Pre-nups

[justaGUYnamedROB]

I'll take kingoffools13's decision to sidestep my question as a concession to defeat.

Which is a pity, because the answer is floating out there right in front of his nose.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

This thread is getting hot. And Rob, yes God provides for us, but I think it is wise to protect what God has already blessed you with. Dluvs - Imagine meeting the perfect man other than he wants you to sign a pre-nup. You're telling me that you wouldn't swallow your pride and just sign it. You'd rather call the whole thing off and deny what the love you feel for the man of your dreams over something like this. If you really love someone, you'd sign it anyway, even if you didn't like the whole lack of trust that you'd feel. Having total faith in a person just because they say they'd never take half of your stuff in a divorce IMO is foolish. The only person we can put our complete faith in is God.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Also, be aware that many jurisdictions don't favor pre-nups and will find whatever excuse they can to void them. So dot your i's and cross your t's or you'll find that the pre-nup's only real use was bathroom reading.

Exactly!!!! That's why I said:

I also think that if you end up divorcing it really doesn't matter if you have a pre-nup or not because rarely does a pre-nup stand without being contested...so I guess people can either fight it out in court over the pre-nup or they can fight it out over the divorce settlement...really doesn't matter in the long run...

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Dluvs - Imagine meeting the perfect man other than he wants you to sign a pre-nup. You're telling me that you wouldn't swallow your pride and just sign it. You'd rather call the whole thing off and deny what the love you feel for the man of your dreams over something like this. If you really love someone, you'd sign it anyway, even if you didn't like the whole lack of trust that you'd feel. Having total faith in a person just because they say they'd never take half of your stuff in a divorce IMO is foolish. The only person we can put our complete faith in is God.

Are you kidding me? I'm just amazed at how everyone seems to think that the person who wouldn't sign the pre-nup is the one that should go against what they are feeling and do what the other person wants. Why is that?

Why aren't you guys saying the same thing about the other person? Why shouldn't they have to set aside their pride? Why shouldn't they have to set aside what they want in order to be with the person that they love and want to marry? Why shouldn't they have to live without a pre-nup in order to make the other person happy?

And signing something in spite of my feeling of lack of trust would be the foolish thing to do...

Is the reason that you guys think the person asking for the pre-nup should get what they want is because you're assuming that they have all the money and the one who doesn't want to sign it doesn't have any money? Is that why you all are giving more importance to that person? I find that kind of interesting...

 

[Tamara224]

Exactly!!!! That's why I said:

Right on! I missed that part before d.

For the most part, in my experience (which only covers one jurisdiction) Courts do what they think is fair with regards to splitting property for a divorce.

It seems that the most common scenario with pre-nups is this: A wealthy (or potentially wealthy) man asks his fiance to sign one. She does because she loves him and doesn't want him for his money, she thinks it won't matter because they won't ever divorce. 10-20 years pass by and wealthy man is ready to trade-up for a younger model. The woman who raised his children, stayed home, didn't get an education (often supported hubby while he got his M.D. or J.D.), has never worked a day in her life, finds that when hubby decides to move on to greener pastures, she is faced with the pre-nup she signed back when she was naive and idealistic and thought his promise meant something.

I've seen this many times. Fortunately, courts are usually very reluctant to enforce a pre-nup under those circumstances. In most cases, they'll set it aside or modify it or find some wiggle-room in it to make sure the ex is not fleeced and thrown out in the cold.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Are you kidding me? I'm just amazed at how everyone seems to think that the person who wouldn't sign the pre-nup is the one that should go against what they are feeling and do what the other person wants. Why is that?

Why aren't you guys saying the same thing about the other person? Why shouldn't they have to set aside their pride? Why shouldn't they have to set aside what they want in order to be with the person that they love and want to marry? Why shouldn't they have to live without a pre-nup in order to make the other person happy?

And signing something in spite of my feeling of lack of trust would be the foolish thing to do...

Is the reason that you guys think the person asking for the pre-nup should get what they want is because you're assuming that they have all the money and the one who doesn't want to sign it doesn't have any money? Is that why you all are giving more importance to that person? I find that kind of interesting...

Darlin, when you truly love someone, you make sacrifices sometimes. When you meet that person that you know is the one for you, you don't let a piece of paper stand in your way. I know where you are coming from. I would probably debate signing one too, but I think I'd eventually come to the conclusion that I love this person more than anyone on earth, and if it would make them happy, I'd sign it. Love isn't about how you feel. It's about your relationship with God first and foremost and then it's about doing anything and everything you can to bring joy into the life of your significant other.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Darlin, when you truly love someone, you make sacrifices sometimes. When you meet that person that you know is the one for you, you don't let a piece of paper stand in your way. I know where you are coming from. I would probably debate signing one too, but I think I'd eventually come to the conclusion that I love this person more than anyone on earth, and if it would make them happy, I'd sign it.

Well, Darlin, the same could be said about not signing one:

When you truly love someone, you make sacrifices sometimes. When you meet that person that you know is the one for you, you don't let a piece of paper stand in your way. I'd eventually come to the conclusion that I love this person more than anyone on earth, and if it would make them happy, then I wouldn't demand that they sign a pre-nup. Love isn't about how you feel. It's about your relationship with God first and foremost and then it's about doing anything and everything you can to bring joy into the life of your significant other.

 

[GoodNewsJim]

Upon divorce, I get *everything* including the stuff she had when she married me.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I love it when a guy speaks southern to me.

Darlin.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Well, Darlin, the same could be said about not signing one:

When you truly love someone, you make sacrifices sometimes. When you meet that person that you know is the one for you, you don't let a piece of paper stand in your way. I'd eventually come to the conclusion that I love this person more than anyone on earth, and if it would make them happy, then I wouldn't demand that they sign a pre-nup. Love isn't about how you feel. It's about your relationship with God first and foremost and then it's about doing anything and everything you can to bring joy into the life of your significant other.

You are right. Either way, if two people really love each other, someone will make a sacrifice. Whether it's giving up on pushing a pre-nup or just signing it, love will prevail. I'd talk about it. Let my significant other how I feel, but if they stood firm, I'd sign it and after we've been happily married 50 years, we can look back and laugh about it.

 

[justaGUYnamedROB]

And Rob, yes God provides for us, but I think it is wise to protect what God has already blessed you with.

I agree that it's wise to protect what God has given us, but as soon as vows are exchanged and the two become one flesh, what was once just yours now also becomes hers, and vice versa. So in the truest sense of the word, if you intend to honor your marriage the way it ought to be, the most you'd be able to say after that point is that what you are protecting is "ours."

What a pre-nup represents totally flies in the face of that.

As to my earlier question about whether God answers to the legal system: well, the answer is obvious. In light of that, if it should happen to be God's will that at some point in time in the future He wants you to become dirt poor, and He has decided that He's going to do that through your wife divorcing you and taking you to the cleaners, what do you think the court system is going to be able to do for you?

God can:

-Give you an incompetent lawyer
-An unsympathetic Judge
-A biased jury

If you second-guess the highest power, and instead put your faith in the second in command, I'm not sure if the highest power putting you in your place would be more considered dark irony or poetic justice...

 

[AirForceTeacher]

Then that was poor financial planning on your part. You should've set up a college fund in your son's name...what would happen to the money if you died and it wasn't set up in your son's name??? It would go to your estate...so you need to plan better and protect the money that you want to go towards your son's education.

Well, there are good and proper reasons NOT to put the college fund money on your kid's name, both for financial aid benefits and in order to be able to retrieve the money for your own ends if the your child doesn't want/deserve to go to college.

Also, if you married a woman that would actually demand money that was set aside for your son's college education then you should have spent more time thinking about the type of woman you were marrying before you married her...

People are not always the people you think they are, or become different people.

 

[DeathMagus]

I'd just like to point out that pre-nups are not only for "marriage insurance." For instance, a pre-nup could include a clause stating that divorce is not legally allowable for the cause of "irreconcilable differences." That's actually not a bad thing. It's not always about money protection.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

You are right. Either way, if two people really love each other, someone will make a sacrifice. Whether it's giving up on pushing a pre-nup or just signing it, love will prevail. I'd talk about it.

This I agree with...

Let my significant other how I feel, but if they stood firm, I'd sign it and after we've been happily married 50 years, we can look back and laugh about it.

I'd have to let my significant other know how I feel and after I stood firm and they agreed to not having a pre-nup then we could look back on it after 50 years and laugh about it! (sorry just had to throw that in there )

 

[LonesomeTexan]

This I agree with...

I'd have to let my significant other know how I feel and after I stood firm and they agreed to not having a pre-nup then we could look back on it after 50 years and laugh about it! (sorry just had to throw that in there )

It's all good hun. I think we just ended WWIII lol.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

I love it when a guy speaks southern to me.

Darlin.

Me and older women... haha

 

[soccerdad66]

Looks what I missed!

Actually, when you think about it...it's pretty sad that we even have to consider this type of thing. I guess I'm kinda old fashioned and wish that everyone did what they say they are going to, never lied, and always give you the benefit of the doubt.

That's exactly what I did, married an old fashioned girl who had the same beliefs I did, then after 5 years decided she changed her mind.
She still talks the good christian girl talk too, at least, till you get to know her.

I suppose it would. But if you felt you needed to protect your children from me then you probably shouldn't marry me.

So what are you trying to say to any potential husbands out there?

For the most part, in my experience (which only covers one jurisdiction) Courts do what they think is fair with regards to splitting property for a divorce.
It seems that the most common scenario with pre-nups is this: A wealthy (or potentially wealthy) man asks his fiance to sign one. She does because she loves him and doesn't want him for his money, she thinks it won't matter because they won't ever divorce. 10-20 years pass by and wealthy man is ready to trade-up for a younger model. The woman who raised his children, stayed home, didn't get an education (often supported hubby while he got his M.D. or J.D.), has never worked a day in her life, finds that when hubby decides to move on to greener pastures, she is faced with the pre-nup she signed back when she was naive and idealistic and thought his promise meant something.

Not in Washington honey! No such thing as a fair divorce court here.
I love the analogy, by the way. But what's interesting, is statistically, women just as willing to trade up as males are! Ironically, I was reading that earlier this week, I wish I could find the link.

 

[Niels]

I am not a lawyer, and I have not thoroughly researched this subject, so please do not hold my ignorance against me. That said...

I would strongly prefer that she sign a pre-nup (or something that accomplishes goals similar to the popular notion of a pre-nup). That way, if she decides to flake out on our family, we can *hope* to avoid *some* of the legal hassles that might otherwise go on for years. It would be better for us, and better for our kids. Of course, if she plans on being faithful and keeping her vows, then she shouldn't have any qualms about signing it.

The fact that they put airbags in cars doesn't mean that drivers want to drive into telephone poles. Rather, they are there to provide a measure of safety in the event of a disaster. I see pre-nups (or something that accomplishes goals similar to the popular notion of a pre-nup) as much like an airbag.

I want to avoid lawyers as much as possible if our marriage falls apart. Chances are good that if we are going through a divorce, we may be on the brink of financial ruin (as I've seen happen with others). The last thing that I would want to do is pay for some third party's new McMansion.

Before anybody questions why I have such an apparent 'lack of trust', please let me explain. I come from a functional family. My parents are still happily married after 50 years. However, as I look around, I notice that not all spouses even respect the institution of marriage.... and I also notice that people can change a lot over time. To top it off, I have seen the legal mess that divorce can cause. As such, I think it is only prudent to make arrangements that potentially soften the blow of divorce should it become our only option. To me, saying "I would never want to sign a pre-nup because it indicates a lack of trust" is much like saying "I would never want to drive a car with airbags because that indicates a desire to drive into telephone poles".

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Well, there are good and proper reasons NOT to put the college fund money on your kid's name, both for financial aid benefits and in order to be able to retrieve the money for your own ends if the your child doesn't want/deserve to go to college.

I agree but as I said in a later post, there are other ways to protect the money so that it is available to either you or your child...

People are not always the people you think they are, or become different people.

I also agree with this, but I don't agree with starting out a marriage with a "safety net" just in case they become someone different...as I said, there are ways to handle money without using a pre-nup...

 

[dluvs2trvl]

It's all good hun. I think we just ended WWIII lol.

Doesn't look like it...I think the war still rages!!!