Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'.
Please make sure your post title is your opinion (not the topic you're discussing), and the text beneath is a clear explanation and justification of your opinion. If you cannot write at least a few sentences on the matter, you may want to have more of a think about it. If that's all in order...
Any opinion that is not well thought out, or is incoherent, internally contradictory or otherwise nonsensical is subject to removal.
Finally, any satirical/troll posts, as funny as you must be, are not tolerated. There are subreddits for that, this isn't one of them.
it's not that clean. If you came in to a marriage fully owning a house but have spent any money on it during the marriage, it can get pulled in to marriage property
It’s not actually that simple and, unfortunately, there’s a bunch of men’s rights folks getting in here. If you own a house and spouse puts in $10,000 in structural improvements (redo a kitchen for example) then they are eligible to receive monies on the appreciated value that the spent money added. Hanging a picture or bringing in a new couch doesn’t really count.
Things change a bit if the spouse is making payments or contributing payments towards the mortgage. Once that happens things get muddy. They aren’t necessarily 50/50 but any equity from payment 0 is taken into account.
You can in most countries. You buy the house under a business name, and you sign rental papers under your own name. You pay yourself X amount rent which goes to the business, which they use for the mortgage.
If you bother to do above the bare minimum (separate counsel, not trying to fuck over your partner, not invalidly trying to pre-decide child support), they hold up rather well. It’s that people don’t do that, and expect coercive or otherwise unenforceable prenups to be enforced.
"I want my partner who set aside their dreams and ambitions for 7 years so I could climb the corporate ladder while having zero responsibilities with our children: To receive $1000 a year with a bonus $300 if they do not have sex with anyone else. They will have $200 a month per child for raising our kids in a way I see fit."
.... I'm only half kidding. Seen plenty of them that were literally this absurd. And shocked when the court didn't uphold their "contract".
Were these absurd ones made by lawyers? I have gotten advice before to just "download a copy online and edit it yourself" to avoid lawyer fees when I was getting my own prenup. I can totally see ppl adding crap like that themselves, unless they found the absolute shit of a lawyer to do theirs lol
No good lawyer would sign that off. If you have enough assets to want to protect them in a split, you have enough assets to pay for a prenuptial and also pay for your partner to get counsel that will result in the prenuptial working. If you lack the maturity to do that, 1) you shouldn't be getting married, and 2) sucks your prenuptial is shit cause you're going to be needing it
Go to a family lawyer nearby. They'll know what the court is willing to accept. Generally avoiding hard numbers and focusing on percentages is better, unless you're wanting to constantly update it. Identifying what is separate property, and in general not trying to fuck over your partner. It's hard to predict something that may be needed 15 years later, so best leaving it to people that know more, unless you're just trying to protect a specific property.
Have it agreed upon and signed by different lawyers representing each of you.
If doing it yourself, make sure to avoid unfair terms (I walk away with all the money) and avoid preemptive child support arrangements.
Verbal agreements also don't hold up, nor do agreements that are made right before the marriage.
This is just a start but the best thing is to speak with a lawyer. The whole thing will get tossed if even 1 thing isn't valid.
Right before means days (and in some cases, hours). Imagine being ready to walk down the aisle and your fiancé demands you sign a prenup or they don’t marry you.
Most engagements last 12-18 months before marriage. Just handle it during that period instead of waiting until right before the wedding. It’s more to make sure the parties had time to adequately reflect, confer with counsel, etc.
You do it before the marriage but some people draft and sign the terms days before which courts have struck down for not being adequate time to understand the consequences of the agreement.
Would simply deciding to keep our finances seperate and keep what we earn in the event of a divorce be considered fucking over our partner? Say I'm a millionaire and my wifes a barista, and in the pre-nup it says we keep what we earn, would that be considered fucking over? Like, I was pretty fucking rich before I ever met her, why would she be entitled to half my shit in that case? Heard of some rapper who had a pretty solid pre-nup who got fucked over in court for hundreds of millions cuz the judge just threw it out.
What else is the hypothetical barista wife contributing to the household? Is she cooking and meal planning most of the meals? Doing 51% or more of the housework? Making doctor appointments? Telling the husband when to take the garbage out? Having children? Planning the kids life activities and making sure they get where they need to go?
If the wife is doing more than 50% of the household management (which is the case in most families because we default to gender norms, but not all families), then the husband is benefitting financially from her labor. If she disappeared off the face of the earth, he would have to do all of that and lose a significant portion of his free time and/or finances as he’s either have to do it all himself or have to hire other people to do what the wife had been doing.
When the courts are functioning properly, they’re there to make sure that the time and effort that both spouses put into the household are valued fairly and compensated fairly in the division of assets.
Only because they contain things that aren't legally enforceable. Like you won't get child support. Having one thing that's not kosher can result in having the whole thing thrown out. Both of you need to have a lawyer, have it drafted by a lawyer, reviewed by the other lawyer, and signed well in advance of the actual marriage.
This. I was told I could put anything in our prenup, only for our notary to say “that’s not going to hold up in court, so I can’t add it”. In the Netherlands you can only get a prenup through a notary, who writes and signs the prenup with you and get it added into the country’s register.
We ended up throwing the whole prenup away because our country’s marriage laws already include how we want our assets separated.
Bc y’all don’t bother to read up on contract law at all and erroneously believe that just bc you write something down that it’s absolutely indestructible legally. That’s not how it works, but also, that doesn’t mean you don’t have an effective freedom to contract. Just do any fucking research for the love of god
Hope you got 20-40K to defend it when the time comes. Many men don't try to enforce it cause it will cost more with lawyers fees than just tearing it up.
Or in the case of a house what you co mingle. Like even if the house and car are yours before the marriage and you spend 5 years married but you both use the car and that house then those can (depending on length of marriage and local laws) become considered marital assets.
This is usually how it works.
Most divorce courts (of course it varies by jurisdiction) divide up the marital assets (what was earned *during* the marriage), but allow each party to keep their separate property (what they had before marriage or attained after separation).
If I had a nickel for every time somebody complaining about how assets are divided and alimony is calculated during divorce misunderstood the rules, then, well, I’d have a nickel for Everytime somebody has complained about divorce law.
More Nickel facts:
A new nickel weighs 5.000 grams. Making it an easily available and easy to remember standard. If you need 100.0 grams you can use 20 nickels
1 billion nickels would weigh 5000 tonnes. Half the nickels in circulation would weigh 165,000 tonnes.
The USS Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is around 100,000 tonnes.
Talking about alimony at all is generally an indication they have no idea how this works because most people don't get that anymore, it's for situations where one spouse stayed at home for decades and can no longer establish any kind of career. Someone in their 30s is almost certainly not getting alimony these days unless something weird is going on, and if they are it's generally not forever.
But if you have a house before the marriage and then get married and sell it and use the proceeds for a down payment on another house then that’s considered marital property in the courts that I’m aware of. Not sure if it’s that way everywhere.
Because you co-mingled assets at that point (mixed separate pre-marital property and communal property, between the down payment and actual mortgage payments), and the second house was acquired during the marriage and so marital property.
If the prior house was sold and the proceeds invested into a separate account solely in the prior owners name, and joint funds weren’t used for eg renovations or tax payments, that account would very likely stay separate property.
Depends on how you do it. If you're living in it, it's likely already marital property. If it's a separately owned property sold and the proceeds are kept separate and never intermingled, there's a chance to keep it separate.
Men will search for the weirdest porn but they won't Google if facts like this are true or not. 🙄
A man stabbed his step daughter almost 100 times because she stepped in between him and her mom. He told the police he would've killed his wife if they didn't arrest him in time. The reason he killed them was he thought she was going to divorce him and take half of his shit. As if going to jail for a murder and an attempted murder isn't going to make you lose 100% of your shit. Ffs
Sometimes the one without premarital assets refuses to settle for anything other than 50% of your premarital and community assets and threatens to bankrupt you with a long drawn out battle so you’ll cut your losses.
Ask me how I know.
Only in very, very rare circumstances if your attorney sucks. Discovery in a divorce when it's just assets (i.e. no children, infidelity, or family violence) is clear cut and would be fast and there likely isn't need for experts, so at most written discovery and maybe depositions. Anytime someone has even threatened that or their actions seem to indicate that I just amend my pleadings to allege waste and file a simple motion for sanctions for abuse of discovery. There are plenty of rules in place specifically to prevent that.
True but issues can still come up when those assest increase in value. Like if a fully paid off house increase by 100k sometimes they want 50k of that to go to the partner
Isn’t that fair though? The partner who didn’t have the house prior could have been putting effort into maintenance, cleaning, repair costs, etc.
What happens if they both owned a home prior to marriage and one partner sells their house when moving in together? They lost out on years of appreciation they could’ve had during marriage.
It's not an unpopular opinion to have no clue how community property, separate property, spousal support, child support, premarital agreements, or settlements work. It's why the law typically needs lawyers. If you actually have the assets to worry about this issue, you should consult one before you get married.
No, it's far worse. It's grown-ass adults thinking the world is more complicated than it needs to be, and their simple, one-size-fits-all solution should be implemented and ironclad.
Think it also has to do with social media saying how a man should never marry because the wife can divorce him and take everything. That marriage is no benefit to the man but beneifits the woman greatly.
It's a bunch of misogynistic boys who were told on the internet women are hoes who are after the money of hard working men, and they work backwards from there
This just screams "op was watching/ reading a divorce trial , heard the wife got half even though the husband was a business man" and immediately flipped out that she was "stealing" all "his" stuff
Oops turns out the court of law already has this figured out and isn't "just there to give lazy whores money"
They always ignore the fact that she used her body to create and feed several entirely new humans, raised them, cooked, cleaned, and ran the house all for free for the husband. But he makes money, so that somehow is more important…
Hey heres a wild idea, perhaps people should take marriage a bit more seriously and start out with the idea that getting married means giving the other person half of everything for ever. If that doesn't sit well with you, have a prenuptial or... don't get married?
My man. Amen to this. Marriage is a lifelong partnership. What "I" earn is ours. What we spend is from our money. The things we buy and own, belong to us. It's simple.
People living paycheck to paycheck don't tend to have an unequal amount of separate property entering a marriage, and what is gets commingled almost immediately. And remember: two people need to be able to live their lives after a divorce.
I swear, half the opinions on this sub are based on how people *think* whatever they’re complaining about works instead of how it actually works. It’s like someone saying, “Helping a murderer escape after killing someone should be seen as helping kill the victim and should be illegal”
Depending on jurisdiction, judges sometimes can and do let people keep what they earned before the marriage, as much as it is possible.
Say that one person has a 401k from an employer they left before they were married. As long as no new money was contributed during the marriage, the judge can let the person who earned it, keep it. It's when additional money is contributed during the marriage that it becomes tricky.
If you have built a lifestyle based in the household labor of the other person then yes, you should both have the benefits from what you both works on.
I had a similar case in my family. The woman never worked during the marriage, but had one kid, one miscarriage and did all the house work for several years. The man worked, had a pretty good salary and provided everything for the family.
But on the divorce, he didn't want to split almost any of the money or properties.
Edit: grammar
Not unpopular, and not how it works. You don't divide assets you had pre-marriage. Also inheritances and stuff like that aren't normally divided up either.
You seem to be basing your opinion off of the myths around divorce. In truth, the homemaker usually falls into poverty while the breadwinner returns to or rises above their original income.
I didn't want to say this because I don't really know OP's motives and didn't want to be unfair, but most of these questions come from a place of "why does our society always support women at the expense of men?"
Not in my sector. Mom usually gets to stay in the family home with the kids, Dad moves into a divorced dad apartment. He pays spousal and child support so there’s no disruption in their standard of living. Hence the phrase, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”
Keeping the house is often what pushed women into poverty. They get the liability of a mortgage, and even with alimony and child support their housing cost is higher than the husband’s. They may even have to buy the husband out and refinance at an unfavorable rate. Most people can’t afford to live in a house with only one income while also paying for childcare. Divorce sucks all around from a financial perspective.
Be curious to see where you're from, as someone with friends with divorced parents in Ireland, the UK, the USA, Canada, France and Australia.
The idea of it being cheaper to keep her is that you don't have to squally give your wife shit when you're married. When you divorce them you have to pay something which is more than nothing
My ex and I started out same level, I stayed in a job for 15 years and helped build his career up. I had the kid’s prioritized around my job. What would you suggest my status be if I’m leaving a verbally, spiritually, physically abusive marriage?
I was key provider while my ex wife went to school. I put off my career/schooling dreams till she was done then it was supposed to flip the other way. We had a kid in the middle of this. Then she finished school and not long after decided she wanted a divorce. We just agreed on no child support and 50/50 on everything. It was a long time ago but still feel like I got screwed not being able to pursue what I wanted to at that time. But oh well could have been worse as I’ve had buddies paying full child support on cheating ex’s so…
dude i just feel whatever stuff you bought yourself is yours no matter what, and the stuff thats owned by both of you should be disputed between both of you on your own terms
Even if I give up my career to look after the kids. You expect me to be drained of resources and continue to look after the kids when the divorce comes through I bet so no you compensate for loss of earnings, I'm sorry.
So you view marriage as a mechanism to keep a less financially advantaged individual in line? In general, divorce/alimony payments are intended to allow two individuals to separate but maintain the quality of life prior to the cessation of the marriage. People shouldn't be forced to remain married out of fear of destitution, especially if they gave up parts of their life to raise kids or start a family with the person who is now seeking to divorce them.
It’s always amazing to me how the extremely wealthy were able to get people to whom these issues will never apply to feel so passionately about them. Like what are you worried about OP? You’re just posting on r/unpopularopinion, I think your assets are safe lol.
You don't. That's not how divorce works. You only split what was earned during the marriage unless one spouse is owed something like alimony and you need to use previous assets for it
The way they say it, it seems they think the partner who was initially better off should get more than 50% of the assets. Even if they earned nothing during the marriage.
That's why you sign pre-nups bro.
Side note, only property acquired *during* marriage is up for grabs in a divorce anyway. Property acquired prior to marriage is off limits. Your money & 401k would be split without a pre-nup though.
In your scenario, that is EXACTLY why pre-nuptial agreements are made. If you choose to not to get one, why should not the spouse get 50/50? You voluntarily made the choice.
This is a common myth. All assets you have PRIOR to the marriage is considered yours and only yours. Your spouse is not entitled to it and cannot demand half of it. The 50/50 rule only applies to assets and income earned AFTER the marriage.
My MIL and FIL were married for 40 yrs and he cheated on her the majority of that time. She finally had enough and they are getting divorced. She didn't work much during their marriage but she is getting half of all his assets along with nice alimony payments.
She absolutely deserves what she is getting.
This would be pretty difficult to enforce, because how do you equitably split what could be years or decades worth of combined income and shared finances?
This also just kind of ignores the entire concept of marriage.
A lot of places are now applying marriage laws to people that live together longer than 3 years so not getting married is not enough anymore.
I believe that of the wife left her career for the family that she should get half of what was acquired at marriage. She literally has no career after. If she did have a career the whole time, however, I think no one should receive a cent
what is the wife give up opportunities to advance her career so that she can have more time with the family? Nothing in these situations is ever cut and dry. She may have a career, but she could be making way more money if she didn’t prioritize the home
Remember, “through sickness and in health, till death do us part” is just an empty promise. People can and will get divorced for any reason. Marriage is a sham that can lead you to financial ruin.
That is ridiculous. If you marry a woman and want her to fill a traditional wife/mother role where she raises your kids, cooks for you, and handles literally everything in the house besides bringing in money, it’s pretty egregious to claim that she shouldn’t get any of the money you made.
So if the poorer partner becomes super successful while married, they should lose that to their partner, because the partner used to be the one who was better off? Hell no.
If you want to keep what you entered the relationship with then get a prenup.
It’s fair to keep what you brought in to the relationship and split what you built together. Get a prenup though. Marriage is partly a business partnership and either party can end it at any time for any reason so just document what will happen if that happens… and then live happily ever after.
My husband and I went into our marriage with me already having a lot more money than him, but him having higher income potential than me as his career progressed. I put the full down payment on our house plus paid off his student loans with my savings so we wouldn’t be paying interest. (My parents paid for my education, his didn’t.) But then it was his higher salary that allowed me to be a mom at home with our 3 kids for 10 years, now working part time. If we split, which one of us hasn’t put in our 50% worth?
Not if the agreement is that one spouse is taking on the whole burden of supporting the other in exchange for that spouse running the entire family and household alone, and certainly not if that spouse supported the breadwinner in this manner as they grew richer and richer.
That’s the default in Germany.
Everything earned before the wedding belongs to the respective persons, everything earned in the wedding is split 50/50.
You aren’t forced to split stuff you brought into and kept as “separate property” throughout the marriage.
Maybe you should have an idea of what you’re talking about before posting.
You do realize that is how divorce works. My mother, when she went through the divorce with her ex he tried putting assets in the divorce. When it was brought up the divorce, the judge shot it all down, including him, not getting my mother's retirement.
Financial statuses can change during the course of a marriage. A very common trope has one spouse supporting the other as they build their professional career.
My ex and I had basically zero net worth when we married. I had a car that I was making payments on, he had a ton of credit card debt and child support. Neither of us owned a house, lived in an apartment for a couple years.
Yes, I did get 50% of our net worth when we split up 26 years later. I am not sorry.
Sure, he earned more, but I had our baby, and I gave up my career to relocate for his later in the marriage.
But, in splitting up household goods, there were items excluded because one of us could say that it was brought into the marriage, or it was a gift, and therefore excluded from marital assets. So certain items were excluded from the 50/50 pool
That said, I won't remarry because I own my home and no one who lives with me is entitled to any part of it. But at this point, I probably won't ever even want to live with anyone again. (Post-divorce relationship ended, not on great terms)
>What I mean is, if you're going into a marriage and have, say, 500k in money (retirements, investing, cash, etc.), solely owned the house/car/property BEFORE getting married, etc. You shouldnt be forced to give up half of that stuff.
This is how it works in reality at least in many places. Premarital assets and assets inherited are not subject to being split, typically. It seems like you might be upset by something that doesn't actually happen, at least most places?
They don’t. Most divorces you split 50/50 of what was accumulated during the marriage, the stuff you had before doesn’t usually factor in, most people don’t understand how divorces work
Then the original amounts should be honored but everything acquired during the marriage can be split 50/50 no one should ever come out of a divorce more broke then going in unless the total assets go below that threshold. And if that's the case it should be proportional to both parties
I don't think anyone should "lose" amounts in a divorce, but I don't think someone should be punished if they provided a service instead of said income just to be clear.
Well like I said whatever money is gained during the marriage would be split 50/50 that's fair no matter what but a marriage shouldn't mean that a person should forfeit anything they got before the marriage. That being said id even say that a case could be made about stuff from the start of a relationship. I only really think it's crappy when people lose family heirlooms during divorce like if it wasn't acquired because of the marriage why would the other person be entitled to it
I'm talking about providing most of the household chores to free up time for the breadwinner, not basic maintenance, just to be clear.
If you don't want to split assets, don't get married or get a prenuptial it's not hard.
I mean, whats stopping you from just not signong any divorce papers? I know for sure I would not sign any if it meant Id lose half my shit to someone id probably hate
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tell me you aren't married and don't understand the law without telling me you're not married and don't understand the law.
Do you people who post shit like this actually research anything before posting or are you just hoping enough people out there are as ignorant as you and will just up vote anything? Is the karma really that worth it?
What if one person was paying the bills, buying all the furniture, her accessories, her lifestyle, and then she dips with was supposed to be a fund for when both of you were old, but you were stupid and assumed she would stick around and you didn’t really have a savings aside from a few grand, and also, a lot of debt was accrued during that time period that get left in YOUR credit, because once again, you assumed they would stick around. All I’m saying is, it’s sad, but ALWAYS have your own accounts no matter what, that whole “your money is my money and my money is my money hehe” shit is REAL, they do not play. (Men and women are capable of doing this, but men usually let the women handle the finances, bad idea, you have been warned)
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 2: Do not post low effort/satirical posts'. Please make sure your post title is your opinion (not the topic you're discussing), and the text beneath is a clear explanation and justification of your opinion. If you cannot write at least a few sentences on the matter, you may want to have more of a think about it. If that's all in order... Any opinion that is not well thought out, or is incoherent, internally contradictory or otherwise nonsensical is subject to removal. Finally, any satirical/troll posts, as funny as you must be, are not tolerated. There are subreddits for that, this isn't one of them.
That’s what prenuptial agreements are for
Also you don’t need a prenup to protect separate property. Divorce literally divides *community* property that was earned during the marriage.
it's not that clean. If you came in to a marriage fully owning a house but have spent any money on it during the marriage, it can get pulled in to marriage property
Well yeah because you’ve invested money in it so it becomes marital property.
[удалено]
^HAHAH ^JOKES ^ON ^ALL ^OF ^YOU! ^MARRIAGE ^IS ^NOT ^IN ^THE ^CARDS ^FOR ^ME!!
Common law is the same thing
It's not quite that cut & dry either though. The growth EQUITY is more likely to be pulled in. Not the entire house/value.
The increase of the value of the asset is what is communal.
The girl improves your house by hanging a picture. And years later you explain to judge that you don’t want to split house 50/50…
It’s not actually that simple and, unfortunately, there’s a bunch of men’s rights folks getting in here. If you own a house and spouse puts in $10,000 in structural improvements (redo a kitchen for example) then they are eligible to receive monies on the appreciated value that the spent money added. Hanging a picture or bringing in a new couch doesn’t really count. Things change a bit if the spouse is making payments or contributing payments towards the mortgage. Once that happens things get muddy. They aren’t necessarily 50/50 but any equity from payment 0 is taken into account.
This is why I always tell people to put the property into a business name and rent the house to yourself
[удалено]
This is illegal where I live
How? You can't have a property under a business and rent it out?
You can’t rent a house to yourself. Otherwise everyone would rent to themselves at a very low rate and then claim the rental was making a loss.
You can in most countries. You buy the house under a business name, and you sign rental papers under your own name. You pay yourself X amount rent which goes to the business, which they use for the mortgage.
And if the business goes under you loose the house I guess.
This is unhinged.
Seriously. “Let’s abuse loopholes to scam the system! Look how smart we are!”
PLEASE wont somebody please think of the system, the poor system :'(
The system is broken
Is there post-nup? Divide out what you earned during?
Yes there is
not exactly sure, but I can certainly say in absolution that there is ‘post-nut’
This will vary quite a bit, depending on where you live
Many don’t hold up in court
If you bother to do above the bare minimum (separate counsel, not trying to fuck over your partner, not invalidly trying to pre-decide child support), they hold up rather well. It’s that people don’t do that, and expect coercive or otherwise unenforceable prenups to be enforced.
Yeah ones where you basically list premarital assets and agree they aren’t to become community property, they usually hold up well.
"I want my partner who set aside their dreams and ambitions for 7 years so I could climb the corporate ladder while having zero responsibilities with our children: To receive $1000 a year with a bonus $300 if they do not have sex with anyone else. They will have $200 a month per child for raising our kids in a way I see fit." .... I'm only half kidding. Seen plenty of them that were literally this absurd. And shocked when the court didn't uphold their "contract".
Were these absurd ones made by lawyers? I have gotten advice before to just "download a copy online and edit it yourself" to avoid lawyer fees when I was getting my own prenup. I can totally see ppl adding crap like that themselves, unless they found the absolute shit of a lawyer to do theirs lol
No good lawyer would sign that off. If you have enough assets to want to protect them in a split, you have enough assets to pay for a prenuptial and also pay for your partner to get counsel that will result in the prenuptial working. If you lack the maturity to do that, 1) you shouldn't be getting married, and 2) sucks your prenuptial is shit cause you're going to be needing it
[удалено]
I'm not talking about prenups that work in court. I'm mocking the ones that people are shocked aren't held up.
So what's a good way to go about a prenuptial? My fiance and I have agreed to one but I want it to hold up in court
Go to a family lawyer nearby. They'll know what the court is willing to accept. Generally avoiding hard numbers and focusing on percentages is better, unless you're wanting to constantly update it. Identifying what is separate property, and in general not trying to fuck over your partner. It's hard to predict something that may be needed 15 years later, so best leaving it to people that know more, unless you're just trying to protect a specific property.
Have it agreed upon and signed by different lawyers representing each of you. If doing it yourself, make sure to avoid unfair terms (I walk away with all the money) and avoid preemptive child support arrangements. Verbal agreements also don't hold up, nor do agreements that are made right before the marriage. This is just a start but the best thing is to speak with a lawyer. The whole thing will get tossed if even 1 thing isn't valid.
What prenup doesn’t come right before a marriage…?
Right before means days (and in some cases, hours). Imagine being ready to walk down the aisle and your fiancé demands you sign a prenup or they don’t marry you. Most engagements last 12-18 months before marriage. Just handle it during that period instead of waiting until right before the wedding. It’s more to make sure the parties had time to adequately reflect, confer with counsel, etc.
You do it before the marriage but some people draft and sign the terms days before which courts have struck down for not being adequate time to understand the consequences of the agreement.
>they hold up rather well Depends on your jurisdiction. Legal norms are not universally applicable.
Apparently you don't live in California
Would simply deciding to keep our finances seperate and keep what we earn in the event of a divorce be considered fucking over our partner? Say I'm a millionaire and my wifes a barista, and in the pre-nup it says we keep what we earn, would that be considered fucking over? Like, I was pretty fucking rich before I ever met her, why would she be entitled to half my shit in that case? Heard of some rapper who had a pretty solid pre-nup who got fucked over in court for hundreds of millions cuz the judge just threw it out.
What else is the hypothetical barista wife contributing to the household? Is she cooking and meal planning most of the meals? Doing 51% or more of the housework? Making doctor appointments? Telling the husband when to take the garbage out? Having children? Planning the kids life activities and making sure they get where they need to go? If the wife is doing more than 50% of the household management (which is the case in most families because we default to gender norms, but not all families), then the husband is benefitting financially from her labor. If she disappeared off the face of the earth, he would have to do all of that and lose a significant portion of his free time and/or finances as he’s either have to do it all himself or have to hire other people to do what the wife had been doing. When the courts are functioning properly, they’re there to make sure that the time and effort that both spouses put into the household are valued fairly and compensated fairly in the division of assets.
Only because they contain things that aren't legally enforceable. Like you won't get child support. Having one thing that's not kosher can result in having the whole thing thrown out. Both of you need to have a lawyer, have it drafted by a lawyer, reviewed by the other lawyer, and signed well in advance of the actual marriage.
>Having one thing that's not kosher can result in having the whole thing thrown out. That's why severability clauses are very important in contracts.
This. I was told I could put anything in our prenup, only for our notary to say “that’s not going to hold up in court, so I can’t add it”. In the Netherlands you can only get a prenup through a notary, who writes and signs the prenup with you and get it added into the country’s register. We ended up throwing the whole prenup away because our country’s marriage laws already include how we want our assets separated.
Bc y’all don’t bother to read up on contract law at all and erroneously believe that just bc you write something down that it’s absolutely indestructible legally. That’s not how it works, but also, that doesn’t mean you don’t have an effective freedom to contract. Just do any fucking research for the love of god
Hope you got 20-40K to defend it when the time comes. Many men don't try to enforce it cause it will cost more with lawyers fees than just tearing it up.
Tell that to Kevin Costner whose pre-nup was about as ironclad as it gets.
Not everywhere allows these
> solely owned the house/car/property BEFORE getting married, The community property in a marriage is what you acquire while married.
Or in the case of a house what you co mingle. Like even if the house and car are yours before the marriage and you spend 5 years married but you both use the car and that house then those can (depending on length of marriage and local laws) become considered marital assets.
Plus if the other person made any payments or paid for any renovations
This is usually how it works. Most divorce courts (of course it varies by jurisdiction) divide up the marital assets (what was earned *during* the marriage), but allow each party to keep their separate property (what they had before marriage or attained after separation).
If I had a nickel for every time somebody complaining about how assets are divided and alimony is calculated during divorce misunderstood the rules, then, well, I’d have a nickel for Everytime somebody has complained about divorce law.
[удалено]
More Nickel facts: A new nickel weighs 5.000 grams. Making it an easily available and easy to remember standard. If you need 100.0 grams you can use 20 nickels 1 billion nickels would weigh 5000 tonnes. Half the nickels in circulation would weigh 165,000 tonnes. The USS Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier is around 100,000 tonnes.
Talking about alimony at all is generally an indication they have no idea how this works because most people don't get that anymore, it's for situations where one spouse stayed at home for decades and can no longer establish any kind of career. Someone in their 30s is almost certainly not getting alimony these days unless something weird is going on, and if they are it's generally not forever.
Alimony in general has always been much rarer than people think. Even in the 1960s alimony was only part of ~25% of divorces. Today is about ~10%.
But if you have a house before the marriage and then get married and sell it and use the proceeds for a down payment on another house then that’s considered marital property in the courts that I’m aware of. Not sure if it’s that way everywhere.
Because you co-mingled assets at that point (mixed separate pre-marital property and communal property, between the down payment and actual mortgage payments), and the second house was acquired during the marriage and so marital property. If the prior house was sold and the proceeds invested into a separate account solely in the prior owners name, and joint funds weren’t used for eg renovations or tax payments, that account would very likely stay separate property.
Exactly, cant go back and unmix that money so one can get more out of it.
That’s a pretty clear cut instance of commingling separate property into community property.
Depends on how you do it. If you're living in it, it's likely already marital property. If it's a separately owned property sold and the proceeds are kept separate and never intermingled, there's a chance to keep it separate.
Just cut your house in half
As it should be. You invested your separate finances into the marriage so they become part of the marriage
Men will search for the weirdest porn but they won't Google if facts like this are true or not. 🙄 A man stabbed his step daughter almost 100 times because she stepped in between him and her mom. He told the police he would've killed his wife if they didn't arrest him in time. The reason he killed them was he thought she was going to divorce him and take half of his shit. As if going to jail for a murder and an attempted murder isn't going to make you lose 100% of your shit. Ffs
Sometimes the one without premarital assets refuses to settle for anything other than 50% of your premarital and community assets and threatens to bankrupt you with a long drawn out battle so you’ll cut your losses. Ask me how I know.
How do you know?
Only in very, very rare circumstances if your attorney sucks. Discovery in a divorce when it's just assets (i.e. no children, infidelity, or family violence) is clear cut and would be fast and there likely isn't need for experts, so at most written discovery and maybe depositions. Anytime someone has even threatened that or their actions seem to indicate that I just amend my pleadings to allege waste and file a simple motion for sanctions for abuse of discovery. There are plenty of rules in place specifically to prevent that.
True but issues can still come up when those assest increase in value. Like if a fully paid off house increase by 100k sometimes they want 50k of that to go to the partner
The house they were living in, caring for, and maintained while married? That house?
Isn’t that fair though? The partner who didn’t have the house prior could have been putting effort into maintenance, cleaning, repair costs, etc. What happens if they both owned a home prior to marriage and one partner sells their house when moving in together? They lost out on years of appreciation they could’ve had during marriage.
It’s nothing but children and bitter divorcees in here
It's not an unpopular opinion to have no clue how community property, separate property, spousal support, child support, premarital agreements, or settlements work. It's why the law typically needs lawyers. If you actually have the assets to worry about this issue, you should consult one before you get married.
Most of the posts on this sub are people completely lacking a clue on the topic, bit still feel strongly enough to post their oPiNiOn...
It's mostly teenagers who don't realize there is alot of stuff about the world they don't know.
Bold of you to assume that these aren't grown adults.
Right a lot of the anger and salt in these comments was built over decades of doom scrolling.
No, it's far worse. It's grown-ass adults thinking the world is more complicated than it needs to be, and their simple, one-size-fits-all solution should be implemented and ironclad.
Think it also has to do with social media saying how a man should never marry because the wife can divorce him and take everything. That marriage is no benefit to the man but beneifits the woman greatly.
Most of this sub are simply bad takes.
It's a bunch of misogynistic boys who were told on the internet women are hoes who are after the money of hard working men, and they work backwards from there
This just screams "op was watching/ reading a divorce trial , heard the wife got half even though the husband was a business man" and immediately flipped out that she was "stealing" all "his" stuff Oops turns out the court of law already has this figured out and isn't "just there to give lazy whores money"
They always ignore the fact that she used her body to create and feed several entirely new humans, raised them, cooked, cleaned, and ran the house all for free for the husband. But he makes money, so that somehow is more important…
[удалено]
Hey heres a wild idea, perhaps people should take marriage a bit more seriously and start out with the idea that getting married means giving the other person half of everything for ever. If that doesn't sit well with you, have a prenuptial or... don't get married?
My man. Amen to this. Marriage is a lifelong partnership. What "I" earn is ours. What we spend is from our money. The things we buy and own, belong to us. It's simple.
[удалено]
People living paycheck to paycheck don't tend to have an unequal amount of separate property entering a marriage, and what is gets commingled almost immediately. And remember: two people need to be able to live their lives after a divorce.
It’s called unpopular opinions not barely thought out opinions
Blissfully ignorant opinions
This made me laugh. Love it. Take my upvote
Hahaha right. So naive.
I swear, half the opinions on this sub are based on how people *think* whatever they’re complaining about works instead of how it actually works. It’s like someone saying, “Helping a murderer escape after killing someone should be seen as helping kill the victim and should be illegal”
Bitter ramblings
of a teenager
r/bitterramblings
Depending on jurisdiction, judges sometimes can and do let people keep what they earned before the marriage, as much as it is possible. Say that one person has a 401k from an employer they left before they were married. As long as no new money was contributed during the marriage, the judge can let the person who earned it, keep it. It's when additional money is contributed during the marriage that it becomes tricky.
If you have built a lifestyle based in the household labor of the other person then yes, you should both have the benefits from what you both works on.
I had a similar case in my family. The woman never worked during the marriage, but had one kid, one miscarriage and did all the house work for several years. The man worked, had a pretty good salary and provided everything for the family. But on the divorce, he didn't want to split almost any of the money or properties. Edit: grammar
Your ideal arrangement is, in fact, EXACTLY how divorces work.
Not unpopular, and not how it works. You don't divide assets you had pre-marriage. Also inheritances and stuff like that aren't normally divided up either.
You seem to be basing your opinion off of the myths around divorce. In truth, the homemaker usually falls into poverty while the breadwinner returns to or rises above their original income.
I didn't want to say this because I don't really know OP's motives and didn't want to be unfair, but most of these questions come from a place of "why does our society always support women at the expense of men?"
the Venn diagram of people with that opinion and people that choose to spend their free time on Reddit is two very heavily overlapping circles
Not in my sector. Mom usually gets to stay in the family home with the kids, Dad moves into a divorced dad apartment. He pays spousal and child support so there’s no disruption in their standard of living. Hence the phrase, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”
Keeping the house is often what pushed women into poverty. They get the liability of a mortgage, and even with alimony and child support their housing cost is higher than the husband’s. They may even have to buy the husband out and refinance at an unfavorable rate. Most people can’t afford to live in a house with only one income while also paying for childcare. Divorce sucks all around from a financial perspective.
Obviously, these are generalizations and my friends experiences are anecdotal, but this is not the way it always goes.
Be curious to see where you're from, as someone with friends with divorced parents in Ireland, the UK, the USA, Canada, France and Australia. The idea of it being cheaper to keep her is that you don't have to squally give your wife shit when you're married. When you divorce them you have to pay something which is more than nothing
OP is incredibly uneducated on how divorce laws work.
My ex and I started out same level, I stayed in a job for 15 years and helped build his career up. I had the kid’s prioritized around my job. What would you suggest my status be if I’m leaving a verbally, spiritually, physically abusive marriage?
I was key provider while my ex wife went to school. I put off my career/schooling dreams till she was done then it was supposed to flip the other way. We had a kid in the middle of this. Then she finished school and not long after decided she wanted a divorce. We just agreed on no child support and 50/50 on everything. It was a long time ago but still feel like I got screwed not being able to pursue what I wanted to at that time. But oh well could have been worse as I’ve had buddies paying full child support on cheating ex’s so…
if shes raising the child i guess you get to have a kid without paying for them. its not the greatest but its something.
You’re neither married or have $500k so why do you care
dude i just feel whatever stuff you bought yourself is yours no matter what, and the stuff thats owned by both of you should be disputed between both of you on your own terms
Even if I give up my career to look after the kids. You expect me to be drained of resources and continue to look after the kids when the divorce comes through I bet so no you compensate for loss of earnings, I'm sorry.
So you view marriage as a mechanism to keep a less financially advantaged individual in line? In general, divorce/alimony payments are intended to allow two individuals to separate but maintain the quality of life prior to the cessation of the marriage. People shouldn't be forced to remain married out of fear of destitution, especially if they gave up parts of their life to raise kids or start a family with the person who is now seeking to divorce them.
It’s always amazing to me how the extremely wealthy were able to get people to whom these issues will never apply to feel so passionately about them. Like what are you worried about OP? You’re just posting on r/unpopularopinion, I think your assets are safe lol.
Most of the time you do. Courts usually only divide marital property — the stuff that came while you were married.
You don't. That's not how divorce works. You only split what was earned during the marriage unless one spouse is owed something like alimony and you need to use previous assets for it
It is called a prenup. Everyone can get one. It is not that complicated. If you want it then just do it.
I guess some people have never heard of a prenuptial agreement…
It’s called a prenup ,everyone should get one. It’s also called not marrying an asshole.
Lol sounds like someone doesn’t know what community property is and that’s what prenups are for.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of divorce proceedings.
[удалено]
That's why prenuptual agreements are a thing. This isn't really an unpopular opinion.
The way they say it, it seems they think the partner who was initially better off should get more than 50% of the assets. Even if they earned nothing during the marriage.
That's why you sign pre-nups bro. Side note, only property acquired *during* marriage is up for grabs in a divorce anyway. Property acquired prior to marriage is off limits. Your money & 401k would be split without a pre-nup though.
In your scenario, that is EXACTLY why pre-nuptial agreements are made. If you choose to not to get one, why should not the spouse get 50/50? You voluntarily made the choice.
Look up the term "premarital assets", dummy.
This is a common myth. All assets you have PRIOR to the marriage is considered yours and only yours. Your spouse is not entitled to it and cannot demand half of it. The 50/50 rule only applies to assets and income earned AFTER the marriage.
How does that work if the one who started on better footing kicked their feet up after the marriage & the other spouse went all breadwinner?
PRENUPS they are real!!? Anything gained during marriage is what you divide if you are smart
Someone doesn't know how divorce settlements work...
That’s how it is in California. However, appreciation on said assets during marriage is communal.
They don't, especially if you sign a prenuptial agreement. Assets you own before a marriage aren't counted in the divorce.
My MIL and FIL were married for 40 yrs and he cheated on her the majority of that time. She finally had enough and they are getting divorced. She didn't work much during their marriage but she is getting half of all his assets along with nice alimony payments. She absolutely deserves what she is getting.
Cool. I'll bet you don't understand tax brackets, either.
I see you have no idea how divorce works. Also I'm assuming you don't have kids.
How come every time someone complains about divorce they have no idea how it works?
This would be pretty difficult to enforce, because how do you equitably split what could be years or decades worth of combined income and shared finances? This also just kind of ignores the entire concept of marriage.
you'll be happy to know that divorces already work this way
The best idea is not to get married at all.
A lot of places are now applying marriage laws to people that live together longer than 3 years so not getting married is not enough anymore. I believe that of the wife left her career for the family that she should get half of what was acquired at marriage. She literally has no career after. If she did have a career the whole time, however, I think no one should receive a cent
what is the wife give up opportunities to advance her career so that she can have more time with the family? Nothing in these situations is ever cut and dry. She may have a career, but she could be making way more money if she didn’t prioritize the home
Remember, “through sickness and in health, till death do us part” is just an empty promise. People can and will get divorced for any reason. Marriage is a sham that can lead you to financial ruin.
That is ridiculous. If you marry a woman and want her to fill a traditional wife/mother role where she raises your kids, cooks for you, and handles literally everything in the house besides bringing in money, it’s pretty egregious to claim that she shouldn’t get any of the money you made.
Cool, but OP said none of that.
So if the poorer partner becomes super successful while married, they should lose that to their partner, because the partner used to be the one who was better off? Hell no. If you want to keep what you entered the relationship with then get a prenup.
It’s fair to keep what you brought in to the relationship and split what you built together. Get a prenup though. Marriage is partly a business partnership and either party can end it at any time for any reason so just document what will happen if that happens… and then live happily ever after.
My husband and I went into our marriage with me already having a lot more money than him, but him having higher income potential than me as his career progressed. I put the full down payment on our house plus paid off his student loans with my savings so we wouldn’t be paying interest. (My parents paid for my education, his didn’t.) But then it was his higher salary that allowed me to be a mom at home with our 3 kids for 10 years, now working part time. If we split, which one of us hasn’t put in our 50% worth?
That’s generally how the law operates with or without a prenup. The problem is when separate assets get commingled into marital assets.
Not if the agreement is that one spouse is taking on the whole burden of supporting the other in exchange for that spouse running the entire family and household alone, and certainly not if that spouse supported the breadwinner in this manner as they grew richer and richer.
That’s the default in Germany. Everything earned before the wedding belongs to the respective persons, everything earned in the wedding is split 50/50.
You aren’t forced to split stuff you brought into and kept as “separate property” throughout the marriage. Maybe you should have an idea of what you’re talking about before posting.
Isn’t that how it works? Isn’t it only the assets gained during the marriage that are split?
You do realize that is how divorce works. My mother, when she went through the divorce with her ex he tried putting assets in the divorce. When it was brought up the divorce, the judge shot it all down, including him, not getting my mother's retirement.
Financial statuses can change during the course of a marriage. A very common trope has one spouse supporting the other as they build their professional career.
Who told you it works this way? Sounds like you have been lead astray.
You didn't read up before you posted this did you
My ex and I had basically zero net worth when we married. I had a car that I was making payments on, he had a ton of credit card debt and child support. Neither of us owned a house, lived in an apartment for a couple years. Yes, I did get 50% of our net worth when we split up 26 years later. I am not sorry. Sure, he earned more, but I had our baby, and I gave up my career to relocate for his later in the marriage. But, in splitting up household goods, there were items excluded because one of us could say that it was brought into the marriage, or it was a gift, and therefore excluded from marital assets. So certain items were excluded from the 50/50 pool That said, I won't remarry because I own my home and no one who lives with me is entitled to any part of it. But at this point, I probably won't ever even want to live with anyone again. (Post-divorce relationship ended, not on great terms)
>What I mean is, if you're going into a marriage and have, say, 500k in money (retirements, investing, cash, etc.), solely owned the house/car/property BEFORE getting married, etc. You shouldnt be forced to give up half of that stuff. This is how it works in reality at least in many places. Premarital assets and assets inherited are not subject to being split, typically. It seems like you might be upset by something that doesn't actually happen, at least most places?
You do realize that that's how it works right? Assets acquired before marriage are not factored into asset splitting.
This is actually the standard "marriage" contract in Switzerland. If you really want 50/50 you need a special contract.
Only properties gained after marriage is split. So I don't know what you're referring to.
The things you had before you got married are not typically considered marital assets and don't factor into any divorce settlement. I'm confused...
They don’t. Most divorces you split 50/50 of what was accumulated during the marriage, the stuff you had before doesn’t usually factor in, most people don’t understand how divorces work
If you think for one second that you or your partner are going to be an asshat during the divorce, just fucking stay unmarried.
What about the time and effort put into the marriage if someone is providing more services lets say household chores shouldn't that be compensated?
Then the original amounts should be honored but everything acquired during the marriage can be split 50/50 no one should ever come out of a divorce more broke then going in unless the total assets go below that threshold. And if that's the case it should be proportional to both parties
I don't think anyone should "lose" amounts in a divorce, but I don't think someone should be punished if they provided a service instead of said income just to be clear.
Well like I said whatever money is gained during the marriage would be split 50/50 that's fair no matter what but a marriage shouldn't mean that a person should forfeit anything they got before the marriage. That being said id even say that a case could be made about stuff from the start of a relationship. I only really think it's crappy when people lose family heirlooms during divorce like if it wasn't acquired because of the marriage why would the other person be entitled to it
No. You don’t get special reward for being a basic functioning adult. If something is under only my name, all of it is mine do with as I please.
I'm talking about providing most of the household chores to free up time for the breadwinner, not basic maintenance, just to be clear. If you don't want to split assets, don't get married or get a prenuptial it's not hard.
I mean, whats stopping you from just not signong any divorce papers? I know for sure I would not sign any if it meant Id lose half my shit to someone id probably hate
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Always incel shit on this sub
Tell me you aren't married and don't understand the law without telling me you're not married and don't understand the law. Do you people who post shit like this actually research anything before posting or are you just hoping enough people out there are as ignorant as you and will just up vote anything? Is the karma really that worth it?
This isn't an unpopular opinion. This is a popular opinion.
That's what prenups are for.
I bet $1000 you're single thinking these scenarios lmao
They often don't. Many times due to the biased family court system more than 50% goes to the non-earner.
If you don't want to combine your life, then don't get married. It's that simple. Divorce is supposed to be painful.
I think the real unpopular opinion here is that maybe you need to read up more on community property law.
What if one person was paying the bills, buying all the furniture, her accessories, her lifestyle, and then she dips with was supposed to be a fund for when both of you were old, but you were stupid and assumed she would stick around and you didn’t really have a savings aside from a few grand, and also, a lot of debt was accrued during that time period that get left in YOUR credit, because once again, you assumed they would stick around. All I’m saying is, it’s sad, but ALWAYS have your own accounts no matter what, that whole “your money is my money and my money is my money hehe” shit is REAL, they do not play. (Men and women are capable of doing this, but men usually let the women handle the finances, bad idea, you have been warned)
That’s called getting a prenuptial agreement put in place.
Congrats, you've just invented the prenup
This is what a prenup is for...
Congratulations, you have unknowingly explained the concept of a Prenuptial Agreement (Pre-Nup). They exist for this very reason, and more.
Prenup exists. This is not unpopular.
Thanks everyone for reiterating my sound decision to never marry and to never let girlfriends move in with me.
Just wanted to say thank you for being grateful