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

[Texans_loyal]

engaged twice...Never been married...this thread is interesting.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

Give me your experiences!

Didn't sign a pre-nup. Although, my husband told me about 10 years into the marriage his sister told him he should get one from me.

It's a moot point, because I'm never giving him up. Been together over 30 years now.

 

[CdnCarrie]

You can be together and still wanna preserve assets I get what you're saying, but it could be a lot of risk.

People change and are crazy, or you get the bad/good end of the stick...ya know? I hope you aren't suggesting that other people who haven't had the success you've been fortunate enough to enjoy are lesser. I'm sure you aren't, because it happens everyday.

Interesting, I wouldn't marry someone who wouldn't sign one. I mean, are they looking at me as a cash cow? Yikes!

I do get your point and agree that if you had substantial assets you should protect them. You had mentioned family property you are inheriting.
Both times I got married I was young, my parents were healthy, active, etc. So even through there is the possibility I might inherit a decent amount of a very middle class estate some day (nice home, recreation property) it's not massive and both my spouses came from the same middle class background. I never saw any need to protect some possible, future inheritance especially when my parents at the time were only late 40s/early 50s with no health issues.

And I guess I felt if I did inherit while still married in the distant future that was part of being married.

 

[tvguy]

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

I guess it depends on the plan/state. A friend is helping her mom deal with finances because her dad's state pension and health benefits ended when he passed away. There was a minimum dollar amount he was guaranteed, but his pension depleted that amount about 10 years after he retired.

 

[Marchand63]

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.

Maybe it came across wrong. Another poster had if his spouse remarried it would half the surviving spouses estate they built together. which seems extremely unfair. You find someone to love after a tragic loss but if remarry you lose 1/2 your assets? It works for them just can't see doing to my spouse.

I guess it depends on the plan/state. A friend is helping her mom deal with finances because her dad's state pension and health benefits ended when he passed away. There was a minimum dollar amount he was guaranteed, but his pension depleted that amount about 10 years after he retired.

Yes when you retire you get 3 options (at least here)

Option A - lump sum payout
Option B - full pension but on your death pension ceases. If any is left in the pot, spouse gets just remaining worth
Option C - 80% pension but on your death gets to keep collecting until their demise.

Option C is in our future. Seems like your friend either picked a wrong option or it actually wasn't an option at his retirement. Either way much sympathy I hope her attorney can get her something.

 

[AustinMommyofThree]

I do get your point and agree that if you had substantial assets you should protect them. You had mentioned family property you are inheriting.
Both times I got married I was young, my parents were healthy, active, etc. So even through there is the possibility I might inherit a decent amount of a very middle class estate some day (nice home, recreation property) it's not massive and both my spouses came from the same middle class background. I never saw any need to protect some possible, future inheritance especially when my parents at the time were only late 40s/early 50s with no health issues.

And I guess I felt if I did inherit while still married in the distant future that was part of being married.

Additionally, any sizable estate that one is likely to inherit is likely going to be held in a trust or other vehicle that protects it, or at least one developed with any degree of sophistication.

I think a lot of people misunderstand what is and isn't protected in a marriage, even in community property states. Getting married doesn't suddenly allow one's spouse access to all the family's jewels (nor even to most assets brought into the marriage, as long as they are not co-mingled), so in most cases pre-nuptial agreements just make money for the attorneys and cause unnecessary stress for the couple. Which is again why it seems needlessly adversarial to me, but to each their own.

 

[Julie's Haircut]

Yes, had a pre-nup for both my prior and current marriage.

In my view, if you're unwilling to even consider a pre-nup, perhaps you shouldn't be getting married.

 

[tvguy]

Yes, had a pre-nup for both my prior and current marriage.

In my view, if you're unwilling to even consider a pre-nup, perhaps you shouldn't be getting married.

I respect your opinion. But I disagree, probably because of the the way I was raised. To me if you would consider a pre-nup, you shouldn't be getting married. But we both entered our marriage with nothing of value ( okay, my wife had a 12 year old Ford Maverick as one of her biggest assets, I had an 8 year old Ford Pinto as one of the biggest assets I brought to our marriage). 35 years later, everything we have was acquired and paid for jointly.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Did not have one and never considered it. If I ever decide to get remarried, it will not happen without one.

Just to clarify, do you feel you made a mistake not getting one the first time? Or, have circumstances changed such that one is now warranted while it was not previously?

 

[Marchand63]

I respect your opinion. But I disagree, probably because of the the way I was raised. To me if you would consider a pre-nup, you shouldn't be getting married. But we both entered our marriage with nothing of value ( okay, my wife had a 12 year old Ford Maverick as one of her biggest assets, I had an 8 year old Ford Pinto as one of the biggest assets I brought to our marriage). 35 years later, everything we have was acquired and paid for jointly.

See as the daughter of a lawyer I am a pragmatist. Btw they here married 52 years before prenups were a thing. My father advised me be your own woman, never dependent on anyone.

Not sure when you were married but her her maverick is worth more than your pinto. Lol!!!!

My xDH offered way more than I took. He was a 7 figure guy, I got the house,signed off everything else so sometimes prenups are just suggestions.

 

[tvguy]

See as the daughter of a lawyer I am a pragmatist. Btw they here married 52 years before prenups were a thing. My father advised me be your own woman, never dependent on anyone.

Not sure when you were married but her her maverick is worth more than your pinto. Lol!!!!

My xDH offered way more than I took. He was a 7 figure guy, I got the house,signed off everything else so sometimes prenups are just suggestions.

LOL. We got married in 1982. The Maverick was sold 6 months after we got married for $750. The Pinto was sold 8 years after we got married for $900.

My last lawyer encounter was when I sold my mom's house 4 years ago. It was in a trust. The trust was 3 paragraphs long, half a sheet of paper. The Escrow officer panicked. We were an hour from closing escrow. Said we might have a problem, he's never seen a trust that wasn't dozens of pages or more. He faxed it to their lawyer. He called, and the escrow officer put him on speaker phone. He laughed. Hadn't seen one in years ( my mom had it drawn up in 1975 when I turned 18). He knew exactly what it was. The County Recorder's offices across the nation use to hand those out for free. Fill it out, get it notarized, you had a trust. A fully legal trust that met all legal standards. A trust a lawyer would charge $1,000 for. The escrow officer asked why they stopped handing them out. The lawyer said..."because the lawyers complained the recorders offices were illegally competing with lawyers". So have I guess I am a pragmatist towards lawyers.

 

[Cubbiecakes]

My spouse and I married at 41/46, and my SO definitely had more assets before we married. I suggested a pre-nuptual agreement before we married because we were in different places financially - my SO was in much better financial shape. As we got closer to being married, though, we were a lot closer in income and stability and the only differences were some real estate my SO owned with the in-laws. We ended up not signing one, but neither of us we opposed to it. I think they are a very smart move for anyone with actual assets.

For me, the strongest marriages are built on faith, imo and a prenup shows a lack of faith (IMHO). Faith is a risk but taking that risk with someone you love and having that faith can contribute to a strong marriage.

Faith is a societally-inflicted mental illness.

In my view, if you're unwilling to even consider a pre-nup, perhaps you shouldn't be getting married.

Totally. It's always amazing how people are happy to pay out the nose for car insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, etc., but if you ask them about a one-time low cost marriage insurance they act like you wanted them to eat babies and skin kittens for shoes. Where's your "faith" that your car won't be destroyed in an accident? Where's your "faith" that your house won't burn down? Where's your "faith" that you won't get sick and end up in a hospital and die after an illness that strips you of all your assets and money and puts you in debt for literally the rest of your life? Hmm? Bueller?

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.

Yeah, a controlled piece of meat. The idea of stipulating somebody else's actions after I'm dead is positively revolting... it's like some kind of a sick BDSM game.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

LOL. We got married in 1982. The Maverick was sold 6 months after we got married for $750. The Pinto was sold 8 years after we got married for $900.

My last lawyer encounter was when I sold my mom's house 4 years ago. It was in a trust. The trust was 3 paragraphs long, half a sheet of paper. The Escrow officer panicked. We were an hour from closing escrow. Said we might have a problem, he's never seen a trust that wasn't dozens of pages or more. He faxed it to their lawyer. He called, and the escrow officer put him on speaker phone. He laughed. Hadn't seen one in years ( my mom had it drawn up in 1975 when I turned 18). He knew exactly what it was. The County Recorder's offices across the nation use to hand those out for free. Fill it out, get it notarized, you had a trust. A fully legal trust that met all legal standards. A trust a lawyer would charge $1,000 for. The escrow officer asked why they stopped handing them out. The lawyer said..."because the lawyers complained the recorders offices were illegally competing with lawyers". So have I guess I am a pragmatist towards lawyers.

 

[tvguy]

Yup, I had the recall done.

 

[manning]

Yes I would sign one I don't want my wife living a life of luxury on my $20 wealth

 

[SirDuff]

I respect your opinion. But I disagree, probably because of the the way I was raised. To me if you would consider a pre-nup, you shouldn't be getting married. But we both entered our marriage with nothing of value ( okay, my wife had a 12 year old Ford Maverick as one of her biggest assets, I had an 8 year old Ford Pinto as one of the biggest assets I brought to our marriage). 35 years later, everything we have was acquired and paid for jointly.

Yet, you have a clause in your wills outlining what happens in the case of divorce and remarriage. If you have to have a clause about what happens in the case of divorce, shouldn't you (following your own beliefs), not have gotten married?

I don't see the difference in a pre-nup and what you have (in terms of not believing in divorce).

 

[mummabear]

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.

Yes, had a pre-nup for both my prior and current marriage.

In my view, if you're unwilling to even consider a pre-nup, perhaps you shouldn't be getting married.

I respect your opinion. But I disagree, probably because of the the way I was raised. To me if you would consider a pre-nup, you shouldn't be getting married. But we both entered our marriage with nothing of value ( okay, my wife had a 12 year old Ford Maverick as one of her biggest assets, I had an 8 year old Ford Pinto as one of the biggest assets I brought to our marriage). 35 years later, everything we have was acquired and paid for jointly.

@Julie’s Haircut and @tvguy I can see both sides of the coin here.
However there are many things we do in life to protect ourselves “just in case” and I don’t see a prenup as any different than the life jacket on an airplane.
Also if you think you will never need it what is the big deal in signing it?

Yeah, a controlled piece of meat. The idea of stipulating somebody else's actions after I'm dead is positively revolting... it's like some kind of a sick BDSM game.

Actually I think it is smart, not stopping them from getting married after my death or divorce but protecting the children’s inheritance.
When my grandmother passed away all of her money went to her 2nd husband, who is unlikely to pass it onto her children when he dies-not something my grandfather would have been happy about. I would want to do everything I could to protect my assests for my children not my husbands 2nd wife...

 

[tvguy]

Yet, you have a clause in your wills outlining what happens in the case of divorce and remarriage. If you have to have a clause about what happens in the case of divorce, shouldn't you (following your own beliefs), not have gotten married?

I don't see the difference in a pre-nup and what you have (in terms of not believing in divorce).

We have no such clauses in our wills. It is in our trust.
So that only covers the house , personal property and savings. Of course, you can't but IRA's and 401k's in a trust so those are not.

But, as I mentioned earlier. when we got married, we really had no assets to be covered by a pre-nup when we got married 35 years ago.

 

[disneyfanlincoln]

Neither of us had anything when we married so there was nothing to protect. Not planning on ever getting married again but I realise life happens so nothings guaranteed. If I did get married again I might do a prenup to protect my very limited assets really just for my DdS sake. Having seen my MILS assets go to the adult kids of the man she lived with who was not her husband (long story) it has made me luck at things.

 

[Q-man]

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

I think my dad's favorite line was, 'Some people are more equal than others.'