Financial milestones enablers

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Having made that decision recently, I didnt do anything with regards to a prenup. In fact, I immediately made all of my accounts, checking and investing, joint with her.

My reasoning was simple. If I believe theres enough chance that we wont have a happy marriage and wont be able to work out our problems, then I shouldnt be getting married in the first place.

If things really do go south on us, then I have a little extra motivation to work harder and work it out.

 

[Nords]

She is, however, a keeper.

Some might say that I don't trust her, but I didn't know that trust equates to putting your assets at someone else's complete disposal.

Well, gosh, Jay, trust DOES equate to grabbing your assets in both hands and putting them at someone else's complete disposal! (Even for lawyers, although personally I'd hate to be described by my occupation.) You trust her to take care of them, and part of that trust implies that the two of you will decide what's to be done with them. Especially with your bachelor furniture and the prized velvet painting of "Dogs Playing Poker"...

You seem to be conflicted between the definitions of "keeper" and "trust". If she's a keeper then you trust her. If you don't trust her then she's not a keeper.

I think prenups have a place for marriages involving kids from previous relationships or for special situations with loved ones (like having your close relatives living in a house owned by you). You want to make sure that these other people are taken care of by your possessions if you're incapacitated, dead, or sued for divorce. (Yeah, yeah, I know, what's the difference.)

But entering your first marriage without any prior claims or attachments, theoretically embarking upon a lifetime journey of spiritual & physical union until death do you part-- except as specified in the appended prenup!-- makes a discouraging statement about trust.

Let the lawyer jokes begin anew.

 

[haha]

As a saver I sympathise with your sentiment, Gatsby, but as a woman I urge caution, or at least diplomacy, on this one.

I had a boyfriend pulling down a lot more than I was at one point (this was back when the earth was cooling).  He floated the idea of a pre-nup in a rather high-handed way, which led me to wonder if he was the right guy, etc. etc...  The long and the short of it is that we did not get married, finally went our separate (but very friendly) way, and I now make THREE TIMES what he's bringing home.

Make sure you take the long view on any pre-nuptual discussions / documents.  They certainly have their place, but you don't want to scare away a keeper!   FWIWCaroline 

This is a typical womans's POV. I can't imagine any situation in which I would refuse to sign a pre-nup if I were marrying a wealthy woman. I think most men would have to admit to themselves that they were something a bit less than manly if they wouldn't agree that whatever boodle their bride brought to the marriage she could take out if, when, and for whatever reason she wanted to. Including that she found a new boy toy.

Reverse it and the old "I give myself to him, and all he thinks about is his money" song of the fair sex comes tumbling out.

If a guy has to pay a load to marry, it seems to me that a front load is better than a back-end load.

Like someone said in another thread- "if it flies, floats or wears a skirt....."

Ha

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

A Mexican bandit made a specialty of crossing the Rio Grande from time to time and robbing banks in Texas. Finally, a reward was offered for his capture, and an enterprising Texas ranger decided to track him down.

After a lengthy search, he traced the bandit to his favorite cantina, snuck up behind him, put his trusty six-shooter to the bandit's head, and said, "You're under arrest. Tell me where you hid the loot or I'll blow your brains out."

But the bandit didn't speak English, and the Ranger didn't speak Spanish. Fortunately, a bilingual lawyer was in the saloon and translated the Ranger's message. The terrified bandit blurted out, in Spanish, that the loot was buried under the oak tree in back of the cantina.

"What did he say?" asked the Ranger.

The lawyer answered, "He said 'Get lost, you turkey. You wouldn't dare shoot me.'"

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

Well, gosh, Jay, trust DOES equate to grabbing your assets in both hands and putting them at someone else's complete disposal!  (Even for lawyers, although personally I'd hate to be described by my occupation.)  You trust her to take care of them, and part of that trust implies that the two of you will decide what's to be done with them.  Especially with your bachelor furniture and the prized velvet painting of "Dogs Playing Poker"...

You seem to be conflicted between the definitions of "keeper" and "trust".  If she's a keeper then you trust her.  If you don't trust her then she's not a keeper. 

I think prenups have a place for marriages involving kids from previous relationships or for special situations with loved ones (like having your close relatives living in a house owned by you).  You want to make sure that these other people are taken care of by your possessions if you're incapacitated, dead, or sued for divorce.  (Yeah, yeah, I know, what's the difference.)

But entering your first marriage without any prior claims or attachments, theoretically embarking upon a lifetime journey of spiritual & physical union until death do you part-- except as specified in the appended prenup!-- makes a discouraging statement about trust.

Let the lawyer jokes begin anew.

There are all manner of perspectives on pre-nups, but the nature of my legal training forces me to look at all sides of a particular "transaction" -- including the downsides.  Do I trust her now?  Absolutely.  But people change, particularly when a marriage doesn't meet expectations.

I look at a pre-nup from the perspective that it's an insurance policy we never expect to use.  I have health insurance, even though I never want to get sick or injured.  I have car insurance, even though I don't want to get into an accident.  I'll eventually have life insurance, even though I don't want to die prematurely.  Overall, insurance covers contingencies that are generally outside my control -- and how someone feels is most assuredly outside of my control.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

back-end load.

I would strongly recommend not talking about your new wifes back end load. Or man, are you going to need that prenup and a good medical plan to boot.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

There are all manner of perspectives on pre-nups, but the nature of my legal training forces me to look at all sides of a particular "transaction" -- including the downsides.

A weak opinion based on very little evidence? If you consider a marriage a transaction, do yourself a favor and dont get married. Its not going to work out.

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

There are all manner of perspectives on pre-nups, but the nature of my legal training forces me to look at all sides of a particular "transaction" -- including the downsides.  Do I trust her now?  Absolutely.  But people change, particularly when a marriage doesn't meet expectations.

I look at a pre-nup from the perspective that it's an insurance policy we never expect to use.  I have health insurance, even though I never want to get sick or injured.  I have car insurance, even though I don't want to get into an accident.  I'll eventually have life insurance, even though I don't want to die prematurely.  Overall, insurance covers contingencies that are generally outside my control -- and how someone feels is most assuredly outside of my control.

I think Gatsby makes an excellent point.  There's no question that pre-nups are unromantic, but does it really make sense to be romantic about your life savings?

There's a divorce rate of slightly over 50% in this country, last time I checked.  A lot of very intelligent, thoughtful, well-intentioned, honest, and trusting people are getting married, and then divorced, and then financially screwed because of it. 

As Caroline's comments aptly illustrate, it's a fact of life that a lot of people (perhaps more women than men?) think pre-nups run counter to the idea that a marriage is all about trust.  But I would respond that marriage is really all about love.  Complete, unconditional trust is one important part of that.  But if you love somebody, I think you should be willing to accept the reality that statistically there's a 50% chance your marriage won't make it, and in that event, both partners deserve to be protected.

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

A weak opinion based on very little evidence?  If you consider a marriage a transaction, do yourself a favor and dont get married.  Its not going to work out.

Hey now, don't get all testy (or is that "th-y") on me.

A marriage is a "transaction", as long as a third party (a judge) has the right to legally re-allocate property from one party to another, regardless whether the receiving party did anything to accumulate that property.

I think there's been enough discussion of pre-nups in this particular thread, so if anyone else is interested, I'm happy to start a completely separate one that addresses pre-nups in the context of how marriage/divorce can affect FIRE.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

There's a divorce rate of slightly over 50% in this country, last time I checked. A lot of very intelligent, thoughtful, well-intentioned, honest, and trusting people are getting married, and then divorced, and then financially screwed because of it.

We may be mixing up the cause and effect. Theres a 50% divorce rate because people dont think through the relationship, the partner, or the effect of the marriage on their lives. There may also be a high divorce rate because people are starting to plan for the break up before the wedding takes place...

 

[Caroline]

from HaHa:  This is a typical womans's POV. I can't imagine any situation in which I would refuse to sign a pre-nup if I were marrying a wealthy woman.

LOL, HaHa, if you're accusing me of being a woman, I stand guilty as charged.  If you're accusing me of a double-standard, then sorry, I'm innocent.  I mentioned a relationship in which I was the less-well-off of the two of us... I am NOW in a relationship with someone far less well-off than I am -- a social-worker type focused on "doing good" instead of "doing well."

I may or may not marry him, but you may be sure I won't be asking for a pre-nup.  Call me foolish, but I subscribe to Nord's philosophy:

You seem to be conflicted between the definitions of "keeper" and "trust".  If she's a keeper then you trust her.  If you don't trust her then she's not a keeper.

 

[haha]

LOL, HaHa, if you're accusing me of being a woman, I stand guilty as charged.  If you're accusing me of a double-standard, then sorry, I'm innocent.

I mis-spoke. I really am not accusing you of anything. I just used your post to advance a claim that I think is frequently true, though clearly not in your case.  Please let me apologize.

Ha

 

[Eagle43]

Been married 40 years, had joint accounts entire time. Most of the time I don't even look at the bank statements.

Is there such a thing as an "after"-nup?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Yes. Smith and Wesson makes them.

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

We may be mixing up the cause and effect.  Theres a 50% divorce rate because people dont think through the relationship, the partner, or the effect of the marriage on their lives. 

I don't know what you're talking about . . .
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=858211&page=1 :

 

[laurence]

I find the idea of a pre-nup pretty awful, but like I said earlier, we were both broke so it made it a lot easier to be romantic. I could see an argument for it if I were the eldest child and expected to carry on a family business that employs many family members etc. I'm willing to take the chance with my wealth/livelyhood that my spouse does not divorce me and try to get everything, but I would want to risk all my relatives livelyhood.

There most definitely are post-nups, read about them just recently. Can't imagine trying to bust that one out at the dinner table, though!

 

[Jay_Gatsby]

I don't know what you're talking about . . .
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=858211&page=1 :

Anyone taking bets on whether it will actually happen? Even if it does, whether it will actually last?

P.S. Cruise split from Nicole just shy of the 10-year mark because he didn't have a pre-nup. Divorce experts note that when a couple is married for fewer than 10 years, the wealthier partner, under California law, is required to pay alimony for only half the length of the marriage. For a marriage 10 years or longer, a judge can order alimony paid for the rest of the ex- spouse's life or until the ex-spouse remarries.

 

[Patrick]

Your advice is much appreciated.  She has expressed some concern about a pre-nup, primarily because I'm a lawyer and she knows that in my former life as a litigator, I'd go for the jugular.

She is, however, a keeper.  She is VERY giving, almost to a fault.  At the same time, she knows what I have in the way of assets, and I don't want her looking at my assets as "our" assets.  Some might say that I don't trust her, but I didn't know that trust equates to putting your assets at someone else's complete disposal.

Jay, in my experience getting a prenup is a very wise decision.  You have no idea how mean/vindictive/covetous people can become when it is time to get divorced.  What used to be heaven will indeed become hell.  Protect yourself and your assets in every way you possibly can.  An ounce of prevention is worth a TON of cure in this case.