Pre-nups

[dluvs2trvl]

This question was posted in the Women's Discussion forum and I thought it might be interesting to include the guys and to hear what single people think about the subject...

What are your feelings about pre-nuptial agreements? What would you think if your fiancee presented you with a pre-nup to sign? Do you expect to have a pre-nup before you get married? Does it matter to you either way? If you did have one what sorts of things would you expect to have in the pre-nup?

 

[catofhope]

Checking in.
I saw the thread over at WD too.

For me I think it is a bad way to start a marriage
that is suppose to be based on trust and the expectation of FOREVER.

 

[radhead]

The fact that women are usually more against them says to me that something is wrong with the system. Maybe divorce favors women more?

If I were protecting a large inheritance or something, I would have to demand one.

I didn't used to believe in them. But maybe I was too idealistic. I'm really not sure what to think about them now.

 

[die2live]

I kind of believe that marriage is supposed to be built on committment and trust. I don't see the need to sign a pre-nup to be very indicative of trust.

In the women's discussion thread, a few people brought up a couple good reasons for it but those reasons had nothing to do with the married couple trusting each other. One of the reasons was if one or both of them were in a practice where they were liable to be sued (business owners, doctors, dentists etc) then it would make sense to have a prenup so that if one of them was ever sued, then they would still have the other's resources to fall back on as a family. So in situations like that, I could understand it.

 

[TriptychR]

I would hope that after all the time searching and hoping, I would be able to find someone with whom pre-nuptials would just be a waste of time. Unfortunately, with all the "perfect" marriages that fall apart nowadays, I agree with radhead that my view may be too idealistic.

 

[overit]

I actually think they are a good idea, especially if the couple marrying has already been divorce or has children or significant assets prior to marriage.

I would have no problem signing one, and I don't have much to protect so it's not likely I'd require them to sign one in the crazy event I ever got remarried (shudder).

 

[Wren]

I have no problems with pre-nups. If I was engaged to a rich man and he wanted a pre-nup I would sign it 'cause I would want to marry him and not his money.

Pre-nups can work the other way too. When you marry someone if you don't have a pre-nup you marry their debt too. Pre-nups can be a good idea in that case to protect one spouse from the other's debt.

 

[die2live]

I would hope that after all the time searching and hoping, I would be able to find someone with whom pre-nuptials would just be a waste of time. Unfortunately, with all the "perfect" marriages that fall apart nowadays, I agree with radhead that my view may be too idealistic.

I think a lot of those "perfect" marriages start to fall apart because of lack of trust. Of course, there are almost always other factors involved, but I think that's where it starts. For me, a prenup is setting yourself up for failure by saying you don't completely trust your partner.

Of course, anyone is free to disagree with me; I'm hardly an expert. Just wanted to throw that out for discussions sake.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

I think that pre-nups are just a bad idea. I think that they set a tone for mistrust in the marriage.

If a person has any doubt and feels that there is a need for a pre-nup then I don't think they should be getting married...unless you feel that you can trust someone 100% and you don't need a fall back plan then I don't think you are ready to get married....because either you have trust issues that you haven't worked through yet or there is something about the person that you are considering marrying that makes you hesitate.

I think all to often we ignore that still small voice that is telling us not to do something and we plow ahead anyways and figure the legal system will protect us.

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...

But like I said before, I think a pre-nup sets a bad tone for the marriage and create a sense of doubt and insecurity right from the get go...

Just my .02

 

[ido]

Checking in.
I saw the thread over at WD too.

For me I think it is a bad way to start a marriage
that is suppose to be based on trust and the expectation of FOREVER.

Ditto.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

I know I'd sign a piece of paper to be with the one I love. For me, it's not a trust issue or setting your marriage up to fail. It's about protecting yourself from a potentially deceitful spouse. People can really put on an act for the right amount of money. Love is about doing anything to make your significant other happy. It's not about whether you think they trust you or not. Besides if you stick around long enough in the marriage, they'll realize how foolish they were by wanting you to sign a pre-nup in the first place. In the end though, it's all just money. So I voted that I don't really care either way.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

To me to have a pre-nup says "I don't trust you". Not only that but it says that there is an expectation of divorce and if that's the case I would have to think twice about marrying that person.

 

[soccerdad66]

To me to have a pre-nup says "I don't trust you". Not only that but it says that there is an expectation of divorce and if that's the case I would have to think twice about marrying that person.

Most of the things that have the most worth is simply toys, not "assets". I guess it would depend on the situation at the time.

I can see where it might foster an enviroment of mistrust, but at some point you have to have to be responsible when kids are involved, and make sure their interests are protected.

In my mind, if I was in a position where I felt I needed to do that to protect my son's interests, and you had a problem with it, then that would be a problem.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

In my mind, if I was in a position where I felt I needed to do that to protect my son's interests, and you had a problem with it, then that would be a problem.

Interesting....

I have a question though...why would you be marrying someone that you felt you needed to protect your son's interests from??? In my mind, if you felt that you needed to have a pre-nup in order to protect your son's interests from your wife in case of divorce, then you really shouldn't be marrying that woman and making her your wife...

 

[Luther073082]

Listen ladies . . . and I hope this doesn't tick her off but let me say this so you understand something.

Up until the time she told me it was over, I truely belived Keri and I would last forever. And I truely trusted that she felt the same way. Now you could say that it was too quick to make that decision and you may be right.

I don't think I will be getting one but I don't think getting one is mistrust at all. Love changes, people change etc etc. Some people don't want to work it out and so there are no guarentees.

The pre-nup helps shelter people with assets from the facts of life. And perhaps helps shelter them from the fact of life that a person who pretends to love up until marriage can simpily get a divorce right afterward and run off with half of their former partner's assets.

There are two parts of my mind and they occasionally conflict. My logic and my emotions. Your emotions trust that person, your logic says "Hey if they backstab you then you will lose a lot."

Now I don't think the pre-nup is necessary if someone has little assets. But if I've got 50 million dollars in the bank BEFORE the marriage, you bet I want a pre-nup. Because a lot of people are evil and it would be very easy for a young woman to spend a couple years pretending to love me, get married, wait a month or 2 to prevent innalment, then file for divorce and run off with 25 million dollars.

Yes you could argue that its mistrust, however there are lots of women out there who would gladly pretend to love someone for 2 to 3 years so they could run off with 25 million dollars.

Money changes people ladies and gentlemen. 70% of Lottery winners go bankrupt in less then 5 years, and almost every single one of the lose all their friends. Why is that? Well it might be partially because the money corrupted them, but the money also corrupted their friends. Their friends that could formerly be relied on for anything suddenly decide that there is no problem with asking their suddenly rich buddy for money. . .

Neither side realizes they are being a jerk, but in real life one of them is.

 

[kingoffools13]

I hear people complain about pre-nups and say its bad because things should be based on trust but i think they miss the point. A pre-nup agreement does not in any way mean that you don't trust and completely love the person you are getting married to.

It simply means that if anything ever did happen that they don't trust the person who would divorce them after making eternal "til death" vows.

I say if someone balks at signing one it is because they want the option to sue the pants off the other person if there is a divorce. If you aren't going to divorce, then its not an issue. And if you are, and don't want to sign it then you are a gold digger simple as that.

K
O
F

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Listen ladies . . . and I hope this doesn't tick her off but let me say this so you understand something.

Up until the time she told me it was over, I truely belived Keri and I would last forever. And I truely trusted that she felt the same way. Now you could say that it was too quick to make that decision and you may be right.

First of all, it was obviously too quick or Keri would've been sure as well. You can't possibly compare the fact that you dated Keri for a month and then the relationship ended...to a couple that has dated and made the decision to marry.

If you and Keri had decided to marry after only dating a month and you felt the need for a pre-nup before you got married - wouldn't that speak more to the fact that you should wait a little longer to get married rather than speak to the validity of needing a pre-nup???

I don't think I will be getting one but I don't think getting one is mistrust at all. Love changes, people change etc etc. Some people don't want to work it out and so there are no guarentees.

The pre-nup helps shelter people with assets from the facts of life. And perhaps helps shelter them from the fact of life that a person who pretends to love up until marriage can simpily get a divorce right afterward and run off with half of their former partner's assets.

Again, I think this mindset actually speaks more to who are "you" (and I'm speaking about the universal "you" not anyone in particular) dating and marrying. People seem to be really worried about other people being deceitful and misleading...who are these people and where are you meeting them? Yes, I'm not stupid or naive - I understand that anyone can mislead you and be deceitful - even Christians - but I just think it is really sad that "you" would go into a relationship already expecting there to be deceit down the road...

There are two parts of my mind and they occasionally conflict. My logic and my emotions. Your emotions trust that person, your logic says "Hey if they backstab you then you will lose a lot."

Now I don't think the pre-nup is necessary if someone has little assets. But if I've got 50 million dollars in the bank BEFORE the marriage, you bet I want a pre-nup. Because a lot of people are evil and it would be very easy for a young woman to spend a couple years pretending to love me, get married, wait a month or 2 to prevent innalment, then file for divorce and run off with 25 million dollars.

Yes you could argue that its mistrust, however there are lots of women out there who would gladly pretend to love someone for 2 to 3 years so they could run off with 25 million dollars.

Wow! Nice to see that only women are being characterized as gold diggers...I'm sure that there are no men out there that would do something so dispicable and underhanded as that...nope...I'm sure that all men go into relationships with the utmost character and intentions...

Money changes people ladies and gentlemen. 70% of Lottery winners go bankrupt in less then 5 years, and almost every single one of the lose all their friends. Why is that? Well it might be partially because the money corrupted them, but the money also corrupted their friends. Their friends that could formerly be relied on for anything suddenly decide that there is no problem with asking their suddenly rich buddy for money. . .

Neither side realizes they are being a jerk, but in real life one of them is.

You're right money does change people...but guess what - it's just money...and don't criticize me for saying that...money isn't a big deal to me - yes, I like having it and I could use more of it but it isn't the be all end all for me...

Again, for me it goes back to trust....that is more important to me than money...

 

[Luther073082]

Interesting....

I have a question though...why would you be marrying someone that you felt you needed to protect your son's interests from??? In my mind, if you felt that you needed to have a pre-nup in order to protect your son's interests from your wife in case of divorce, then you really shouldn't be marrying that woman and making her your wife...

Well here is one example.. .

Say I have a 8 y/o and we get married (ages messed up but not point). Now for this 8 y/o prior to the marriage I have saved up money for their college education. However that money is still my money, it is not in the name of my son.

Then 9 years later we get divorced and I have all the money for their education saved up. However since the money is still OUR money upon the divorce you are legally allowed to demand half of it.

Therefore, you are taking away the money I have saved for my child's education.

Then there are other things such as the woman usually getting the house and forcing the man at least temporarily into an apartment.

 

[dluvs2trvl]

I say if someone balks at signing one it is because they want the option to sue the pants off the other person if there is a divorce. If you aren't going to divorce, then its not an issue. And if you are, and don't want to sign it then you are a gold digger simple as that.

K
O
F

Wow! That's a pretty bold and, quite frankly, offensive statement and as a woman who wouldn't sign one and ISN'T a gold digger I think you need to reconsider making blanket statements like that...

And I would ask the same thing...if it isn't an issue and you're not planning on divorcing then why would you expect someone to sign one...

 

[dluvs2trvl]

Well here is one example.. .

Say I have a 8 y/o and we get married (ages messed up but not point). Now for this 8 y/o prior to the marriage I have saved up money for their college education. However that money is still my money, it is not in the name of my son.

Then 9 years later we get divorced and I have all the money for their education saved up. However since the money is still OUR money upon the divorce you are legally allowed to demand half of it.

Therefore, you are taking away the money I have saved for my child's education.

Then there are other things such as the woman usually getting the house and forcing the man at least temporarily into an apartment.

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.

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...