SO - did you/would you get a pre-nup?

[pooh'smate]

We did not have any assets to split but if I had a chance to inherit land like you did @amberpi I would have. If something happened to my dh and I were to get remarried I would because I have a daughter and I would want to protect her.

 

[Marchand63]

Did not.
Would not remarry because our family trust/estate plan has a "one and done" clause. If either of us remarries if we were to divorce and remarry, or one pass away first and the other remarries, the kids immediately get half of everything.
Amazing when you do estate planning how many stipulations you can put in if something happens to you.

So if the remaining spouse remarries you take 1/2 of what they built with you and gift to your children? If you trust your spouse in the marriage with the assets why wouldn't you trust their judgement if you die? Divorce, maybe - death, what did they do wrong that they should now spend their life alone & halved.

We would & we did. 2nd marriage for us both. Never say never, because you don't ever know what can happen. His ex developed a drug habit in her late 30's and he rode it out for a few years. In the meantime behind his back she maxed CC, she opened accounts in his name, she remortgaged the house fraudulently, he never knew until he filed for divorce after 20 years of marriage.

So we did a pre-nup. Also have wills that are very very specific as to division of assets to our respective children & grandchildren.

Planning doesn't negate the love & faith of a marriage it bolsters it.

It is funny the judgement here seems to be you're greedy & nasty if you want one. Being pragmatic is not a bad thing.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

I didn't the first time I got married. We were young.

If i were to ever remarry i would. Just so that i could protect my children.

 

[GaSleepingBeautyFan]

Well, when we first married I didn't have much - only 2 boxes of stuff which included books plus one suitcase of clothes. My husband had that plus tons of science fiction model kits which I didn't know about until we were married but they weren't really worth much. So no pre-nup.

If I'd had a lot of money or property then I would definitely get a pre-nup.

 

[tzolkin]

So if the remaining spouse remarries you take 1/2 of what they built with you and gift to your children? If you trust your spouse in the marriage with the assets why wouldn't you trust their judgement if you die? Divorce, maybe - death, what did they do wrong that they should now spend their life alone & halved.

I can see something similar being a good idea in certain cases. I know several families where a “stranger” (new spouse) has inherited everything and walked away.

I would be furious if everything my husband and I had worked and saved for decades went to some random person and my children had to struggle to pay for college or whatever.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

I can see something similar being a good idea in certain cases. I know several families where a “stranger” (new spouse) has inherited everything and walked away.

I would be furious if everything my husband and I had worked and saved for decades went to some random person and my children had to struggle to pay for college or whatever.

But it wouldn't be some random stranger. In fact, it wouldn't be a stranger at all. It would be someone that was loved and trusted by the surviving spouse.

I also know someone that complains about a "stranger" inheriting everything. My MIL's mom died, and her father remarried. He was married to his second wife for 15 years. When her father died, she expected that the "new wife" would be out of the house with her stuff, so the kids could divvy everything up. That wasn't what happened. The wife got the real property and money. But honestly, after 15 years, it should have been hers. The "kids" were all married with children living their own lives.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I agree that for most of us, with a 1st marriage a pre-nup is useless, since most 20-somethings don't have much assets to start out with. Now..the closer you get to middle age..you have retirment funds, possibly own a home, DVC, ETC. Then a pre-nup may be worth it.

I wish my dad had signed a pre-nup when he remarried after my mom died. He had a will that my sister saw , that stated his house will go to his wife and upon her death, it will go to the kids. Well, she never filed his will with probate, we had no idea who the lawyer was who wrote it up. She got the house after being married less than 5 years. She got his social security check, too. (that's a stupid rule, as we worry about running out of SS funding). Since his death, she refinanced the house in a co-mortgage with her sister. She died last year. The mortgage deed had her name and her sister's name on it. Our family is out. A house that has been in my family for a hundred years...gone. Her sister just died before thanksgiving....her daughter is living in the house.

 

[tzolkin]

But it wouldn't be some random stranger. In fact, it wouldn't be a stranger at all. It would be someone that was loved and trusted by the surviving spouse.

I also know someone that complains about a "stranger" inheriting everything. My MIL's mom died, and her father remarried. He was married to his second wife for 15 years. When her father died, she expected that the "new wife" would be out of the house with her stuff, so the kids could divvy everything up. That wasn't what happened. The wife got the real property and money. But honestly, after 15 years, it should have been hers. The "kids" were all married with children living their own lives.

Ideally, yes. And certainly after years of a second marriage following the death of a spouse.

I’m talking about situations where it’s a new spouse after a very quick engagement (stranger) or someone who married him for the sole purpose of taking his money.

All I’m saying is that if either my husband or I remarry after the other’s death, I could see where a pre-nup could be valuable. Then, as the marriage goes on and the children grow up we could modify wills as necessary.

 

[Marchand63]

I can see something similar being a good idea in certain cases. I know several families where a “stranger” (new spouse) has inherited everything and walked away.

I would be furious if everything my husband and I had worked and saved for decades went to some random person and my children had to struggle to pay for college or whatever.

Yes but you can protect assets without a clause your spouse can't ever marry again.

But it wouldn't be some random stranger. In fact, it wouldn't be a stranger at all. It would be someone that was loved and trusted by the surviving spouse.

I also know someone that complains about a "stranger" inheriting everything. My MIL's mom died, and her father remarried. He was married to his second wife for 15 years. When her father died, she expected that the "new wife" would be out of the house with her stuff, so the kids could divvy everything up. That wasn't what happened. The wife got the real property and money. But honestly, after 15 years, it should have been hers. The "kids" were all married with children living their own lives.

And in that case I would imagine it was in their fathers will.

I know I wouldn't want to marry someone that wanted to control my moves after their death, kind of makes you feel like chattel.

 

[Marchand63]

Ideally, yes. And certainly after years of a second marriage following the death of a spouse.

I’m talking about situations where it’s a new spouse after a very quick engagement (stranger) or someone who married him for the sole purpose of taking his money.

All I’m saying is that if either my husband or I remarry after the other’s death, I could see where a pre-nup could be valuable. Then, as the marriage goes on and the children grow up we could modify wills as necessary.

In those situations there are methods such as irrevocable trusts with living rights without a clause your spouse has remain unmarried.

The pre-nup in our case was with all children already grown. We are happily spending their inheritance every year.

 

[tvguy]

So if the remaining spouse remarries you take 1/2 of what they built with you and gift to your children? If you trust your spouse in the marriage with the assets why wouldn't you trust their judgement if you die? Divorce, maybe - death, what did they do wrong that they should now spend their life alone & halved.

We would & we did. 2nd marriage for us both. Never say never, because you don't ever know what can happen. His ex developed a drug habit in her late 30's and he rode it out for a few years. In the meantime behind his back she maxed CC, she opened accounts in his name, she remortgaged the house fraudulently, he never knew until he filed for divorce after 20 years of marriage.

So we did a pre-nup. Also have wills that are very very specific as to division of assets to our respective children & grandchildren.

Planning doesn't negate the love & faith of a marriage it bolsters it.

It is funny the judgement here seems to be you're greedy & nasty if you want one. Being pragmatic is not a bad thing.

DW and I arrived at the "One and done" mindset from different paths.
My dad died when I was 9 and my mom was 43, she lived until age 90 and never remarried. She loved my dad and her marriage, but she liked being independent too.
My wife's parents divorced when she was 9, and she endured a series of unhappy remarriages by her mom.
Certainly not right for everyone, but clearly not unheard of since it is one of options in the standard questionnaire estate planners give potential clients .

 

[Marchand63]

DW and I arrived at the "One and done" mindset from different paths.
My dad died when I was 9 and my mom was 43, she lived until age 90 and never remarried. She loved my dad and her marriage, but she liked being independent too.
My wife's parents divorced when she was 9, and she endured a series of unhappy remarriages by her mom.
Certainly not right for everyone, but clearly not unheard of since it is one of options in the standard questionnaire estate planners give potential clients .

Certainly your choice I just find it a bit barbaric & paternalistic since it is more likely the man will pre-deseace the women

 

[Q-man]

In those situations there are methods such as irrevocable trusts with living rights without a clause your spouse has remain unmarried.

The pre-nup in our case was with all children already grown. We are happily spending their inheritance every year.

One of my kids talked about 'their inheritance' the other day. I set them straight that that is our retirement not their inheritance. We earned it not them. Also, let them know if something happens to us our estate goes into a trust that will control the funds until they turn 28.

 

[mummabear]

No - like others, we were married pretty young (25) and had few assets to worry about at the time.

This for us too, I was 21 when we married.
However I do think that if for some reason I was remarrying (not that I am ever expecting but if I am widowed) then I would. I see it as not just protecting my own assests but those that will eventually be my children’s.
I think everyone goes into marriage thinking it will last, and unfortunately it doesn’t work that way for everyone, if you think it will last then there is no worry about signing it because you will never need it. And if you do need it, it is better to have negotiated things when people are being reasonable than when they are bitter.

 

[Marchand63]

One of my kids talked about 'their inheritance' the other day. I set them straight that that is our retirement not their inheritance. We earned it not them. Also, let them know if something happens to us our estate goes into a trust that will control the funds until they turn 28.

As my Dad used to say when I would say as a kid"we're rich" - nope honey I'm rich.

 

[tvguy]

Certainly your choice I just find it a bit barbaric & paternalistic since it is more likely the man will pre-deseace the women

LOL. 35 years with me (and hopefully many more) apparently also put my wife off a second marriage!
Doesn't mean you can't just shack up.

 

[Marchand63]

LOL. 35 years with me (and hopefully many more) apparently also put my wife off a second marriage!
Doesn't mean you can't just shack up.

We thought about it for him to be on my pension & health benefits, gotta be married since same sex marriage was enacted.

 

[tvguy]

We thought about it for him to be on my pension & health benefits, gotta be married since same sex marriage was enacted.

Not an issue for us. No pension or health benefits in retirement, other than Medicare and Social Security. Your IRA's and 401ks can have anyone you want at the beneficiary.

 

[Marchand63]

Not an issue for us. No pension or health benefits in retirement, other than Medicare and Social Security. Your IRA's and 401ks can have anyone you want at the beneficiary.

Unfortunately state employees have to be married for State pension & state health insurance. My deferred 403b can have anyone I name.

 

[tzolkin]

Yes but you can protect assets without a clause your spouse can't ever marry again.

Perhaps I misread the previous posts?

I never said you needed a clause like that to protect your assets. I was offering reasons for a prenup on a second marriage, so my scenario involved getting married again. I wasn’t specifically talking about that other poster’s situation.

That said, it didn’t sound like the clause you’re referring to meant that the surviving spouse was technically unable to remarry. I understood it as: if you remarry (my) half goes to the kids. (Again, maybe I read it incorrectly) That’s not something I would do, but it’s not the same as forcing them to never marry.