Would You Sign A Prenup?
Why or why not? Mary Pilon writes in the WSJ:
New Yorkers Laura Jackson and Gary Zaremba met on a dating website in 2005. Two years later, Mr. Zaremba, a 52-year-old real-estate developer, popped the question. Ms. Jackson accepted.Then he popped another: "Will you sign a prenuptial agreement?"
He had been through a divorce, had a college-age son and several real-estate investments. She, a publicist and also 52, had never married.
"When he first mentioned it," Ms. Jackson, now Ms. Jackson-Zaremba, says, "I thought, 'Oh, my God.' It definitely took a little bit of the romance out."
Baby boomers looking to protect their assets are increasingly turning to prenuptial agreements--legal contracts drawn up before a marriage that dictate what happens to assets in the event a couple should part ways, either by divorce or death.
"They used to be for the rich and famous," says Marlene Eskind Moses, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and a lawyer in Nashville, Tenn. "It's become more commonplace in the market as an estate-planning opportunity for boomers."
...Tanya Porter, 60, and her husband, Darrell, 72, signed a prenup when they were married 27 years ago for one overriding purpose: to ensure their assets would go to their children from previous marriages in the event of a divorce or death. Today, many things in the agreement are moot, with stocks sold, cars long since traded in and kids all grown up. "It's funny now to reread it," says Ms. Porter, now a full-time wedding planner in Englewood, Colo.
In recent years, as more couples have drafted prenups, the documents have expanded to spell out terms of the marriage itself, addressing issues such as adultery, intimacy or weight gain, Ms. Moses says. Some prenups also determine things like what religion children will be raised as, or where they will attend school. However, child-support and custody agreements typically aren't included in prenups because those are to be determined separately by the courts.
Because prenups are general legal contracts, same-sex couples may be able to draft financial agreements, even if their state doesn't legally recognize the union, she says. "People are free to contract," Ms. Moses says.
Sure I would if I thought the agreement was reasonable. Reduces the courts influence if the marriage were to break-up.
The one thing is that courts can and do (fairly often around here if kids are involved) invalidate the agreements. All they have to do is decide the agreement is not reasonable - especially if both partners did not have their own separate attorney advise them on the agreement. They may stick with certain items but the overall division may change. Say the agreement specifics that guy gets to keep his vintage hotrod and the woman gets to keep her antique vase collection with each getting the % of assets they brought into it, they will both likely get to keep those items but the other assets (e.g. stocks, bonds) maybe divided up differently - say 50/50.
The Former Banker at July 8, 2010 1:17 AM
Do a pre-nup? Hell, yeah!
Why would I want some woman, however beloved, to get all my stuff when she decides that she's bored?
mpetrie98 at July 8, 2010 1:38 AM
Absolutely. Unlike, mpetrie, I don't think of it as some man making off with "my" stuff.
In addition to considering a division of assets, a prenup can also spell out what a surviving spouse is entitled to use or keep.
In the event I were to remarry and predecease my spouse, I would likely want him to have a life interest in income from my property and investments. He would be well able to live upon that income without worry. Depending on his assets, that may or may not be necessary, but it would be an option.
Upon his death, however, I would want the assets to remain in my family vs. his. Executing a prenup - and ensuring ALL parties are aware of the contents - can help alleviate misunderstandings upon one's death.
Tasha at July 8, 2010 4:30 AM
I am absolutely in favour of them. When they are equitable, realistic & practical for BOTH parties.
I ended an engagement over a prenup. The "negotiation" was an eye-opener. The document was entriely concerned with protecting HIS assets, with little mention of mine. He said that my assets didn't NEED protecting, because he "wasn't like that".
We broke up during the argument when I pointed out my net worth was nearly on a par with his & I felt it deserved as much "protecting" as his did.
hahahathud at July 8, 2010 4:58 AM
It definitely depends on the circumstances. To protect children from another marriage I think is the most obvious reason.
Dave and I aren't really coming into this marriage with a whole lot. We live in a house he bought, but he hasn't mentioned wanting me to sign anything to protect the approx. $90k in equity he has in the house. I would think that a bit extreme, assuming that we're both working hard to move into something a bit comfier someday.
If Dave had loads of money I'd understand and sign it if it were fair - e.g: If we had kids and we both decided I would stay home with them, then divorced, I'd have a place to live until I got on my feet again. Pre-nups don't mean anything about trust or love. They're just a necessary thing today if you have assets you don't want to possibly kiss good bye. But you also shouldn't be a scrooge (ew!).
If anyone needs a good estate attorney in MA let me know, I have one at home :-)
Gretchen at July 8, 2010 5:02 AM
My two cents: Marriage is a contract so why wouldn't you want terms included in it like any other contract?
Isn't there a saying that you should never get into business with your loved ones? Catch 22.
Kendra at July 8, 2010 5:28 AM
I have and I would. However, I got my ex to throw out our prenup, then I divorced him. lol Otherwise, I would've gotten almost nothing after 20 years.
I didn't do that calculatingly. We reconciled for a time, and I just told him it was really unfair, given how much I had worked in the businesses, and he agreed (then, of course, in the divorce, he tried to claim he was "coerced").
So, I guess my point is that I wouldn't sign one again that is so blatantly unfair, like the one presented to hahahathud (unbelievable!). I agree the preparation phase can be very telling. I should've walked away when I saw how selfish and unfair my ex was about our prenup. Protecting current assets is one thing, but trying to control and claim future assets acquired during marriage should be a red flag.
I'm actually having a prenup prepared now for my fiance and I to sign. He has no problem with it, but it's still a little awkward and unromantic to discuss.
I know the laws of my state quite well, and my assets are actually well-protected by them anyway, and my fiance is not the type to go after them, so the prenup is almost more to keep everyone else, like my kids, from worrying that he's after my money.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2010 5:46 AM
Without making a blanket proclamation about every situation, I think that prenups should definitely be considered when the interests of third parties -- family partnerships, children from previous relationships, etc. -- are concerned. It's not fair to make your parents, siblings or kids pay because you did a bad job choosing your spouse. That having been said, if a friend of mine told me that his or her spouse-to-be was insisting in a prenup while indicating that the friend didn't need legal representation, or specific protection of assets, I'd tell the friend to get out of the relationship NOW. You can seek to protect yourself without screwing over others if you try hard enough. If you can't manage that, you shouldn't be getting married.
marion at July 8, 2010 5:53 AM
Each side must have legal representation for the prenup to be valid. Also, you can't sign it on your wedding day, like I did. Ironically, if my ex hadn't thrown ours out, it likely would've been invalidated for that reason anyway.
I think we actually signed it the day before and dated it wrong, but that little mistake made my divorce attorney very happy.
lovelysoul at July 8, 2010 6:03 AM
The subject came up, and she didn't like the idea. But we were going into the marriage with ZERO assets. (Actually, I had substantially more debt than she did.)
Any assets we have ended up with, we've built together. By mischance, rather than design, we also both make about the same amount of money. So I skipped the pre-nup. If I'd had anything, including an income, I might have felt differently.
Bill McNutt at July 8, 2010 6:18 AM
No.
I got married in Japan, and the paperwork was fairly daunting anyway. Then it had to be translated. I think we had maybe $2000 between the two of us. I'm still laughing thinking about it.
Marrying somebody from a different culture is like stepping into a minefield. You never know how some innocent remark could be misinterpreted. Even mention of a prenup would likely have been a deal breaker. I don't think they existed back then anyway.
I can see where they fit some circumstances, but not mine. I meant the "till death do us part" bit.
MarkD at July 8, 2010 6:35 AM
I would have, although he never asked. It would have been silly the first time. Neither of us had anything.
MonicaP at July 8, 2010 6:55 AM
Prenups make sense if you have kids, if there is a huge disparity in net worth, or in very special cases like the family assets mentioned by Tasha.
For anyone else, they represent "planned failure." You are going into a marriage having already decided what to do when it ends. If that's how one or both of the people feel, they perhaps they shouldn't be getting married?
bradley13 at July 8, 2010 6:59 AM
Maybe. Many people here are talking about second marriages, or later-in-life marriages, where one or both people have built up independent assets, have children, etc. In that case, a prenup sounds like a good idea. However, as with MarkD, it was not necessary or appropriate for my marriage. Were some drastic (and frankly unlikely) change in our marriage to occur, I know my husband and myself well enough to predict that we would do as our friends did and sit down, make a spreadsheet of our assets, and divide them up quickly. No children, equal incomes, and two adults who are analytical and can do arithmetic--I wouldn't be worried about the lack of a prenup.
Astra at July 8, 2010 7:00 AM
There are actually religious reasons for a prenuptial agreement as well. For example, in Orthodox Judaism, both the wedding and the divorce are legal contracts through the Jewish court system. If the husband refuses to write (or have written) the legal divorce document (called a get - no pun on the English word) or the wife to accept it (this is a technical matter as to how the document must be handled), the divorce (even when granted through the secular legal system) is invalid. As a result, many people will write and sign a prenuptial agreement, enforceable through the regular court system, stating that a secular divorce will not be valid unless the religious divorce has been completed correctly.
A "forced" divorce is not valid, so that if the secular court attempts to force the husband to write the get (religious divorce document), it is invalid. The prenuptial agreement when written correctly makes the religious divorce "willing".
Sabba Hillel at July 8, 2010 7:01 AM
Tasha says in the event she predeceases her husband, she would like her husband to have a life interest in the income from her property, but that when he dies the property producing that income should be left to her family.
Tasha, your goal can be achieved with a trust set up in your will. You should see a good estate planning lawyer to set up the trust. The trust would not go into effect until you die. A trustee would administer the property during your husband's lifetime.
A prenup would not be the controlling document for a trust, but the trust could be mentioned in a prenup if only to show that your husband agreed to having a trust set up for his benefit.
Nick at July 8, 2010 7:01 AM
For a first marriage, where both of us are young and starting a life together - no way.
Flash forward 40 years and my spouse has passed away and I meet #2 on a cruise. He's got an established life as do I - absolutely.
UW Girl at July 8, 2010 7:05 AM
Isn't a pre-nup just an admission of failure? Haven't you already condemned the marriage by saying "and WHEN we get divorced..."
If you're considering a pre-nup, then you've probably chosen the wrong mate.
brian at July 8, 2010 7:24 AM
DH and I did. And neither of us had anything but debt then. It was my second marriage, the first one wiped out my credit rating and money, so yeah, I thought things should be rational. I have no intention of ever getting a divorce, but you know what? I didn't the first time either. When a man hides bills instead of paying them, leaves you alone for a week in winter with the resulting no electricity, cheats on you with an 18 year old, etc....yeah, you get a divorce. My only excuse was I was 16 when I met him, and too stupid and stiffnecked to admit I'd made a mistake to may parents before marrying him. At least I didn't have kids with him.
DH had no issue with the prenump. It basically says we leave with what we came in with, and property acquired jointly gets split 50/50.
momof4 at July 8, 2010 7:59 AM
Having to negotiate a salary means you've probably chosen the wrong company
lujlp at July 8, 2010 8:04 AM
No, luj - the analogy you're looking for is "having to negotiate a severance package during the job interview means you've chosen the wrong company."
If, going in to a marriage, your first concern is "what happens to my shit when we get divorced" the answer is simple: do not marry.
brian at July 8, 2010 8:11 AM
The thing is, if your marriage dissolves as so many do, the dissolution will be governed by many rules and structures. The only question to ask is do you and your spouse want to decide those rules for yourself with a prenup, or would you rather have them decided by politicians?
For those who think getting a prenup is planning for failure or proof of choosing the wrong mate, I suggest that they are woefully ignorant of what happens in divorce. Basically lawyers make out and everyone else feels screwed.
Wouldn't you rather plan for a contingency that affects about half of all marriages at a time when you are feeling most hopeful and charitable to the other party?
Scott at July 8, 2010 8:17 AM
We didn't have one, but neither of us had any assets to protect when we got married. Neither of us stands to inherit anything substantial, and when we married, we made roughly the same amount of money.
If I were widowed, however, I'd absolutely want one if I were to remarry. Now, there ARE assets, and I have a child. Anything that that her father left us would need to stay with me in the event of a divorce, or go to her in the event of my death. It's not very romantic, but second marriages involving mixed families can be complicated. I CAN NOT imagine having something so specific as the frequencey of sex, or limits on weight gain, mentioned in a marriage contract.
ahw at July 8, 2010 9:13 AM
"For anyone else, they represent "planned failure." You are going into a marriage having already decided what to do when it ends. If that's how one or both of the people feel, they perhaps they shouldn't be getting married?"
"Isn't a pre-nup just an admission of failure? Haven't you already condemned the marriage by saying "and WHEN we get divorced..."
If you're considering a pre-nup, then you've probably chosen the wrong mate."
This is a common and destructive attitude with regard to pre-nups. You are planning for divorce either way - it's just that the default setting, no pre-nup, means that you are choosing to divorce on the court's terms rather than your own. There is nothing romantic about blindly choosing the default option, and it certainly doesn't suggest that you are more committed to the marriage.
CB at July 8, 2010 9:50 AM
I would think only if you have a lot of liquid assets to protect... All my "stuff" from before the marriage was returned to me [what she hadn't already sold over the years] as a matter of course. I'm under the impression that the law in CO is written that way. Liquid assets are a whole other ballgame. If there is a big disparity OR this is a second+ marriage, then it makes a lot of sense. Also, in the second+ marriage, you know quite a bit more than you want to about divorce anyway, so the bloom is off the rose anyway. If it's your mate's first marriage, well now you have a very delicate negotiation, because you ceertainly are killing the romance... but if you have children to protect, then you have to do that.
But. For all those that say "I know he/she would never do..." Yeah? Bull. When things are ending, the reasons for it often [not always, natch.] cause people to view each other differently. I never even considered that my ex would have had the secret bank account she had, nor that she would drain the joint accounts, and claim that I owed her that, AND living expenses. The strong independant smart woman turned out to be quite the chiseler. In retrospect, the frugal bargain hunter that was always so good with money... tuned out to be the person who cared about nothing else.
Cynical me thinks I should have seen that coming. But those things are attributes, right up to the point they are not, it depends which side you are on.
Should I ever find someone I wish to marry again, I would surely have the pre-nup so that life insurance and such would cover the kids I already have, while I would double the size to cover her and any subsequent kids too...
It make more sense when you are older.
SwissArmyD at July 8, 2010 9:56 AM
My wife and I met in our early 50's and wanted to protect our children's interests. We have no prenup and our wills leave everything to each other.
We have both taken out insurance policies with our own children as beneficiaries. I have talked to my daughter and told her that the insurance policy was in lieu of her inheritance and my wife has talked to her children.
My wife had few assets and mine were only about 100k due to an earlier divorce. My wife and I have agreed that the last one alive will split the estate among all of our children.
Even if my wife and I should split up, I want her to have one half of our assets, so no prenup is necessary.
Steamer at July 8, 2010 10:18 AM
No. One reason.
I do not see myself ever getting married again.
Robert at July 8, 2010 10:50 AM
"No. One reason.
I do not see myself ever getting married again."
Not signing a prenup because you will not be getting married is an EXCELLENT reason Robert. Thank you for blessing us with that.
I think after reading your post, I'll call my agent and cancel my boat insurance since I don't own one. Also making a note not to buy cat food.
Scott at July 8, 2010 11:49 AM
You have a prenuptial agreement in place even if you don't sign one. The difference is the *state* writes it for you via default laws regarding divorce settlements.
Those default laws typically suck for one or both parties involved and would not have been selected as the rules in most cases if people knew what they were up front.
Some people here say talking about avoiding the impact of those divorce laws on your marriage's dissolution is (1) unromantic or (2) planning failure. (In other words, it is romantic to simply accept what other people do with your lives? WTF?)
If simply avoiding adult discussions and allowing the state that sort of control over your life is "romantic" or avoiding "planning for failure" I guess my dictionary is out of date.
Spartee at July 8, 2010 12:17 PM
You know I'm so over the idea of "pre-nups are so unromantic". Get over it - assets need to be protected. Act like adults.
Crusader at July 8, 2010 1:10 PM
You know I'm so over the idea of "pre-nups are so unromantic". Get over it - assets need to be protected. Act like adults.
Posted by: Crusader at July 8, 2010 1:10 PM
______________________
Another example: Birth control.
That is, even if you wait till you're married, if you're pretty sure you don't want kids right away, it only makes sense for the woman, at least, to see her doctor long before the wedding. Clearly, having to talk to her doctor about her sex life before it even starts is hardly romantic. Clearly, too, it's the lesser of two evils - how many newlyweds want to use condoms on their wedding night? Or drive around looking for a place that sells them?
So, while saving yourself for marriage is a beautiful idea, even mustering that type of discipline won't protect you from unwanted pregnancy, since contraception demands discipline of a very different, unromantic kind - whether you're married or not.
And, of course, unwanted kids are always a blow to one's assets.
lenona at July 8, 2010 2:45 PM
One may also want to say how things are to be valued. Perhaps the house & property is 110% of taxed value. In my brother's divorce, his now ex-wife had an appraiser that gave a ridicules value and the judge went with that. The judge also ignored that by contract, my parents had first right to purchase the house & land for the remaining amount on the loan which they co-signed. If they were to sell the house to divide the assets, then my parents would have purchased the house for the ~$100k remaining on the mortgage.
I have not seen a study, but a lot of antidote that people with a pre-nup are less likely to split than those without with other things being the same (e.g. first marriage compared to first marriage - not 3rd marriage w/ prenup to 1st marriage w/o). My thought is the people with prenup are more likely to be thinking rationally and are able to communicate about difficult issues.
The Former Banker at July 8, 2010 3:29 PM
I own a business that I've spent nearly a decade of my own blood, sweat and tears building up to where it is. The idea of someone coming along and being entitled to 50% of my business seems absurd on the face of it. It would make running and managing the business extraordinarily complicated, as well as raising investment money etc. to grow later. So yeah, I'd want my SO to sign a pre-nup. I'm less worried about things like house/car/motorbike etc. If she's going to raise my kids then sure, I'd want her looked after ... but there is 'looked after', and then there is 'looked after' - and the legal defaults are a f'ing joke, so a pre-nup seems like a must.
Lobster at July 8, 2010 3:37 PM
Absolutely! I've been through a divorce and the hefty legal fees that go along with it, and I would never marry again without one. I was dating this guy who, despite his virtues, was deep in debt. I brought up the issue of a prenup right away when he brought up marriage, he seemed really butthurt, but I maintained that it wasn't personal. Interestingly he seemed to lose interest in talking about marriage after that. Coincidence? Hmmmmm...Methinks someone had a little Agenda with a capital A! As in A**hole!
Gspotted at July 8, 2010 4:28 PM
Not signing a prenup because you will not be getting married is an EXCELLENT reason Robert. Thank you for blessing us with that.
I think after reading your post, I'll call my agent and cancel my boat insurance since I don't own one. Also making a note not to buy cat food.
-------------
Kind of missing the point there Scotty m'boy.
S'alright though, since I give you credit for excellent use of sarcasm, which balances out against your having a level of depth and comprehension that scarcely rivals a sidewalk puddle.
-------------
The problem with a prenup is the fact that it is necessary. That said, the fact is that it IS necessary, so like it or not, unromantic or not, use it. Whether you make 20k or 20mil per year.
Marriage is hard, divorce is easy, and without that protection, you could to easily be screwed.
The best protection isn't a prenup though, its easier than that, just don't get married.
Robert at July 8, 2010 4:38 PM
We all know of the financial and asset aspects of a prenup.
What is less know, but perhaps even more unknown, are the psychological aspects. Marriage is not easy, it requires commitment on the part of both. Large divorce settlements reduces someone's commitment, since the only thing they have to lose is their responsibilities. Say your wife has an affair and leaves you for the much younger pool boy, or your husband has an affair and leaves you for the much younger babysitter, and the two of them live happily ever after on your nickel, while you look like the fool? I also believe that spouses are less likely to cheat if they know it will land them back where they started.
I don't think I could handle my wife cheating on me, and then her and her young stud living happily ever after in my house with my kids while I foot the bill. The money costs, however horrible and unacceptable, are not nearly as bad as the psychological costs.
Just my two cents.
Trust at July 8, 2010 5:28 PM
Of course the pre-nup can be vacated, making the whole point moot.
If Crid were here, he'd certainly be advocating for better mate selection.
If the default choice now is to presume divorce, then why bother with marriage at all? Leave it to the people who are more willing to work at the relationship than to bolt at the first difficulty.
brian at July 8, 2010 6:51 PM
"Marriage is not easy, it requires commitment on the part of both. Large divorce settlements reduces someone's commitment"
Put another way, modern alimony laws basically amount to, in many cases quite literally, paying someone a large sum of money to divorce their spouse. You can increase the prevalence of any behavior in humans by simply offering major financial incentives for that behavior - divorce is no exception. Paying people to divorce en masse .. wonder if divorce lawyers were behind that one.
Lobster at July 8, 2010 7:00 PM
> certainly be advocating for better
> mate selection.
Always. But everything else is probably covered in these comments... Some people have given good attention to the word "romantic". If romance is the force that's propelling all these bad unions, then we might agree that romance is overrated. If prenups the way society comes to grips with the practicalities of marriage, then it's hard to argue with them, even if they're distasteful.
Crid at July 8, 2010 10:25 PM
Ever have one of those days where a simple chord progression sticks in your head the whole day, no matter what you're doing or who you're talking to?
Ain't that weird?
Crid at July 8, 2010 11:03 PM
It's not even like pre-nups are a new thing. Marriage contracts have been around for a very long time. What's the difference between a settlement contract and a pre-nup? Both state who gets what in the event of the end of the marriage, whether by death or divorce.
Marva at July 9, 2010 10:04 AM
"Isn't a pre-nup just an admission of failure? Haven't you already condemned the marriage by saying "and WHEN we get divorced..."
If you're considering a pre-nup, then you've probably chosen the wrong mate."
I'm kind of with Brian on this one in first marriages, at least. I guess once you're older you want to make sure your assets go to your children it's a different story.
I was talking about marriage with one of my exes. . He told me his grandparents demanded that anyone in his generation getting married HAD to have a pre-nup in place because they would be inheriting the family cabin in Canada and they didn't want someone losing part of it in a divorce. I didn't love the idea, but I could understand them being concerned about something that meant so much to their family. Then I thought about it and got REALLY pissed off. What kind of person would try to take away someone's family's vacation home? And why did these people think I would be said type of person?! I had spent holidays with them! They knew me! I would never do something like that. Of course, that relationship ended, so I guess he wasn't the right one.
My current fiance's family, on the other hand, has a lot of real estate in our town that has been in their family for several generations. They also have far more money than my family does (though you'd never know it). There hasn't been one word about a prenup from them. I think everyone can see that my fiance and I will be together forever. In the event of the extremely unlikely circumstance that we fall out of love, we're both confident that things wouldn't get nasty. We're just not nasty people. So, I'd be pretty hurt if all of a sudden they came at me with a prenup. To each their own, but I see it as planning on my marriage failing. Maybe a lot of people are entering into temporary marriages these days, but that's not me.
Kimmy at July 9, 2010 11:08 AM
You'd be surprised at how nasty people can get. You have no idea what might happen 20 years down the road. A pre-nup is just like insurance: you have it, but you hope you never have to use it. But if you DO have to use it, you're really grateful that you have it.
And like Dan Savage says, "Every relationship is going to fail...until one doesn't." Assuming eventual failure is normal, since most relationships don't last your entire life. If you're one of the lucky ones and you do stay together "until death do you part", then bingo! The pre-nup didn't hurt anything.
But if you're one of the myriads of other people whose relationship ends before one of the partners dies, then you've made a contract together back when things were more pleasant and likely more rational, so hopefully none of the potential ill will or acrimony will interfere with an equitable distribution of assets.
Like I said, it's like insurance--you're not assuming you're going to get in an accident, but accidents do happen. Better to be covered than not.
Of course, I've never had any assets worth protecting, so it's kind of a moot point for me.
Peggy C at July 9, 2010 11:44 AM
@brian "Isn't a pre-nup just an admission of failure? Haven't you already condemned the marriage by saying "and WHEN we get divorced..." "If you're considering a pre-nup, then you've probably chosen the wrong mate."
____________
I used to think so. If it weren't for family law, I would still think so. But I don't anymore.
It isn't planning to fail any more than buying car insurance is planning to wreck. It is about protecting oneself, and knowing the rules of the road before you commit.
If it weren't for the current state of family law, I would consider prenups unnecessary. But now I think they are necessary. Family law incentivizes one party in the marriage to divorce, whereas a prenup counters somewhat neutralizes that.
Trust at July 9, 2010 3:38 PM
It isn't the prenup that encourages divorce, it is family laws that do. When people know that their behavior may cost them their lifestyle, they are much more committed to the marriage.
Trust at July 9, 2010 3:39 PM
I plan on getting a co-habitation agreement, since I don't plan on marrying my boyfriend. I want to protect my assets, and I have no interest in his, so his assets will also be protected.
If you want to live in the honeymoon phase forever, don't live together.
Chrissy at July 11, 2010 5:34 PM
@Chrissy: "I plan on getting a co-habitation agreement, since I don't plan on marrying my boyfriend. I want to protect my assets, and I have no interest in his, so his assets will also be protected."
__________
Wise move. Live with with someone long enough anyway, and you may find yourself in a legally binding marriage (common law) without even knowing it.
Many people assume, understandably so, but also incorrectly so, that a prenup (or legal agreement like yours) is planning to fail. In reality, it gives a relationship a much better chance to succeed for two reasons:
1) the two enter the relationship under fair legal rules that both find acceptable and agree to.
2) And most importantly, it limits how much the state meddles in the rules of one's marriage.
Again, wise on your part.
Trust at July 11, 2010 7:51 PM
We meant to, but never got around to it. Maybe we will do a postnup at some point.
NicoleK at July 13, 2010 6:02 PM
Yea!!! God forbid if I marry a waitress, and it doesn't work out and she decides that since marriage interrupted her promising career in the SERVICE INDUSTRY that half of my current and future net worth should ease some of her pain!!!
The above actually happened to a friend of mine. I learn from the mistakes of others. So please . . . don't tell me that it does not happen.
I have way too much money to risk losing any of it. Before I get married the woman better make as much me, and yes . . . a prenuptial!!!
That said, why any man would get married in today's world, is beyond me. There simply is no point to it, for men.
Uptick21 at September 29, 2010 9:36 AM
Leave a comment