What do you think of prenuptial agreements?

[luvmy3]

It would be a "deal breaker" for me.. If I can't trust the person I'm going to marry 100% and that person can't trust me 100% - and start off with the "assumption" that the marriage could go south, it's bye-bye..

And I have been married and divorced once.. I don't know if it's just our state laws or what, but what was mine prior to the marriage remained mine - and what was his, remained his..

I'm curious, if you completely trusted your husband, why wouldn't *his* and *yours* become *ours* when you were married. If finances and posessions are kept seperate through a marriage, can't one say you don't really trust your spouse enough?

ETA. I'm not singling you out C.Ann, I'm just trying to make a point that if a couple keeps things seperate throughout their marriage it is in a way protecting whats yours, much the same as a pre-nup.

 

[NikitaZee]

I voted in favor of. If there are significant assets on either side, I think it's a smart move.

 

[ogreenlee]

You must be fortunate, maybe you do not know anyone who had a very happy marriage for 20+ years only to have it fall apart and have their spouse screw them out of everything.
I think when we have a divorce rate of 50% a pre-nup is a necessary evil. Its not about someone out to get your money from the start of the relationship, its about people and situations changing and protecting what you have, just in case. I'm all for them.

I would fully expect to sign a pre-nup if I were marrying at my current age. My mom passed away, and I was left with some money, a house, a car, and some other things. I would protect that going into a marriage holding that.

However, I got married at 25 and both of us were broke as a joke. We worked together to have what we have. We didn't need a pre-nup.

People change, and situations change. You never know what can happen. If you have something, you're a fool not to protect it. imo.

 

[C.Ann]

I'm curious, if you completely trusted your husband, why wouldn't *his* and *yours* become *ours* when you were married. If finances and posessions are kept seperate through a marriage, can't one say you don't really trust your spouse enough?

Well without going into a lot of personal details, my personal assets were tied into my family and my dad did not trust my first husband (should have listened to him - LOL..).. As for my first husbands assets, he didn't have anything I wanted or needed.. LOL..

Anything acquired after the marriage became joint - so it wasn't "throughout the marriage"..

 

[luvmy3]

Well without going into a lot of personal details, my personal assets were tied into my family and my dad did not trust my first husband (should have listened to him - LOL..).. As for my first husbands assets, he didn't have anything I wanted or needed.. LOL..

Anything acquired after the marriage became joint - so it wasn't "throughout the marriage"..

I hope you saw my edit in the previous post, I wasn't expecting you to go into personal details about your marriage, I know thats personal


When I say throughout, I'm talking about duration of the marriage. If you had anything prior to your marriage, and your husband did and neither of you combined those into joint assests the whole time you were married, that to me is the same as a pre-nup. You are protecting whats yours, just in case because you really never know what could happen.
As far as assests aquired jointly during the marriage, its just as important for a spouse to protect their share. Its not about distrusting (to me anyway) its about ensuring that if anything were to happen, what you worked for, what you saved for your future is still there for you. Afterall, no matter how those assets come to be, they are there for a reason and that shouldn't change because of what happened along the way. You still need that whether you are single or not.

 

[FireDancer]

I have no problem with them, especially if one party way out earns the other. With divorce rate at 50% you always have to look logically at the situation and realize that even if both parties have the best of intentions the marriage might not work out.

If the prenup is fair and both parties have the time to scrutinize it and decide if they want to sign it that is fine. I would think a good prenup would limit the amount the non-earning party gets in the divorce but wouldn't completely cut them out. I also think the prenup should have a clause that increases that compensation if the wealthy party cheats and lowers the compensation if the non-wealthy party cheats.

If I were a millionaire I would have one but I am not and probably wont' be so I don't feel I need one. If I marry someone wealthy (fingers crossed ) I would have no problem signing one. Again, I would just look at it as a contract and not a statement of distrust.

 

[C.Ann]

I hope you saw my edit in the previous post, I wasn't expecting you to go into personal details about your marriage, I know thats personal

No - I didn't think you were expecting that - although I have run into a few posters here who pretty much "demand" information that they don't need to have.. LOL..


When I say throughout, I'm talking about duration of the marriage. If you had anything prior to your marriage, and your husband did and neither of you combined those into joint assests the whole time you were married, that to me is the same as a pre-nup. You are protecting whats yours, just in case because you really never know what could happen.

Again - it wasn't "me" protecting anything - it wasn't in my hands due to legalities.. It was my dad..

As far as assests aquired jointly during the marriage, its just as important for a spouse to protect their share. Its not about distrusting (to me anyway) its about ensuring that if anything were to happen, what you worked for, what you saved for your future is still there for you. Afterall, no matter how those assets come to be, they are there for a reason and that shouldn't change because of what happened along the way. You still need that whether you are single or not.

Please believe me when I say that my first DH had absolutely nothing that I wanted or needed.. We never acquired much during our marriage because he worked nights and drank days - with gambling thrown into the mix as well.. When we divorced, all of his debts went with him and that was pretty much it.. He went home to "mommy".. LOL.. I got the kids - the most important "asset".. There was truly nothing else that mattered to me..

 

[eliza61]

I'm curious, if you completely trusted your husband, why wouldn't *his* and *yours* become *ours* when you were married. If finances and posessions are kept seperate through a marriage, can't one say you don't really trust your spouse enough?

ETA. I'm not singling you out C.Ann, I'm just trying to make a point that if a couple keeps things seperate throughout their marriage it is in a way protecting whats yours, much the same as a pre-nup.

I don't think so. My dh and I do a combination. we have seperate possesions (mainly property I inherited when my mom died) and he owns a boat. I've never needed to have my name put on the boat especially since I hate fishing so I quite secure in saying that's his boat. As far as bank accounts we each have seperate savings as well as a joint account. I trust my spouse implicitely (sp?) with my life and the lives of our children. I always feel his love and support and trust does not have a thing to do with combining every thing. I've seen enough marriages that were supposedly "joined" go down in flames. Our money styles are such that we like having our own accounts. I don't think one can be linked to another. If that were true than wouldn't the reverse logic be true? People who have joint assets (ours) be more trustworthy? We know that is not always true.

 

[eeyoremum]

I vote agree. If I had to do over I would have gotten one and for the record I am happily married.

My sons have been told repeatedly no prenup or cohabitation agreement NO inheritance.

 

[DebbieB]

There are some average people who sign them. My aunt was a widow and she married a widower, both in their 60's. They each had grown children from their first marriages. They signed a pre-nup so that their children would get what was rightfully theirs in case of death or divorce. Ended up not lasting more than a year (he was a jerk). Luckily she never sold her house (my grandmother was living in it) so she just went back to her home and there were no issues. She went back to her late husband's name and considered herself a widow again!

 

[disneystacy]

I think a prenup is very necessary in some situations. If the husband and wife have no assets when they marry, then I don't see a need for one, but if one of them does have assets, they need to be protected.

Example: My husband had cancer and has a very large insurance policy. We also have many assets (home, 401K's etc). If he died tomorrow and eventually I remarried, you bet I would have the future hubby sign a prenup. If not and it didn't work out, he would be entitled to half of my assets or my kids(however you look at it).

IMO, nobody is entitiled to anything they didn't earn.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I think they throw a very negative light - right from the get go - on how well the person making the request feels about the future of the marriage..

That's how I see it. It's an escape plan. To me, you should trust the person that even if something were to go wrong they would be fair. Otherwise, you are marrying the wrong person. That's just me.

 

[disneystacy]

That's how I see it. It's an escape plan. To me, you should trust the person that even if something were to go wrong they would be fair. Otherwise, you are marrying the wrong person. That's just me.

People can change....I'm sure everyone thinks they are marrying the "right" person, until they realize they didn't. No one has a crystal ball and can know for 100% that they will stay together forever. But I know if I have someone sign a prenup, my assets will be forever mine.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Prenuptial Agreements: A necessary contract to protect individual wealth, or a selfish legal move that focuses on the money, instead of love? What are your thoughts? Did you sign a prenup, or did you wish you had?

I understand the necessity in certain situations. It depends on the people and circumstance and in some cases (Paul McCartney comes to mind) one would be a fool to not have an iron clad prenup.

In some ways i can understand having a prenup. Two people should part ways with what they had... it certainly prevents one or the other from being raked through the coals simply out of spite...

The law is changing slowly but when Paul McCartney married prenuptial aggremments where not legal. As for if they should be used yes there was a case in the UK where an ex wife was trying to get a share of her ex father in laws money on the ground that if he died her ex would get some of it so she should have some. The father in law was still alive so why should she be given his money.

 

[clgwli]

Prenuptial agreements can be helpful in cases of death not just divorce. So when someone has assets that they would want to protect for future generations. It wouldn't be protecting against the spouse, but just in case anything happens.

If two people do not have a whole lot of money/assets, I see absolutely no reason for it.

 

[punkin]

DH and I got married in our early 20s. Neither one of us had assets to protect. I came from a poor family and he came from a well-to-do family. His grandmother (at the time) made several references that I was marrying him for his "earning potential" (ha, like I didn't have a degree from the same top college he did) and future inheritance (inheritance is separate property anyway). If he had suggested a prenup, I would have never married him.

That said, I do recognize that in subsequent marriages with separate children, a prenup is a very good idea.

 

[Plannin'Shannon]

It would be a "deal breaker" for me.. If I can't trust the person I'm going to marry 100% and that person can't trust me 100% - and start off with the "assumption" that the marriage could go south, it's bye-bye..

And I have been married and divorced once.. I don't know if it's just our state laws or what, but what was mine prior to the marriage remained mine - and what was his, remained his..

Underlining is mine. Just thought I'd mention that this does indeed vary by state. Florida, to my knowledge, is a 50/50 divorce state. Every asset the couple has is split equally, regardless of which spouse it belonged to before marriage.

 

[Plannin'Shannon]

That said, I do recognize that in subsequent marriages with separate children, a prenup is a very good idea.

I agree completely, and voted in favor because of this example.

 

[Chicago526]

I'm for them if either or both parties have a decent sized net worth. I don't think it's only for the uber-wealthy. Let's face it, with a divorce rate of 50%, you're rolling the dice.

Also, consider this. With a pre-nup, you're deciding what's fair BEFORE you want to rip the other persons face off. It means that everyone walks away with what is right, and saves months of fighting in the courts (thus the lawyers don't end up with it all).

 

[wdwmom0f3]

I'm in favor of them. I didn't have a pre-nup with DH, since we both came into the marriage with very little. However, If something were to happen to dh and I was to remarry, I'd want a pre-nup to protect what dh and I have built together for our children.

I feel the very same way.