FIRE and Divorce

[Rianne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aja8888 If you started with nothing, or not much in the way of assets, then there is no reason for a prenup.

I'm guessing much of this discussion is about couples who started with nothing, then one of them makes a bunch of money. Much like Axe in Billions.

[aja8888]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rianne I'm guessing much of this discussion is about couples who started with nothing, then one of them makes a bunch of money. Much like Axe in Billions.

I was commenting on your post in response to the one above it on the need for a prenup. With long marriages, it doesn't matter who made the money, it gets split according to community property rules or in arbitration if there are no community property rules.

A prenup is something one (or both) should consider if they get married later in life and have already accumulated significant assets.

I have to agree with you that none of this is very romantic; it just becomes business during a divorce.

[harllee]

Most people I know with Premarital Agreements (and I know quite a few) are on their second or third marriage with substantial assets. I was addressing my comments to readers on this Forum, most people here are older and most have quite a few assets.

I know of only one first marriage with a Premarital and that is where a family business was involved.

True, not very romantic but if something were to happen to my DH (I pray not!) at this stage in my life I would not consider remarriage without a Premarital. Heck, my mother remarried several years ago and she had a Premarital Agreement!

[tulak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREd But I will say this: even with a much reduced net worth, I feel more secure now that the dough I have is mine and mine only.

+1. This is a wonderful feeling. My divorce isn't finalized, but we've already split all of our assets. There's still some hiccups because we have kids, but that has been minor and will eventually go away. In the meantime, I appreciate that I only have to account for my own spending. I doubt that I could ever go back, which makes me wonder if I'd ever consider marriage again. Never say never, but my preference would be to have a long-term relationship instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aja8888 Splitting the assets is the easy part. These events get way messier when there are a couple of young children in the mix. Recovery time can then add up to a decade or more.

Young kids make it harder. I was lucky. We only had a few years until our youngest is 18 when things went sideways. I decided to wait it out, as did soon to be ex-DW. I started a thread here about this a long time ago. Maybe I'll post an update.

[Dtail]

[QUOTE=tulak;2150240]+1. This is a wonderful feeling. My divorce isn't finalized, but we've already split all of our assets. There's still some hiccups because we have kids, but that has been minor and will eventually go away. In the meantime, I appreciate that I only have to account for my own spending. I doubt that I could ever go back, which makes me wonder if I'd ever consider marriage again. Never say never, but my preference would be to have a long-term relationship instead.


Bolded - that is what my DGF and I have going on 9 years. Both of us have been divorced and will not go through it again.

[Vacation4us]

I remarried 1 year ago. We have a prenup. It definitely isn't romantic but it really was in both our best interests.

My husband lost $$$ on his last divorce to protect his pension and 8 years later she is still fighting each QDRO on the last day to appeal. Who knew this was legal

We will retire in 2 years , although we each pay for the sins of our past happiness is the best revenge. Divorce is ugly but never having a significant other over fear of losing your ass..ets again is just soooo sad to me.

[haha]

I was not happy to get divorced, and I am not exactly ecstatic to be single even years later. I have an important post-marriage relationship but live alone and plan to continue this. Divorce and big property divisions were very uncommon when I got married. Who knows what currently common domestic arrangements will turn out to be very expensive down the road a bit if things go south.

I do know that it is safer to pay as you go than to pay an as yet undetermined exit fee. Especially when commonly she is the one who wants a divorce, and he is the main payor.

Ha

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vacation4us We will retire in 2 years , although we each pay for the sins of our past happiness is the best revenge.

Like my old grand pappy used to say: Living well is the best revenge.

[Rianne]

I remembered this arrangement from "Becoming Warren Buffet." It brings love and marriage to another level.
https://honey.nine.com.au/2017/06/28...fets-two-wives

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha […]I have an important post-marriage relationship but live alone and plan to continue this. Divorce and big property divisions were very uncommon when I got married. Who knows what currently common domestic arrangements will turn out to be very expensive down the road a bit if things go south.

That is a real concern, IMO, and it is wise to keep that in mind when dating these days. The world is a crazy place and who knows what the future will bring.

We make a big effort to keep our finances completely separate in all respects, including living in separate houses next door to each other. We love this arrangement (for us). At our age, we are pretty much done with our working years. The point being that neither of us could afford to start over again at this age, so we are doing all we can think of to eliminate possible financial risks.

A big bonus is that since we do not mix his money and mine, we have no reasons to argue about money.

His entire house is his "man cave", or actually his ham shack since his hobby is ham radio. My house is just like I want it too so I guess it's my "woman cave". For us this is perfect. When we are together, it is because both of us actually want to be together at that moment.

[Carpediem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R My house is just like I want it too so I guess it's my "woman cave".

"She Shed", W2R!

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harllee For anyone who is considering getting married, I suggest you consider having a Premarital Agreement to protect your assets. See a lawyer in your area who specializes in Premarital Agreements.

Or, marry up

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpediem "She Shed", W2R!

Love it!!!! That's it!!! Anyway, it doesn't look like a guy lives here, that's for sure. Cheap paintings and sculptures all over the house. I didn't repaint when I moved in, even though the wall colors are sort of pink, or at least a beige that is a little too pinkish for most guys.

[ExFlyBoy5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aja8888 I was commenting on your post in response to the one above it on the need for a prenup. With long marriages, it doesn't matter who made the money, it gets split according to community property rules or in arbitration if there are no community property rules. A prenup is something one (or both) should consider if they get married later in life and have already accumulated significant assets. I have to agree with you that none of this is very romantic; it just becomes business during a divorce.

This. Prenups are not for assets acquired *after* marriage, they are for those that are bringing something into the marriage. We too have a pre-nup and the only heartache about it have been other people's opinion on it. To me, it's an insurance policy...as long as there is no need for it, it just sits in a drawer and collects dust. BUT...as soon as you have a "claim", it's something you would like to have.

We too keep much of our finances separate and it has made things very easy. We do have a "household" joint account and the primary home is held jointly, but everything else is kept separate. In the event of divorce, the financial hit won't be nearly as devastating because of the pre-nup.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExFlyBoy5 In the event of divorce, the financial hit won't be nearly as devastating because of the pre-nup.

I'm a bit confused by this, likely because I don't know much about pre-nups other than gossip on Internet forums.

Did you mean to say " In the event of divorce, the financial hit won't be nearly as devastating - TO ME - because of the pre-nup?"

If a pre-nup gives the rules regarding disposition of assets owned prior to the marriage, that means it determines how pre-marriage assets are handled during the divorce settlement. But that doesn't save any money in terms of the total pot, it just makes sure folks leave the relationship with consideration of what they brought in as specified in the pre-nup.

But the shared financial damage such as hefty lawyer fees (if contested), splitting up / disposing of physical assets such as real estate, etc., are all still there, right? That is, as a couple in aggregate, you might still take a financial hit due to the breakup of the partnership. But with a pre-nup, you have a better chance of getting a fair share which considers what you came into the partnership with (per the pre-nup terms).

Or am I missing something?

BTW, I think pre-nups are a great idea in many situations. I've seen friends use them when they remarry and want to protect their assets for their children and similar situations. I just don't understand how a pre-nup would save much in terms of the overall cost of the divorce, husband/wife allocations not considered.

[street]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpediem "She Shed", W2R!

Yeppers! LOL

[harllee]

A Premarital Agreement (that is what they are called here in North Carolina, we have a statute, not Prenup here) can spell out many things. In North Carolina, the Premarital Agreement can spell out how assets are to be divided, both assets acquired before and AFTER marriage as long as they remain in separate names. The Agreement can also waive the right to Alimony (or spell out how much alimony one party or the other is to receive.). The Agreement can also allow one party to the marriage to leave their assets to the children by Will (otherwise the N.C. law requires that the surviving spouse get a certain amount). In my experience a Premarital can save a lot in attorneys fees because everything can be spelled out in advance. One thing that a Premarital cannot address is children--child support or custody.

[tulak]

A prenup sounds great in practice, but I would be paranoid that it wouldn’t hold up during a divorce.

If you have a prenup, how sure are you that you’ll keep the assets you brought into the marriage and accumulated afterwards?

It sounds very risky to me.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tulak A prenup sounds great in practice, but I would be paranoid that it wouldn’t hold up during a divorce. If you have a prenup, how sure are you that you’ll keep the assets you brought into the marriage and accumulated afterwards? It sounds very risky to me.

+5000 I have heard too many rumors and tales about prenups that didn't hold up in court, to want to literally bet my life on one no matter what anyone tells me. At my age, it is too late to start over again and it isn't an exaggeration at all to state that depending on a prenup really would be betting my life on its validity. Besides, in my situation I don't see the advantage of marrying in the first place.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harllee A Premarital Agreement (that is what they are called here in North Carolina, we have a statute, not Prenup here) can spell out many things. In North Carolina, the Premarital Agreement can spell out how assets are to be divided, both assets acquired before and AFTER marriage as long as they remain in separate names. The Agreement can also waive the right to Alimony (or spell out how much alimony one party or the other is to receive.). The Agreement can also allow one party to the marriage to leave their assets to the children by Will (otherwise the N.C. law requires that the surviving spouse get a certain amount). In my experience a Premarital can save a lot in attorneys fees because everything can be spelled out in advance. One thing that a Premarital cannot address is children--child support or custody.

Thanks harlee. Interesting info. The only anecdotal examples I'm familiar with are here in Illinois where friends used prenuptial agreements to assure their own blood-related children would primarily inherit the assets they owned when they entered the marriage. Seemed like a good idea to me....... But it's interesting to hear of the other types of things you point out that a prenuptial agreement can control.

A humorous sidenote....... My friend, divorced after 35 years of marriage at his DW's request, had significant assets which his new bride-to-be was not completely aware of. When he talked to her about a pre-nup, she said she was interested in one too. They both had them drawn up by different attorneys. (Both used the attorneys they used for their previous divorces.) After exchanging the pre-nup docs and discussing with their attorneys, he was OK with hers but she decided pre-nups were not a good idea after all. His assets were several times hers! In the end, they did go with pre-nups although his was modified to be somewhat more generous towards her and her children. In his case, he was most interested in protecting an ownership stake in a significant family business, which he did.