Prenuptial Agreement

[socca]

Prenups aren't just about divorce. The wealthier party in a marriage may not want state laws to govern the distribution of her assets if she predeceases the poorer party.

In the two prenups I've witnessed, the poorer party came away with hurt feelings. This isn't a surprise - the months leading up to a marriage are probably all about imagining a life together, and here one party is imagining a life apart. Ouch.

 

[haha]

I keep reading this thread in stunned amazement over the large number of pessimistic views regarding love and marriage. I will take my disagreement with that pessimism to my grave.

Absolutely. I can see how this same principle can be applied to our other board preoccupation. Want to get rich? No problem! just pick the right stock and hold on for life. Easy peasey!

Ha

 

[Mdlerth]

I knew I was gonna get clobbered!

This is a forum of pragmatists. Looked at pragmatically, there are a million potential things to go wrong with marriage, and not as many to go wrong without it. So that's probably why.

You're probably accurate, but if I only ever acted pragmatically, I'd never have any stories to tell.

Love and trust, amazement or not, divorce is a reality that I've firsthand witnessed too many times. Everyone is in love and in full trust when vows are spoken but things change, life is ever evolving and unpredictable

I've witnessed divorces as well, and when they're amicable it still hurts. When they're bitter, it's insanely painful. Maybe that's nature's way of telling us not to enter marriage casually. Is a vow really a vow if it includes the unspoken codicil "until I change my mind"?

Absolutely. I can see how this same principle can be applied to our other board preoccupation. Want to get rich? No problem! just pick the right stock and hold on for life. Easy peasey!

Ha

Substitute "a low fee index fund" for "the right stock" and we do this all the time here!

Y'know, despite being clearly in the minority wrt love and marriage, I'm learning a lot about people in this thread. And despite what I've learned, I still love you all anyway!

I hope I haven't hijacked the thread too badly - it's supposed to be about prenups - so I'll return it to its original direction. Thank you all for humoring me!

 

[MarieIG]

I keep reading this thread in stunned amazement over the large number of pessimistic views regarding love and marriage. I will take my disagreement with that pessimism to my grave.

Perhaps I am a dinosaur, but I maintain that marriage is a beautiful and miraculous state, and that love endures all things. That many marriages do not last probably says more about our limitations as human beings than it does about the institution.

I know this is a retirement forum, but surely there are concepts more important. Retirement only dates back about three generations; before the 20th century people w*rked until they died.

Marriage, OTOH, dates back as far as civilization itself. I won't be around to collect on the bet, but I'd wager that in a thousand years people will still be marrying. Whether retirement will still be around is another story. See Logan's Run.

Nicely put.

 

[MarieIG]

As to pre nups, it depends on the couple. Second marriages with kids from prior marriages I understand. Pre nups however should be reasonable, not DH has 500 mill, and after five kids and fifty years of marriage DH decides to trade her in for the newer model, wifey gets nada. No.

As for me, I didn't have a pre-nup, no need and didn't want one, and since I will never marry again, I never will.

 

[athena53]

As to pre nups, it depends on the couple. Second marriages with kids from prior marriages I understand. Pre nups however should be reasonable, not DH has 500 mill, and after five kids and fifty years of marriage DH decides to trade her in for the newer model, wifey gets nada. No.

My first husband, who'd inherited $300K from his mother's estate, made noises about wanting a prenup. Fine, I said- give me a draft of something reasonable and I'll have a lawyer review it. I specifically mentioned that the provisions should be different if we split after 3 years and no kids than if we split after 15 years with a couple of children. He never followed up. I think he just wanted to see what my reaction would be. In the end, about $100K went to a down payment on the house (which we sold at a nice profit when we divorced 13 years later) and the rest went for nice things for him (a new Camaro, a sound system that cost $6K in 1984) and to pay his share of expenses during the 5 years he was unemployed.

 

[jollystomper]

I've witnessed divorces as well, and when they're amicable it still hurts. When they're bitter, it's insanely painful. Maybe that's nature's way of telling us not to enter marriage casually. Is a vow really a vow if it includes the unspoken codicil "until I change my mind"?

I probably learn more towards your position than the pragmatics . But, I understand the desire to try to "insurance" in place for the unknown (which is how I view a prenup).

My "pragmatic" approach to marriage was to date my future DW long enough (7 years) to see her bad side, bad habits, bad friends, reactions when things did not go her way, and decide if this was something I could deal with. Also, determining if her view on marriage matched mine - less about love and more about mutual sacrifice. It is easy to fall in lust/love with someone. It is a lot harder to put someone else's needs in front of your own in a joyful manner, with no quid pro quo. In that case I can understand the prenup desire.

As the saying goes... men marry women hoping they will never change - but they do. Women marry men hoping they will change - but they do not.