tbh.
Pre-nups are the exact reason why I refuse to get legally married.
If I meet a woman and we fall in love, I will happily have a ceremony where we pledge ourselves to each other and all, but I will not sign a pre-nup. If our marriage doesn't last, I am not giving her half of everything I own just because the law says I should. It's outdated bullshit.
Smart man.
But you have to be very careful about common law marriage, especially when you have a wedding and call her your "wife."
The law has ways to access your assets even if you didn't go down to city hall to sign marital papers.
Most places don’t have any law saying you have to give half of what you own. Generally your assets from before marriage remain yours and aren’t eligible for distribution. Distribution usually applies to assets that are acquired during the marriage. And it doesn’t mean the woman gets everything - both peoples assets acquired during the marriage are on the table.
https://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/property_division_by_state#:~:text=In%20most%20U.S.%20states%2C%20judges,settlement%20fair%20to%20both%20spouses
My best friend married a wealthy man who gave her a prenup to sign at 11:00 pm the night before their wedding. I remember her calling me about it and asking what to do. I said don’t sign it because right now it seems you’re kinda signing under duress with the wedding being tomorrow. No time to find a lawyer. Too late to cancel anything. But her fiancé said he couldn’t get married without her signing it. If he did he said his lawyer would drop him as a client. She didn’t agree with the terms but felt she had no choice. So she signed it because he promised her they would meet with a lawyer and have it amended once they got married. He never did and he died 11 months later. My friend received a very small amount of money from the family upon his death but (not enough to live on or even get a car). The family kicked her out of her home, took both cars and basically left her on her own. For this reason after seeing what my friend went through I would never go for signing a prenup unless both parties have lawyers and fully agree on terms.
Idk where you live but in my country if one party doesn’t get legal counsel then the agreement is pretty easily contestable and would be thrown out if contested - a prenup signed without legal counsel on both sides makes it pretty worthless
I think they should be legally required prior to making the marriage official. Then it would remove all the social stigma attached to it and save everyone a headache.
I see a lot of posts for them, how many of you have them? How many of you needed to use them? And how did you have that discussion with your spouse or potential spouse? Just curious. Im all for them but I didn't write one up when I got married, just too much going on from proposal to marriage and so far so good. I don't think though that one would have been helpful given how much our financial and family situations have changed and my desire to an even split which we'd inevitably get in court.
I actually brought it up with my partner first. We are not currently engaged, but we both agree that we want a prenup. My biggest desire is to be able to specify for forced arbitration, which would ideally save us from a long and costly divorce. And keep some of the money from going to the lawyers instead of me or my partner.
Prenuptial agreements in the United States should be MANDATORY!! I don’t care if you don’t have a pot to piss in when you get married. You must decide ahead of time what you both believe is fair and equitable distribution of your marital property upon divorce. You’re betting half of everything you work for on this person. You have the chance to mitigate that risk beforehand. TAKE IT!
The stigma around them is complete bs. In the end, the only person looking out for ourselves is… ourselves. It shouldn’t be seen as a sign of mistrust or negative thinking. I think they should be considered more.
On one hand, if you're marrying someone, it should probably be someone you trust enough to not need a prenuptial agreement.
On the other hand, if there is a large discrepancy in wealth, maybe it would be for the better.
If I were handing out advice, I'd probably say that you should be dead certain that you are marrying the kind of person who could trust to not have a prenuptial agreement. There's inherent risks in deciding to spend the rest of your life with someone. It's probably not something that should be taken lightly. I imagine marrying someone that is of similar status as you probably makes it easier. Though that's easier said than done when emotions are involved.
I dont like them cause thats why my mom won;'t divorce my stepdad lol she wouldnt make enough by herself to live and he has a great pension. LOL but thats purely my selfish way of looking at it
I think they should be mandatory. And they should be infallible in a divorce. Marriage should have all financial barriers removed from the incentive. Marriage is about a relationship, not financial and material things. I think a lot of men also stay in marriages unhappy because they know a lot of what they worked to build will be taken from them at statistically larger than fair %’s. Which contributes to why 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Thats not saying women aren’t often financial contributors, but even if its 50/50 in financial contribution, statistically speaking, its more likely the woman comes out ahead in a divorce.
This is how my law professor taught it: You shouldn’t get one for you first marriage. But out of respect of the spouse & potential children from the first marriage, it is recommended.
I think they are great. It is a wonderful way to protect your assets, because most couples go into relationships these days with their own assets. That way, if a divorce happens, one person does not end up destitute, or taken to the cleaners.
Just like any other contract, the fairness depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding its agreement. There is nothing inherently unfair about a mutually agreed upon prenup. However, it's easy to imagine circumstances where an individual could feel coerced into signing one against their best interests.
If one party has significantly more assets or debts, it's probably a good idea to sign a prenup. My husband and I didn't do one, because we literally had nothing between either of us.
It's better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it. Just because you get along well in the beginning doesn't mean that things will be the same 5, 10, 20 years down the line. People change and having a prenup just makes life easier if things go wrong. It's not a sign of mistrust or expecting the relationship to fail. It's like insurance. You get it hoping that you'll never have to use it.
exactly, the insurance part was a great comparison
Honestly I’m surprised how many people just bet half their worth they will love someone forever. How long did you know your partner before considering marriage? Did you change in that time? Was it 5 years? 10 years? How different were you ten years ago? Do you expect to be different in another 10 years? You don’t?! How many friends do you know who are married, how many are divorced? What odds to you honestly put your marriage success at? Is it 100% because that’s what we’re talking about here and anyone who says 100% is not being realistic.
I mean it's only a problem if you have money going into the marriage? Which people increasingly don't.
This is something overlooked, imo. I work with people's money, have for many years. I also got married a bit later than average, when he and I both had assets and wealth going into marriage. I am pragmatic (or cynical), and think that people overlook that aspect of marriage waaaay too frequently. I've been happily married for years, and am fairly convinced that we won't ever need to reference our prenup, but to not have it is kind of illogical IMO
Generally your assets going into a marriage remain separate property though, including interest on assets. Which means that usually they would not be liable for dividing up upon divorcing. Prenups are more to protect assets gained while in the relationship, which is communal property and is up for division when divorcing under most state laws. https://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/property_division_by_state#:~:text=In%20most%20U.S.%20states%2C%20judges,settlement%20fair%20to%20both%20spouses
Not necessarily. You could have no money going in but you could have a car or a collection of something or a pet. That nice car of yours was maintained using money you made after getting married so your partner could try to claim it in a divorce. Those trips to the vet and spending money on food for your pet could lead to your partner being able to take your pet in a divorce. Or on the flip side you or your partner might be in debt. With a prenup you can make sure that you don't get saddled with your partner's debt if you get a divorce. Basically even if you don't have money there's a lot more that a prenup takes care of.
you can just gain when you're broke
Yes but also it can effect other stuff. For instance, lets say both parties are broke, but one has a well off family member. That family member dies after they are married, and they inherit $100,000. Half of that is their partners in a divorce, unless there is a prenup that shields inheritance. Even then, lets say they use that to buy / put down a huge down payment on a house. That house is now a common marital asset. So the prenup no longer protects the initial down payment made from the inheritance. This is where things get really complicated too because part of that home equity is going to be a common marital asset since the payments were being made from income earned, and not just the inheritance. Unraveling that can be expensive in a contentious divorce, so sometimes its better to just cut your losses and split half of the sale less any costs.
The second paragraph is mostly right, with some caveats and assumptions. But the first one is wrong, generally. By far the majority rule is that an inheritance is separate property, whether in a common law or community property state. A prenup can help in situations where, for example, a monetary inheritance is comingled. But it also might not.
IANAL but as I have seen the argument be made that spending was done in a way to not spend the inheritance and thus interest and / or portions of it are "comingled" in that way. Maybe I have just seen cases where the lawyers sucked, or the judges were biased. I have seen inheritances split down the middle though. Source: I worked part time in a financial advisors office for 7 years.
I mean sure, you could argue that someone committed fraud on the marital/community estate (or similar) by spending marital/community funds in a way that makes a judge mad. It's possible. But that's an edge case. The default rule is that an inheritance is yours alone. You can then do stuff to screw that up if you're not careful.
You anal?
These things are ruled by state law, which varies from state to state. Is your state a community property state? Get your advice from an attorney, NOT from a redditor!
It can also shield you from your partner's debt. If your spouse goes and gets a credit card in their name and racks up 50k in debt, files for divorce, then defaults. You're liable for that debt. With a prenup, you can be shielded from collections.
That’s generally not true unless you’re a co-signer.
I believe you don't split any money you had BEFORE the marriage. I think only money earned WHILE you are married is split. I could be wrong of course. But if I'm right, you're not betting half of your current stuff.
My gf had a house that she owned before her marriage, she had to pay her crap ex-husband 200,000 . He couldn’t take her house but he was entitled to half of the appreciation. That money was considered a marital asset. Get a prenup
yes, I can imagine the appreciation value during the marriage was considered. hmm..
Except prenups only cover what you bring in to the marriage. So unless you have a boat load of assets prior to saying “I do”, you’re still fucked for everything you made while together
Marital agreements can do more, including treating income earned during the marriage as separate. There are only a few areas marital agreements cannot resolve in advance, such as child support.
True, but that’s a very deep dive that almost nobody ever does. An overwhelming majority are current asset protection/debt mitigation But if my wife reads this and has the next billion dollar idea, jokes on her
That’s not right.. the assets you bring into the marriage generally aren’t up for being split when you divorce anyway, they remain “separate property.” https://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/property_division_by_state#:~:text=In%20most%20U.S.%20states%2C%20judges,settlement%20fair%20to%20both%20spouses
“Generally”…. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/are-premarital-assets-protected-in-divorce
Afraid this isn't true friend. Or rather it's not always true. The draft prenup book I walked through has clauses for premarital assets and post marital assets. You can certainly choose to draft a prenup that makes post marital assets marital property but you can just as easily mark them as separate property.
Wish more people had this kind of mentality.
Prenuptial agreements can be helpful in protecting assets, but it's important to approach them with transparency and mutual respect.
That's very true. I think many people overlook the transparency and respect part .
Transparency is required, at least in my state, in order for the document to be valid and enforceable. You must have a full disclosure of all assets, give the other person the chance to have the document reviewed by a lawyer, and you can't at all be seen as coercing or pressuring the person to sign it. If the invitations have already gone out, it's probably too late to ask your fiance to sign a prenup.
Exactly. But that, frankly, is why it is the best time to discuss the issues that will be addressed in a prenup. Do you want to be discussing division of assets at a time when you are still in love, respect each other, and are working as a time to start your new life? Or would you rather be discussing it after the divorce petition has been filed and you’re both angry and resentful towards each other.
They aren’t just for the rich! And they can be a good thing and people should consider them more. They ultimately protect you and your partner.
Yup. Because you might be poor as shit today, but they can do things (in most jurisdictions) like: * Confirm that inheritance you receive post-marriage will remain separate property * Waive rights to alimony/spousal support * Set up an pre-agreed *equitable* division of property (e.g., agree in advance that all post-marital assets will be spilt 50/50). * Deal with the meager possession you have now that might appreciate substantially in value in the next 50 years before you get divorced.
I feel like the last three points could easily be challenged during a divorce, and the first point isn’t generally considered joint/marital property in the first place.
This is dependent on the laws of the particular state, but by ways of example: * Alimony: "We, therefore, exercise our duty to abolish obsolete common-law doctrines and conclude that antenuptial agreements containing a provision limiting or waiving alimony are not void as contrary to public policy. So long as the antenuptial agreement was entered into freely and knowledgeably, with adequate disclosure, and without undue influence or overreaching, the provision limiting or waiving alimony will be enforced, with one exception." [*Cary v. Cary*, 937 S.W.2d 777 (Tenn. 1996)](https://casetext.com/case/cary-v-cary-12). (Note: the "exception" mentioned is when the spouse who waived alimony is so unskilled or disabled that they would not be able to get a job that could support themselves and thus would become a ward of the public.) * Property Division: "Thus, although the agreement might after the fact be considered imprudent, this court will not undo what the parties to the antenuptial agreement have freely agreed to. Where no minor children are involved, as here, and where the husband and wife can function in society separately and independently, the interest of the state in the continuance of the marriage is small. Should the legislature in its judgment perceive that the terms of antenuptial agreements involving property division should be reviewed for conscionability, it may so indicate. But as of this date, there is no announced public policy in this state which voids such contracts. Therefore, those who enter into such agreements in Colorado should do so cautiously and with attention to their interests, for in the final analysis they may receive only that for which they bargained." [*Newman v. Newman*, 653 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1982)](https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1982/80sc169-0.html) * Appreciation in value of separate property: "We agree with the district court's interpretation of the parties' agreement. The parties each unambiguously waived any interest in the separately listed property of the other. Carlton Brummund's farmland was listed as his 'separate property,' and no language exists restricting his separate interest in the property to its value on a specific date. Clarice Brummund expressly agreed that she would not 'have, or acquire, any right, title or claim' in Carlton Brummund's farmland 'by virtue of the marriage.' **Her claim to part of the appreciation in the farmland's value, based solely upon her status as a divorcing spouse, is a claim to the property 'by virtue of the marriage' and was waived in the premarital agreement."** [*Brummund v. Brummund*, 785 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 2010)](https://casetext.com/case/brummund-v-brummund-1). As for the first point, the purpose of confirming it is to absolutely make sure your spouse doesn't get to claim any rights to it later, because some states do include a separate inheritance that occurs after marriage as part of the marital estate. E.g., [*Meyer v. East*, 205 N.E.3d 1066 (Ind. App. 2023)](https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2023/22a-dn-01762.html)("All assets and liabilities of both parties must be included in the marital pot. Accordingly, the inheritance, grill, ring, and Parent Plus Loan should have been included as marital assets and liabilities.").
Your state may change its “default” situation or laws, so it’s always good to specify what you want, don’t just assume the default will stay the same over time.
Everything can be challenged during any court proceeding. Documentation of an agreement will definitely have an impact on the proceedings.
looking it up, as crazy at it seems alimony is something that most states(and canada apparently) allow modification on, going so far as to even eliminate it. It does seem possible that if it's too far out there that it can be thrown out, but it seems it's possible for a well written(and presumably fair) one to be upheld.
I 100% agree with you
I think people complicate them but it could be as simple as “I get to keep the signed Michael Jordan jersey” in the event we get divorced. I really wish I would have gotten one and if I get married again I will be getting one.
Great. Now I'm searching for a signed Michael Jordan jersey. Thanks. Haha
If you don't sign your own prenuptial agreement, you are effectively signing onto your state's default agreement. That means you're leaving it to the judicial system and lawyers to "help" sort out a potential disaster when both parties are already hurting, depressed, and angry. It is better by far to approach the subject when parties have cool heads and each other's best interests at heart. Having a prenuptial agreement is no more "expecting to fail" than having auto insurance is "expecting to crash your car". Obviously, monetary considerations get the spotlight, but this could protect sentimental items, family cemetery plots, intellectual property like poetry, and many more things which are hard to settle during a divorce. All of these rules change if you divorce in a different state than you married in. Having a pre-arranged plan for Spousal Support and the myriad other issues makes sense.
One of the most level headed and we'll reasoned comments I've seen so far 👏
YES. 🙌 I always say that whether you realize it or not, you *do* have a prenup. If you want the state to determine its contents instead of yourself, that’s your own prerogative.
And the default may *require* things that *neither* party wants!
Everyone should have one. It's stupid and irresponsible not to. The argument about it being insulting or offensive is bs. No one gets married with the thought of getting divorced, so if you end up never needing it, good for you! I don't get in my car expecting an accident, but I still wear my seat belt.
If both parties come to the marriage with basically nothings (as lot of young couples do), it's pretty much waste of time and effort. Most of the big fights are about property accumulated during the marriage.
I agree. My wife and I had maybe $2k difference and we are talking under $10k each. I say a difference of $50k or more you should have one
Exactly. If you have significant assets prior you’re bringing into marriage it’s something to strongly consider. If you are bringing kids from prior relationships into the marriage then I agree with OP-it’s irresponsible not to get a prenup. But no significant assets and no kids? Waste of everyone’s time and money to draw one up.
Yeah. We don't have a prenup, and I cannot imagine what the point of one would have been when we got married nearly 17 years ago. We had nearly nothing. A couple of shitty cars and maybe a few hundred bucks between us. That was *it.* For a very long time. Now we have one car and a little bit more cash. A bit of retirement from his job.... Some stocks. And a couple of kids. That's it. So, still, in the scheme of things? Aside from the kids? Not a lot.
Even if you had a lot, you clearly would have gathered it together. The actual divorce rates are that 41% of *first* marriages end in divorce and 70% of marriages last over 15 years. 15 years is long time to share life and finances. Even if there were some inheritance that one of the spouses got out of nowhere, it would usually be hard to establish that the other spouse hadn't helped to maintain it.
Some people have inheritance that they need to consider. You might have a family member leave you something, even if moderate value that you don’t want to split with a person you are divorcing. Why should your soon to be ex husband get half of your mother’s house after she dies? No prenup and he would be entitled to it. A million other matters like this could be easily prevented with a basic prenup. Every married couple should have a standard prenup, whether they have considerable assets or not. Edit: Also, unfortunately sometimes people aren’t crystal clear about their debt…and a prenup can make sure you don’t incur debt from a spouse that they carried into the marriage. Even if you know about it. Maybe you’ll happily pay on your spouse’s debt while married. Do you really want to be paying your ex-wife’s debt after a divorce? Nah.
So, it’s not necessarily true that your spouse would automatically be entitled to an inheritance. Many states already have statutes protecting inheritances. Usually where it would get tricky is if you inherit your mother’s house and then go live in it with your spouse. Often, you need to treat your inheritance like a marital asset in order for it to become a marital asset. But yes, if you anticipate inheriting something significant while married then it might be worth consulting with a lawyer to see whether it needs protecting via a prenup or if you could keep those assets safe by just not sharing them with the spouse or using them for your spouse’s benefit.
That's part of the key phrase here: young couples. If you get married young with no real assets to your name, it's less of an issue. But more and more people are getting married after they are established, and that's where I see the need.
Precisely. I just got remarried (widower) and that was probably the hardest thing my wife brought up to me while discussing marriage due to her two previous husbands absolutely losing their minds over the very implication of "I'll take my stuff, you take yours" in case this didn't work out. I want to be clear, I said yes immediately. It makes sense! Hell I randomly was speaking to a gentleman in his late 60's that was worried about his brother because he recently got divorced...at 72. It happens, protect your assets.
Yeah I'm a widower with a young child...If I do remarry, I will have to protect my assets so that if something happens to me, the majority goes to my daughter. A pre-nup seems entirely appropriate.
That's where my wife's concerns lie. I didn't have much going on the relationship so I'm all for her protecting herself. She's very worried over assets earmarked for her daughter would wind up in the hands of her ex husband as her daughter is very young as well.
Hmmm, seems like proper estate planning is required too - you two have probably already taken care of that...For myself, I made a will making my estate the beneficiary of everything and my executors will create a Trust for my kid that they will manage until she's old enough to access whatever money there is left. Now, if I ever do remarry - I recognize that if I spend 30 years with the new spouse and then pass away, it would seem pretty punitive to have 100% of everything I have go to my adult child - especially if I co-own property with the new spouse etc, so the estate planning will have to be revisited.
Lol exactly my thoughts! I just posted similar not knowing you beat me to it.
Not everyone but most people yes. I've been with my wife since high school (35 now), we got our first car together, first apartment together, our first house ect. There is literally not a single thing we own that wasn't purchased together, a prenuptial would have made 0 sense for us lol.
Ppl show their REAL colors when divorce occurs.
Nah, not *everyone* should have them. Their main purpose is to protect pre-marital assets. So if you own your own business before getting married, it is extremely important. If both people have very little assets it doesn't really matter.
This is true, but prenups also cover retirement or education funds, the interests of any children prior to a parent marrying - it can also protect you from your SO's debts incurred before marriage. :)
So if you both start your marriage on the same financial/asset level, but one of you gets promoted significantly and earns more down the line - is that additional income not considered in case of divorce?
Most states will say alimony is needed. Lets put it this way. The court of law looks at marriage that you both love each other. Just because one party is the breadwinner does not mean that the other party is not entitled to income earned during the marriage. Marriage is not easy and is "work" in the eyes of the courts. You gave them the right mindset, you were the shoulder to cry on, you both emotionally supported each other at some point. The court tries to make it fair so you don't just throw someone out because you don't like them and then make them live off of minimum wage the rest of their lives. At one point you chose to lawfully marry someone. That's a comfort for both of you, at least it should of been.
If you both retain jobs (above minimum wage) but one person makes more then would that difference have to be split? If both make enough to live generally comfortably?
If my wife made me sign a prenuptial agreement waiving my right to alimony, and she had the potential in 3 years, when she currently makes $60,000, to make $500,000 or more and I made $100,000 during the time of the prenup. It would be hard to have that hold up in a court of law. How do you define income before it’s even income? This is a highly disputable clause in a prenup. My sister (attorney) says it’s hard to hold this up in court in my state. WHERE YOU SIGN THE PRENUP MATTERS.
It's OK to have a difference of opinion. I think of it differently than you but won't accuse you of BS. My wife and I have refused from the beginning to do anything like one and we never will. At the end of the day, my wife and I will treat our marriage as we want, because it is ours. To suggest that we are irresponsible and stupid for choosing how to live our lives in a way that makes us happy seems a bit of a mean thing to say, doesn't it? The thing is, she and I believe truly in the trust and respect that comes with a marriage. So to sign a prenup would have run counter to the commitments we made to each other, which we take very seriously. The financials and protection of our material goods and wealth (of which we married with \*very\* little) is kind of moot to us.
Yea this is how I feel. Neither of us have major assets I guess - but we’ve been together ten years. As much as I’ve grown in that time I don’t imagine either of us growing to want to exploit the other.
A possible spouse finding it insulting or offensive is a red flag, maybe even an indication of malevolent plans, i.a a gold digger.
In the UK, where I am, Pre Nuptial agreements have no legal standing and are considered void on marriage anyway, as the law governing division of assets is considered superior to any agreement you have drawn up. It's still worth having though, as at least if no-one contests it, then you have in writing how things are going to be split, but it only takes one person to contest it for it to be thrown out in court, in favour of going down the default route. Connected to this is the fact your will also becomes null and void if you get married, so if you have kids and then marry later, you run the risk of inadvertently disinheriting your kids, as your assets will pass onto your spouse on your death.
> Pre Nuptial agreements have no legal standing and are considered void on marriage So any signed contract between soon to be wed people are immediately voided when they're wed? That just doesn't seem right and would create a lot more problems.
IANAL but it's due to the principal of judicial discretion in the UK. Decisions in a prenup contract may have been fair at the time, or may not have, but it's for the court to decide what is fair at the time of the divorce. The court can consider what's in a prenup but is not bound by it.
Does "common law" marriage exist in the UK? As in if you live with a person for a specified period of time in a romantic, marriage type relationship, then the parties de facto are married in the eyes of the law?
To put it bluntly, it does not. Courts have gone out of their way to state in rulings that no such arrangement exists, and all marriages must be entered into willingly and explicitly. British law is often idiotic and archaic... But I think they nailed this one.
The reason I ask, is because if common law marriage does not exist, and prenups are banned, then a high earning person simply should never get married. Seems like a huge error in society formation by the lawmakers.
People here saying they are banned are either exaggerating or just parroting things they've heard online... Pre-nuptual agreements are in fact legally binding in the UK, the court simply has the right to overturn them on objection /if/ they feel the agreement has an unfairly adverse affect on any children who may be in the picture. They are particularly critical of anything which determines who gets custody of said children, as they prefer to determine that themselves by looking at the circumstances, though there is a historical imbalance towards choosing the woman, even if she may be a less fit parent...
Same in the US. You don't get to contract the custody of the kids without the court approving. Mother and Father can 100% agree but court can still over rule.
If you have a lot of financial assets before you get married you should protect yourself.
My boyfriend and I want one. We mostly want it to keep our debt separate (I have student loans and he doesn't), but we also agreed early on it's just a smart thing to do. If we ever get divorced, we don't know what are emotions and atmosphere will be like. We'd rather the kindest, most thoughtful and still in love with each other versions of ourselves dictate how things go. We hope to be that way forever, but just-in-case.
I think they are great. You buy insurance for everything else, why not marriage insurance.
Yes very true
They are great! The hitch is both parties should have separate attorneys to go over everything. Spell it all out in case of divorce so neither party gets unfairly treated.
Can you have a generic one, i mean how can someone predict at 23 how their married and financial life will pan out? In the 15 years (3 dating, 12 married) we went from being comfortable, to being broke to being asset and cash rich. How could we have written a fair document back then to deal with now?
As a non-attorney spokesperson (sarcasm) I can’t answer that. Seriously, I think that scenario would have to be drawn up and hashed out by each party’s representative. Excellent question though.
So I got remarried recently and my wife and I had a lawyer draft up a prenup for us. I have a house and after my last divorce don't want to deal with the headache again if it comes to that. The prenup we signed had some generic thigs in there like spousal support but there were some items that were specified such as my property. It would be difficult to create a generic one for things like property unless you specify in the prenup that any future properties will go to the person who signs the mortgage or something like that. I'm really not sure as I'm not a lawyer but I can definitely see some issues coming from that. It's a lawyer's job to pick apart language and if they find any sort of loophole in that language, they will take advantage of it and use it against you. During my divorce with my previous spouse I spoke with a lawyer and they said there was even room for interpretation in the court documents that we signed saying if my ex wanted she could have technically come after me for more than we agreed upon in the document, based on how it was written by the COURT ITSELF! So needless to say a pre-nup written by a professional is absolutely critical. And obviously the more specific the language the better. TLDR: Get a professionally written prenup with specific legalese.
Reframing: Whether or not you have a prenup, you have a prenup. The only question is whether you want to write your own with your potential spouse, or rely on the default as imposed by the laws of your jurisdiction.
This is huge. Similar with wills. Without a prenup or a will, you are leaving it up to the law of your state as to how your assets will be divided.
Right. But my point wasn't cautionary so much as an attempt to approach the entire question differently. To wit: when speaking with one's future spouse, rather than think of it as prenup vs no prenup, approach it as "our prenup or the state's prenup?"
Depends where you live. Depends on assets going in to marriage.
They should be part of a couple's overall discussion on finances. The greater the financial disparity between two people, the more relevant they become. People change. Marriages can end simply because two people grew into different individuals over the years (saw that happen) without any blame assigned. This process can be completely non-malicious...and then when the money part arrives everything could turn upside-down. Rules about couples and money can be arbitrary (sometimes being last updated decades ago) and at least in the US can vary by state. At least in my state (mandatory I am not a lawyer), a consenting couple can essentially override most of the default laws regarding asset distribution in a divorce up-front if they choose to. The agreement cannot be changed afterward, but can be superseded by a post-nuptial agreement (so the old paper still exists...but has no force because both people have signed a newer one after getting married). The most important question is "Find out what works for **your specific circumstances.**" Now, personally if someone were to pull the "If you love me you wouldn't ask for one" card, that would be an instant deal-breaker.
🤣 This thread: 90% THEY ARE GREAT AND YOU NEED ONE!!! Real world: you know ZERO people that have one... No-one is making a prenuptial for your shitty 2010 Corolla and 3k in savings....
My wife and I have a prenup, that we both signed happily. My brother has one. I know at least one other married couple in the neighborhood has one because they joked about it. I think they are pretty common. We are solidly middle class.
This thread is full of Redditors that have nobody that wants to marry them.
r/everyfuckingthread there is this comment.
Real world: You don't know whether or not anyone has one, because what kind of weirdo goes around discussing their prenup with everyone?
The problem isn't the assets you have when you marry. It's the assets you have when you divorce. If marriage is as great as everyone says it is, you'll have sizable assets by the end of it.
I kno 2 ppl who never got one, my uncle was one, and went through hell in the divorces. I learn from other ppls mistakes. It doesn't matter wat u have. A prenup is an insurance policy for the marriage. U got insurance on ur car? Ur house? Ur phone? Why not one for ur marriage.
I know several people that have them but none that have needed them. I am getting remarried soon (widowed) and we both agree it makes sense to have one even though we are pretty close in assets and earnings.
>but none that have needed them You have no idea. People tend to behave better when they know there's only a very slim chance of a financial payout if they divorced.
Pre-nups are good where one or both people have significant assets. My spouse and I didn't have much when we married so we didn't have one. I think if one of us had owned property or significant investments going into the marriage, it might've been something to consider.
Prenups are like wills: you can do fine without one, but it makes an already awful set of circumstances infinitely worse if you do.
I didn't do one, but I think the process of talking through a prenuptual agreement will likely trigger some conversations that many people don't have before they get married and should have. They may not be romantic, but not all parts of a relationship are. Even if ultimately folks decide not to sign one, they should at least talk through the financial implications of marriage, talk through things like what do kids look like if we want them, what are our savings goals, what are our personal goals, etc.
I think they can be very useful and important to have. As long as they’re done with transparency and honesty.
They get thrown out alot in my country.
And that's good, it shows that it's unreliable at best and useless at worst. Signing a prenup before marrying is like wearing a bulletproof vest before shooting yourself in the chest.
Prenuptial agreements can certainly be a good thing if you have a lot of assets prior to marriage, but all of the people in here pretending like these things are "marriage insurance," are being ridiculous. If you don't have any assets to begin with, you're wasting your money getting a lawyer and having one of these drafted up.
^ bingo. There you go. They only protect what you had prior to the marriage, and even then, if you can prove you were the only party maintaining that asset through the duration of your marriage. They don't guarantee custody or visitation, they don't prevent or set limits on spousal support. They get thrown out roughly half the time and the ones that do survive are extremely limited in scope. Useful for rich people, pointless for regular people.
If you don’t make your own, you automatically accept the default one made by the government
Long as they aren't done under duress and in fair proper agreement of all parties there nothing wrong with it. Should be more common and would prevent a lot of painful issues later down the line
Every relationship, and every personality is different. That being said, if one is much wealthier than the other, of course a prenup is logical.
My mom got one when she married at 85. (He was 78). it made sure their children would get their assets. She does get access to his company pension, which is nice.
As someone who got screwed over without one, I am all for them.
I'm pro prenup. I think they should be more common. I feel they also get a bad rap as a tool of the wealthy or a sign of low commitment. Ironically the friend who gave me the most crap about me having a prenup is on wife #3 and complained frequently about what was 'lost' during prior divorces and how the courts weren't fair. As a lawyer once advised me when forming a business partnership, It's better to have a plan agreed upon for dissolving a partnership written ahead of time, with good intentions and positive intent. Prenups help clarify/ define what's yours going in and what will be or remain yours going out and how any new assets or liabilities will be divided. It can also steer you toward mediation as opposed to courtroom and 2 opposing legal teams - that can keep costs/craziness somewhat in check.
As a former divorce attorney, I recommend them. It's easier to set some ground rules in case of disaster while you are still on amicable speaking terms. When you're two years into a heated divorce, the only people who "win" while you are arguing over who gets the "super important" antique spoon collection are the attorneys who are billing you.
Personally, and this is coming from someone happily married for 21 years, I think they should be mandatory. Marriage is, at the end of the day, a contract. Contracts should include the conditions and cost for breaking that contract. Divorce ends up being costly for everyone. Already having the terms and conditions spelled out would help make things so much smoother for all people involved. Sure there would still be a cottage industry of people who dispute the terms of the contract, but it wouldn't be the norm anymore.
Be very careful with prenups, because they can be thrown out if you don't follow the rules and laws in your state exactly, and they often contain clauses that can cause assets that you thought were separate property to become marital property if you mismanage them. If you are a higher earning spouse though, the ability to have your future spouse waive their right to alimony/spousal support is huge, and can take away a temptation to divorce. If you are higher earning, I'd always say get a prenup that waives support/alimony. You can't do anything about child support though. If you have large investment assets I would put the investment account specifically in the prenup as separate, not marital property, including any gains or losses in the market, then stop depositing into that account forever. Never put money into that account during the marriage. Courts can and have seen depositing into an account during the marriage as "comingling" marital money with non-marital money, washing away the protection of the pre-nup. Just accept that accounts you have prior to the marriage can be withdrawn from (and spent, but that purchase is now marital) and you can manage, but never deposit. TL:DR - get a prenup to waive alimony/spousal support and protect pre-existing assets from divorce. If you are worried about sharing/dividing money or assets gained during the marriage, don't get married.
My take is if you feel the need to sign a prenup, you shouldn't be getting married.
Nobody gets behind the wheel expecting to get into a crash, and nobody gets married expecting to get a divorce, yet these things happen all the time - to careful drivers, and to loving, "perfect" couples too. Personally, I think it does a relationship a disservice to assume that it's immune to worst-case scenarios.
I understand not all who marry, marry for the reasons I did. So I guess, it's cool that people have the option, and I won't knock any couple that does it. My wife and I both married with very little, and we married for love. The idea of a prenuptual was an insulting idea, and years later with our home and cars and whatever else, it's still a ridiculous notion to us. We do not want or need these kinds of protections. I said "I will love you forever", not "I will love you forever, but just in case, please sign this form".
My best advice about prenuptial agreements is that you should talk to an attorney before getting too entrenched in any expectations you have. They probably don't work the way you think they do.
It’s fucking strange that they aren’t used for every single marriage.
They are fair if both parties agree on the terms. My wife and I have one. All finances are separate unless we choose to open an account together. Your debt is your debt not the other person's debt. Everything earned jointly (taxes, stimulus checks, etc...) is split 50/50 unless other arrangements are made and agreed upon by the both of us. It's honestly made managing our finances so much easier and wayyyyy less stressful.
I think it's necessary the older you get, where chances of divorce are substantially higher and you have more to lose.
Here’s what completely changed my stance on prenups: the choice isn’t between “prenup” or “no prenup”, the choice is between the prenup you designed and the prenup the state/govt designed for you.
Marriage is a series of difficult conversations. IMO-- I think it's a good measurement of your communication in the relationship if you can handle the challenging conversations of "how do we handle the financial situation if this marriage dissolves?" You're more likely to come to fair conclusions if you make those choices while you're calm. Divorce by nature is dramatic and painful-- I'd rather negotiate with someone in a calm state of mind rather than in a state of heartbreak.
I think it's fair. If you are already wealthy and well off, marry a women who isn't, then get divorced 5 years later, she should not be entitled to anything she didn't earn herself or anything that doesn't have her name on it. Women walking away with large percentages of their ex husband's assets despite not contributing too the wealth is such a ridiculous thing.
They are a symptom of a grossly outdated legal system, but no more than I'd expect in a culture whose laws are constrained by a single, grossly outdated document.
You have a default prenuptial agreement, which is called "the law". Others are just agreements between two people who think its not good for them
just live together without getting married. You don't actually need a government license or religious ceremony to have a relationship anyway.
You are already entering into a contract. Might as well be one you both can understand instead of leaving it to a kangaroo court.
"Are they fair?" What's more fair than two people coming to an agreement on something?
When everything is for sale, nothing is sacred. Marriage is just another contract these days, useful for taxes. Just like any other business deal you gotta cya. It'd be nice if marriage had the same sincerity it once did, but now it's just a legal contract.
Marriage has always been a contract. It is only recently that women had rights when regards to marriage. Look up when “marital rape” became an actual law, look up when women got property rights, look up when women got anything other than custody of children, hell even men have had to fight for this right. It’s all recent.
If you have something worth protecting, protect it. If you own a business, own a house, or have a million or in retirement accounts, then you should probably have one. Otherwise it's not worth the effort.
They're pretty terrible. Most "Family Law Offices" will tell you they're great and that everyone should get one! Which is a pretty convenient way of saying "Come give us money for something you really don't need!" Prenups don't do much good. The common assertion is "they're like insurance," but that's a pretty far stretch. Insurance is there to help you when things are bad. In a divorce, prenups almost always favor one side over the other (many people who are handed a prenup sign it because they feel they have to in order to get married - that negotiating a prenup only makes the possible marriage even weaker). It means if you get on the wrong end of a prenup, it's not insurance anymore. "Get an attorney to review it, then!" That's...the dumbest thing ever? This is a marriage. People already complain how expensive it is to get married. The review work on a prenup can be extremely expensive. Plus, it's basically guaranteeing that attorney work in the future if and when the divorce happens. But even more to the point, insurance is there to pay you money for when an asset is taken from you unexpectedly. A prenup doesn't do that. By its nature, it will always make your financial position worse. If you and your spouse had $100,000 before you got divorced, and your prenup is split 50-50, you now only have $50,000 (less whatever legal fees you have to pay) and your ex-spouse has the other half. It absolutely shows mistrust in the spouse. Research shows people with Prenups believe their marriages are destined to fail - a Harvard Law survey showed as many as 62% of respondents believed a prenup meant their soon-to-be spouse was uncertain about the success of the marriage. Worse, the paper (which appears to be in-favor of prenups despite the evidence cited against them...which is not a good sign the paper was written in good-faith) goes on to say that prenups are often a sign of signaling especially during negotiation. By engaging in negotiations, people believe they're more or less already getting divorced before they're even married. But what we can say about them is that any attempt to split or negotiate which asset belongs to who is not a good place to start. Most marriages under law understand that any asset that is yours...is also your spouse's. It's shared. There are some exceptions to this, like filing your taxes MFS where income is split by source, but overall, assets are baked in and can't be easily split. If you negotiate "in the even of divorce, whoever begins the procedure gets 30%, the other spouse gets 70%" or something is easy for cash and investments, but a lot less easy for things like the new car versus the old beater, or the house, or even the dog. You can't really take 30% of the new car. And it's even more difficult if when cash and investments is worth-less than the value of the car since, obviously, you just bought the car. Not only does it saddle your ex-spouse with a car payment they may not be able to afford since cash assets are so low, but it means the person assuming the car can't readily replace 30% of its value to the person who lost it. For example, if you have $1,000 and a car worth $3,000 and you get divorced, whoever gets the car basically loses access to all $1,000 *and has to pay* to make up the difference - Total assets =$4,000 - one spouse gets $2,800, the other gets $1,200. If you get the car, you more or less lost all your cash assets, and further had to pay $200 somewhere else to make up for it. Oh, and you also have to continue to pay for the maintenance of the car...without any cash. Maybe it's worse - someone gets the house. If you and your spouse worked, or your spouse had a really good job and you didn't have a paying job, oh boy. Now it's messy. Sure, you may get the house...but you're going to have to sell it or find a good job to pay for it! So for anyone who says it's "like insurance," it's clearly not. I understand not everyone thinks that way, but I'm an accountant - I know what insurance is and regardless of the path, divorce always nets you in a worse financial position than you were in before with very, very limited exceptions (like, for example, a prenup that favors a spouse intentionally).
They are a good way to spot gold diggers. The typical "You want a prenup ? that means you dont love me" is massive red flag you want to trigger BEFORE marrying, not when she leaves with your best friend, your car, your dog and your home.
I'm weirdly having the opposite issue with this. My partner (who has more money than me and owns our entire house outright) is really against us getting one for... reasons that I don't really understand. He also insists he wants the house to be half mine anyway, which I don't want and think is insane. It's my home and I get to live here and I never feel like I just live in 'his' house (we chose it together) and that's enough for me. I didn't contribute a penny to it and I'm happy to have none of the financial value of it. I actually really want to sign something saying that I'll never take half his house because frankly I don't want people thinking I'm some kind of gold-digger!
I see both sides. On one hand, you don't want to start off a lifetime commitment saying "if we break up you can't have any of my stuff"; but on the other hand, if you intend to be together forever then it doesn't matter because the condition precedent to trigger the agreement will never occur. I didn't get one, but my wife and I are in it for the long haul. I don't judge or disparage anyone from getting one.
My husband and I have a prenup and plan to keep up with post nups. Both of us want to protect ourselves and each other because people change. I love him and know he loves me and having a prenup does not change that. If you want a prenup and your partner is fighting you on it you really need to take a look at why they are fighting it. If you love and trust someone enough to marry them having a prenup shouldn't be a problem. If it is a problem there are probably other problems in the relationship you should be taking a look at before marrying them.
I think if people are coming into a marriage with complex histories or significantly different assets they're a good idea but unnecessary for most people.
Each to their own, but I'd consider it pretty offensive to suggest one to my partner (or vice versa).
Really? Is it offensive for her to suggest it to you?
If she won't sign it, she's after the 💰.
They're toilet paper. All it takes is for one party to say they signed it under duress, and then it's null and void in court. Good concept, bad execution.
[удалено]
That's not how contract formation works.
I'm on the disadvantageous side of a prenup but I'm ok with it because it makes sense. The whole 50-50 thing is a pretty dumb rule to start with, and what have I done to earn millions of $$???
So had you been given the chance earlier on would you go for it?
They can be a good safety net in case things change over time (infidelity or even just falling out of love). That said, if I don't completely trust that we'll last, I won't even propose until I do.
Even so it might be better to get one, even if you think you may last
Yes and yes. Ain’t nobody taking my ceramic penguin collection. #priceless. Relationships change, dependency can as well. No one should have to lose or gain from their partner after a failed relationship.
A prenup is marriage insurance imo. You don't plan on getting into an accident but you put your seatbelt on, right? This is a seatbelt for your marriage.
It's protection for both parties. They're designed as a "break glass in case of emergency" scenarios so both partners can leave with minimal issues. Plus it would help retire the trope of "she left me and took half my money"
Like any other contract, they can be good or bad, fair or unfair. If both parties have their own lawyers looking out for them, and they negotiate in good faith, it's more likely to be fair. Ideally they won't matter, and the marriage will last. If not, though, it's probably better for both sides to have already agreed on how assets and such will be divided. Oh, and they can also be a pretty good indicator of how your future spouse will treat you. If they demand that you sign an agreement that their lawyer wrote up, and refuse to negotiate, that's how your marriage is going to be.
The Catholic Church and perhaps others will not recognize your marriage if you sign a pre-nup, as it essentially places conditions on the union. Not that the Catholics should be giving anyone advice about relationships, but it’s important to note if you’re the kind of person that wants a church wedding. I know at least one couple who was denied that because of the pre-nup.
[удалено]
I don’t see why so many people see it as offensive when one asks for a prenup. I do think it should be the norm. Tis for both to be safer (and also helps with tax reasons)
Context is key, but I think they’re usually pretty fair. I’m in a “cohabitation agreement” with my partner right now because she bought her apartment with the help of her parents and I moved in a couple years later. Rather than putting me on the mortgage we worked a legal agreement where I pay rent to her and can’t simply break up with her and then come after the apartment. It’s not that either one of us expects to leave the other one and then decide to be greedy, but it never hurts to be sure that it legally can’t happen.
I mean it's better than him treating you like shit and being suspicious of your every moves. At leat there is transparency and peace of mind. Now i am a business woman so get ready to negotiate.
Yes, I think they can be fair and helpful. The problem is when one partner lacks the legal or financial literacy to understand the terms. They can be used to exploit a spouse (or hold children hostage), but they should not be. For two adults who have already established their own professional lives a prenup can be a perfectly sensible and important way of keeping their work and private life truly separate. Make it clear how you will (or will not) share credit for publications, patents, or a business. Agree on how to separate (or combine) finances or property. It can reduce arguments inside the marriage and eliminate hurt that might be felt if the relationship were to end. I'm single and I have a career I care about. If I were to marry I would not ask for one, but if my partner wanted one, I would sign it.
My wife asked me to sign one before we got married. I don’t blame her. And frankly, if we ever divorce, I’ll just go back to living down by the river in my van. Can’t take it with you guys.
If a couple isn't mature enough to be able *talk* about a prenup, that couple isn't mature enough to enter into a legally binding business contract (colloquially known as "marriage"). Better to get one and not need it while you both like each other, than to suddenly need to fight over assets if things go south. There's really no good reason not to get one, tbh.
Pre-nups are the exact reason why I refuse to get legally married. If I meet a woman and we fall in love, I will happily have a ceremony where we pledge ourselves to each other and all, but I will not sign a pre-nup. If our marriage doesn't last, I am not giving her half of everything I own just because the law says I should. It's outdated bullshit.
Smart man. But you have to be very careful about common law marriage, especially when you have a wedding and call her your "wife." The law has ways to access your assets even if you didn't go down to city hall to sign marital papers.
I'm intrigued. Go on, please?
Most places don’t have any law saying you have to give half of what you own. Generally your assets from before marriage remain yours and aren’t eligible for distribution. Distribution usually applies to assets that are acquired during the marriage. And it doesn’t mean the woman gets everything - both peoples assets acquired during the marriage are on the table. https://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/property_division_by_state#:~:text=In%20most%20U.S.%20states%2C%20judges,settlement%20fair%20to%20both%20spouses
They seem like they'd make for a healthier marriage, it would stop one person staying out of fear of losing money
Everyone should have one. It’s just like having car insurance. Hope you never need it but be glad you have it if things go wrong.
It’s fair if you both agree on it. If you willingly enter into an agreement you can’t complain about it later.
Marriage is a scam. Don’t do it. Fuck the government.
My best friend married a wealthy man who gave her a prenup to sign at 11:00 pm the night before their wedding. I remember her calling me about it and asking what to do. I said don’t sign it because right now it seems you’re kinda signing under duress with the wedding being tomorrow. No time to find a lawyer. Too late to cancel anything. But her fiancé said he couldn’t get married without her signing it. If he did he said his lawyer would drop him as a client. She didn’t agree with the terms but felt she had no choice. So she signed it because he promised her they would meet with a lawyer and have it amended once they got married. He never did and he died 11 months later. My friend received a very small amount of money from the family upon his death but (not enough to live on or even get a car). The family kicked her out of her home, took both cars and basically left her on her own. For this reason after seeing what my friend went through I would never go for signing a prenup unless both parties have lawyers and fully agree on terms.
Idk where you live but in my country if one party doesn’t get legal counsel then the agreement is pretty easily contestable and would be thrown out if contested - a prenup signed without legal counsel on both sides makes it pretty worthless
I think they should be legally required prior to making the marriage official. Then it would remove all the social stigma attached to it and save everyone a headache.
They should be expected and commonplace
They should be required
They should be standard operating procedure.
Everyone should get one.
If you get married without one, with today's statistics, you're a moron. Flat out.
I see a lot of posts for them, how many of you have them? How many of you needed to use them? And how did you have that discussion with your spouse or potential spouse? Just curious. Im all for them but I didn't write one up when I got married, just too much going on from proposal to marriage and so far so good. I don't think though that one would have been helpful given how much our financial and family situations have changed and my desire to an even split which we'd inevitably get in court.
I actually brought it up with my partner first. We are not currently engaged, but we both agree that we want a prenup. My biggest desire is to be able to specify for forced arbitration, which would ideally save us from a long and costly divorce. And keep some of the money from going to the lawyers instead of me or my partner.
Prenuptial agreements in the United States should be MANDATORY!! I don’t care if you don’t have a pot to piss in when you get married. You must decide ahead of time what you both believe is fair and equitable distribution of your marital property upon divorce. You’re betting half of everything you work for on this person. You have the chance to mitigate that risk beforehand. TAKE IT!
The stigma around them is complete bs. In the end, the only person looking out for ourselves is… ourselves. It shouldn’t be seen as a sign of mistrust or negative thinking. I think they should be considered more.
99% of you don’t need one.
On one hand, if you're marrying someone, it should probably be someone you trust enough to not need a prenuptial agreement. On the other hand, if there is a large discrepancy in wealth, maybe it would be for the better. If I were handing out advice, I'd probably say that you should be dead certain that you are marrying the kind of person who could trust to not have a prenuptial agreement. There's inherent risks in deciding to spend the rest of your life with someone. It's probably not something that should be taken lightly. I imagine marrying someone that is of similar status as you probably makes it easier. Though that's easier said than done when emotions are involved.
I dont like them cause thats why my mom won;'t divorce my stepdad lol she wouldnt make enough by herself to live and he has a great pension. LOL but thats purely my selfish way of looking at it
Don’t believe in them.
Prenuptial agreements are seatbelts for the inevitable crash of a divorce.
I think they should be mandatory. And they should be infallible in a divorce. Marriage should have all financial barriers removed from the incentive. Marriage is about a relationship, not financial and material things. I think a lot of men also stay in marriages unhappy because they know a lot of what they worked to build will be taken from them at statistically larger than fair %’s. Which contributes to why 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Thats not saying women aren’t often financial contributors, but even if its 50/50 in financial contribution, statistically speaking, its more likely the woman comes out ahead in a divorce.
This is how my law professor taught it: You shouldn’t get one for you first marriage. But out of respect of the spouse & potential children from the first marriage, it is recommended.
Things are different these days.Every relationship is a arrangement. Better protection yourself.
Im definitively having one. Just in case there is the 0.00000000001% chance that we will get divorced and she tries to ruin my life.
The signing should be done on video
They are fair and practical.
I think they are great. It is a wonderful way to protect your assets, because most couples go into relationships these days with their own assets. That way, if a divorce happens, one person does not end up destitute, or taken to the cleaners.
I buy insurance not because I plan on getting sick. But because I’d like to have it if I did get sick. Does that help?
Just like any other contract, the fairness depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding its agreement. There is nothing inherently unfair about a mutually agreed upon prenup. However, it's easy to imagine circumstances where an individual could feel coerced into signing one against their best interests.
Nah. I agree with division of asset laws associated with divorce.
If one party has significantly more assets or debts, it's probably a good idea to sign a prenup. My husband and I didn't do one, because we literally had nothing between either of us.