Pre-nuptial Agreement to Protect FIRE Nestegg

[Eagle43]

Never had a prenup. Why? Neither DW nor I had any money. I trust her completely with our bank account and she never (seldom) looks at the investments.

Now, if for some reason I had to or wanted to get married again, and had my current net worth, well, at my age, pre-nup might save some heartaches later on.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Fireme,

Perhaps you should review some of the following books at your local library or bookstore:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/lis...Fencoding=UTF8

[LRS]

I see my perspective is colored by my 25 year marriage. Hub and I started out together in college, sharing a married student flat, eating beans and rice, picking up cans for a nickle apiece, etc. There's no question of "my money" vs. "his money"; our accounts are as comingled as can be.

I was never a dependent party, though. I worked for over 20 years and I have a pension that would support me in case we split. In part I managed my life in reaction to my mother's life. She was completely financially dependent on my dad. She often said she wanted to leave him but couldn't, because she had no money and her health prevented her from getting a job.

I also think of my sister, whose husband up and left her one day, took all the furniture, the fridge and both the cars--because he paid for them--took all the money--because that was his too--and left her with the house and a mortgage with monthly payments that were more than her takehome salary from her miserable minimum wage job. My sister--who raised his kids from a previous marriage, managed the house, did all of the housewifely chores and worked full time to supplement their income--had no concept that perhaps there was something wrong with that picture. "Well, it was his money ... " They ended up back together. She did it part because she can't make enough money to live on her own. Sorry, but stories like this make me want to puke.

I guess I have a low opinion both of women who accept a role of dependency/inferiority in a relationship and men who hoard/protect their stash from their own wives. Perhaps, if both parties are healthy-minded and independent, living separate lives side by side makes sense, but why marry in that case? Avoid legal entanglements. Share an apartment, keep separate tabs for the food, avoid joint check accounts. Should work out fine, and saves tons of dough spent on lawyers.

[SteveR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LRS I guess I have a low opinion both of women who accept a role of dependency/inferiority in a relationship and men who hoard/protect their stash from their own wives. Perhaps, if both parties are healthy-minded and independent, living separate lives side by side makes sense, but why marry in that case? Avoid legal entanglements. Share an apartment, keep separate tabs for the food, avoid joint check accounts. Should work out fine, and saves tons of dough spent on lawyers.

Why marry indeed!

If the "relationship" is as distrusting as the on you describe then I would highly recommend just living together. That way you can keep you stuff separate from each other and when you do split, you take what is yours and leave with no financial ties to deal with. But this assumes both parties make about the same income and save about the same and buy things independently. There is no "our stuff"; only yours and mine. I cannot see living this way but that is just the way I am wired.

As I stated previously in this thread, I have been on both sides of this thorny issue and lost every thing to a greedy former spouse while facing marriage to a person with 1/100th my assets. Second or third marriages later in life are complicated by blended families and require different thinking than marriage when you are 20. Each couple needs to do what works for them. If you feel you need a prenup then by all means do one. It may not be my cup of tea but it may help you sleep at night.

[free4now]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveR Why marry indeed!

For healthcare insurance of course :-)

After my mother divorced my father she dated one guy for 19 years, and when they finally married it was so he could be covered under her healthcare policy.* They loved each other too, but that was not the impetus for the marriage :-)

I suppose my own family history colors my perspective on prenups; my own parents divorced after 6 or so years of marriage despite having loved each other quite a bit in the start.* My sister, who is the most skilled person at relationships I know, divorced her husband after just one year because she just decided she didn't like him so much after all.

As I think about the prenup I would write, it occurs to me that all I'm really looking for is a confirmation of the basic* community property law:* We both take out what we came in with, and half of what we made during the marriage.

The reason I don't trust this is that I constantly hear anecdotes about people losing half their pre-marriage assets in divorces.* I wonder if this really happens often in real life, or whether it's just something like school shootings that does happen but not enough to require defensive action.

One thing that may not be obvious is that prenups don't and can't say anything about how child support will be handled (especially if you don't have the kids when you enter the marriage).* I wonder if most of the people who lost their premarital assets in divorces lose them because of children in the mix.* If that is the case then a prenup obviously wouldn't help, and I am not looking for protection against that.

Another question is how on a practical level to avoid comingling accounts if you are ER.* *ER means you are taking withdrawls, so by definition some money from the pre existing accounts is entering the "marriage domain".* *Perhaps the accounts aren't considered comingled if you are only withdrawing, not adding money.* Even if you're not ER it seems likely that you would want to take money out for things like home down payments or smoothing cash flow issues.* *Using your accounts to smooth cash flow issues would involve round tripping money out and in to the account, which seems very likely to cause comingling.

I suppose the ultimate way to avoid comingling accounts would be to divide your assets up into lots of small accounts and withdraw from one at a time until it gets sucked dry and then on to the next one.* Yech, what a hassle.* And how unromantic :-!

[ladelfina]

Quote:

For healthcare insurance of course :-)

The Repub's should start using this line ("defense of marriage") to bolster their arguments in favor of the private health-care system!

I know a couple that went so far as to get a friend made one of those "justice-of-the-peace-for-a-day" thingies and had a completely ridiculous 'ceremony', just to get one of them on the other's health plan. Despite the absurd nature of this "marriage", one of the partners was quite upset about going through the whole thing--she had a rough time growing up and saw marriage as evil, really evil, and was in tears over it, but she couldn't leave her beloved w/o HC coverage.

Quote:

people losing half their pre-marriage assets in divorces

I think that happens in certain states like California IF your pre-marriage assets are not kept 100% separate. I'm sure if you Google 'community property' you'll get a lot of info. People worried about this would be wise to check the regs of the state they live in or plan to live in.

I'll just put in my .02 and repeat the earlier advice that if you are not 100% comfortable with sharing everything then maybe you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Not to be moralistic or anything.. I had way more than DH, but put his name on all my accounts. If I couldn't trust him with the $, why would I trust him with the rest of my life? I think it was a matter of getting married later in life and of having had some experience in reading people. [I am 100% certain if I tell him today that I want to take his name off, he'll sign on the dotted line without question.]

If I'd been 20, I may have thought twice about it (but then at 20, I was furnishing my apt. with chairs rescued from other people's trash).

I had to laugh about the "vesting" (you get x% after 5 years; 2x% after 10, etc.). I don't care how rich the guy is, I would run, not walk, away from that. Must mean he thinks he'd be so bad to stay married to that someone would need an extra bribe to stick it out.. Depressing. A kind of indentured servitude.

[Outtahere]

Funny you should talk about getting married for healthcare coverage cuz that's exactly what dh and I did. He didn't have any and to buy it was outrageous. So we married in Aug of 97, that year, 3 months later the owner of the company changed the healthcare plan to include significant others. I can tell you I was a little upset by that and told him as much. Do I regret it, no. Would we have married if we'd had the coverage? Who knows, maybe one day we would have.

[unclemick]

Soooo - when I go on the cruise in Feb:

1. Eat a lot of Sara Lee - 100% whole wheat white bread.

2. Casually in conversation ascertain her health insurance status before her 'other' er ah assets

??

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclemick2 Soooo - when I go on the cruise in Feb: 1. Eat a lot of Sara Lee - 100% whole wheat white bread. 2. Casually in conversation ascertain her health insurance status before her 'other' er ah assets ??

Hey, UM< where did you decide to go? Get a good deal, or is the widow loosening up the purse strings finally?

[SteveR]

My health insurance at work allows domestic partners (DP)on the policy; some for life, vision, dental and pet insurance. Marriage is not a requirement. And this is in one of the most conservative states in the US. My wife's employer also supports DPs without marriage. All it takes is a form and a couple of signatures. Same sex partners are OK too.

Now if they can fix SS to allow remarriage to not cancel out receiving benefits from a deceased spouse....

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladelfina went so far as to get a friend made one of those "justice-of-the-peace-for-a-day" thingies

Gonna make y'all laugh now.

I'm a fully ordained minister. I'll be glad to perform any marriage ceremonies for the cost of the local licensing fee and a $20 tip...

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by () I'm a fully ordained minister.* I'll be glad to perform any marriage ceremonies for the cost of the local licensing fee and a $20 tip...

I'm just thankful you aren't an "ordained" mohel...

[unclemick]

Nope - just picked one - Mexican Riveria out of LA, Princess Lines. Booked via AOL travel.

My subconsious version of out West. Haven't been out West since 1993.

Bahamas, Cancun, Cozemel, Key West in the old days of New Orleans.

That and B.S. with the guy in looking at estimating pulling up the 1970's carpet and refinishing the Oak floors in the house.

He had just got back from a West Coast cruise out of Los Angeles.

?? - good first try at non frugal -

[greg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclemick2 ?? - good first try at non frugal -

Not bad! And don't spend any money on beer either. Just buy expensive mixed drinks and say "I don't need no stinkin' little umbrella in that thingy" to the waiter--curmudgeon-like--to ease the transition.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveR My health insurance at work allows domestic partners (DP)on the policy; some for life, vision, dental and pet insurance. Marriage is not a requirement. And this is in one of the most conservative states in the US. My wife's employer also supports DPs without marriage. All it takes is a form and a couple of signatures. Same sex partners are OK too. Now if they can fix SS to allow remarriage to not cancel out receiving benefits from a deceased spouse....

Unless the DP fall within the definition of dependent in the IRC, the employee will have to pay federal income tax on those benefits. State taxes, maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the state.

[CybrMike]

After seeing my father ravaged in my parents divorce when I was 8 years old (even today he has negative net worth and he is 53), I ran to my attorneys office, and told my fiance at the time a pre-nup was a condition of marriage. Plus I had multi-millions in assets and wasn't going to be giving it all up if she wanted to leave.

The neat thing about the pre-nup is that it says that any assets that both of our names are on, we split if there is a divorce. Which means, as time goes on, i can put more and more in joint names. We are starting with the house and going from there. Pretty much gives you control over what you want to split.

I can tell you its been 2 years and so far, we are more in love than the day we met, and the pre-nup has not effected our relationship.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CybrMike After seeing my father ravaged in my parents divorce when I was 8 years old (even today he has negative net worth and he is 53), I ran to my attorneys office, and told my fiance at the time a pre-nup was a condition of marriage. Plus I had multi-millions in assets and wasn't going to be giving it all up if she wanted to leave. The neat thing about the pre-nup is that it says that any assets that both of our names are on, we split if there is a divorce. Which means, as time goes on, i can put more and more in joint names. We are starting with the house and going from there. Pretty much gives you control over what you want to split. I can tell you its been 2 years and so far, we are more in love than the day we met, and the pre-nup has not effected our relationship.

It seems like many of the people who are against pre-nups haven't experienced the pain of divorce (either directly or vicariously) as manifested through a substantial loss of hard-earned individual assets. If faced with such a scenario, I'm sure they would change their tune...

[SteveR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby It seems like many of the people who are against pre-nups haven't experienced the pain of divorce (either directly or vicariously) as manifested through a substantial loss of hard-earned individual assets.* If faced with such a scenario, I'm sure they would change their tune...

I have survived the ravages of such a divorce and chose not to go the Pre nup route. My fiance is the one who brought it up but after careful consideration, I chose to take my chances. We both have been through a lot in our lives and will do whatever it takes to keep our marriage together. My tune is not changed despite the pain I experienced previously. I know more now about women and marriage than I did when I made my first choice at age 22. Experience is a fine educator.

[haha]

My take on this thread is that many folks don't recognize their Lake Woebegone Bias. People almost always think their personal mastery and mojo will prevent the bad outcomes that so liberally dot other people's lives. Usually this is a delusion. We all live in the same world. Our spouses may be madly in love with us today, with someone else tomorrow. Social mores change; and can change a whole lot in the course of a marriage.

The general circumstance that favors marriage over "intimate friends" is that you both want children. There are also special circumstances as mentioned above, like healthcare for a partner who can't get it on his/her own. To me, all other cases favor staying single and completely separate financially.

This doesn’t mean that if you make $150,000 a year, and your partner makes $40,000 that you have very good case for making him/her pay an equal share of things. Some people would not be real content with that, and think that perhaps you were too selfish to hang out with. But at least the better-off partner can choose if she would rather have more money for herself and let her fella go on down the road.

Isn’t life about choice?

I am also not real attracted by the “Do whatever it takes to stay together” approach. Probably the right thing with kids in the house, but afterward one has to remember that this is our one life, not a dress rehearsal. It should be fun, not just bearable with a lot of work.

Ha

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_Gatsby It seems like many of the people who are against pre-nups haven't experienced the pain of divorce (either directly or vicariously) as manifested through a substantial loss of hard-earned individual assets. If faced with such a scenario, I'm sure they would change their tune...

Watching all our friends get divorced hasn't made me want to turn to my spouse and say "Gee, honey, I think we need a prenup."

I wonder which comes first-- the chicken or the egg prenup or the divorce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa "intimate friends"

That's a much classier phrase than "friends with benefits" or its even more vulgar derivative...