Will you consider getting married with a prenup?

[TheHobbit]

Honestly, I think they should make prenups *mandatory* for all marriages. Marriage by definition is a *contract*, and good contracts tell you what happens if the thing falls apart. If you can't have an "adult" conversation about what the obligations or expectations you have of one another if the marriage should dissolve, then you aren't ready for marriage.

Anyone who's nervous about this sort of conversation has obviously never asked the "hard questions" when dating:

1. How much debt do you have? What's your plan to pay it off?
2. Do you want kids?
3. If yes, does one of us stop working if we have kids? How do we decide?
4. Will you support me financially for the rest of my life if I stop working?
5. If we part ways, how will assets be distributed?

Even a couple in their 20s with nothing may have a tough time with #3 & #4. Anyone who answers yes to #3, better be answering yes to #4 as well, and be willing to get that inked in writing -- you'd be surprised how many people think they can ask somebody to give up their career and then not support them for the rest of their life. Don't like that arrangement? Then you'd better have amazing parents or afford a nanny.

In addition, you'd be surprised how pin-drop quiet the convo gets when the male partner volunteers to stay at home with the kids and be financially supported for the rest of his life. Strange how that is.

 

[Aerides]

I love your story. I have enjoyed reading all of these posts, since a lot of people think that because you were married 3 times and got divorced it is all my fault.

I don't think anyone is saying that, just that, for whatever reason, you have a track record most of us would avoid in a potential new partner. You could absolutely be a well-meaning hopeless romantic who went into every marriage deeply in love, with the best of intentions, but happened to unluckily pick the wrong partner every time.

 

[deserat]

Honestly, I think they should make prenups *mandatory* for all marriages. Marriage by definition is a *contract*, and good contracts tell you what happens if the thing falls apart. If you can't have an "adult" conversation about what the obligations or expectations you have of one another if the marriage should dissolve, then you aren't ready for marriage.

...

Marriage being a contract becomes very evident when one goes through a divorce. Many don't realize that the government becomes heavily involved in divorce and sets rules for the standards of property division. My experience has been that the person who has the most assets will be sharing more than they might believe they should....and that gender is not the issue. Moreover, whenever one is dealing with a government entity, that entity is not necessarily interested in an efficient process for dispute resolution as they are paid for facilitating the process. It is up to the parties involved to minimize those costs, if possible. However, humans being emotional creatures can sometimes think of using an outside process as a weapon or tool to use for their benefit of contract negotiations.

I was fortunate to not pay enormous sums to lawyers for my divorces and I as a female had more assets to my name in both cases. However, on an emotional level, even though I was relieved it didn't cost much for the legal process of dissolution, the emotional cost was something I did not like, moreover, there can be a sense of failure, even if you tried everything you could to not have the relationship dissolve. Divorce definitely teaches you that you cannot control others, merely your response to their actions.

 

[eytonxav]

One of my friends was telling me about his 80 yo brother who was married 3X previously and is now out shopping for a new house for #4. The brother lives in Texas and the woman in California. Apparently he would be willing to move to California, but he did not want to have to relocate his 3 dogs, so she is coming to Texas. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Retired Expat]

In most states provided you don’t commingle funds they remain separate. What is always joint is any growth the assets may have. You have a home worth 1 million , get married and she or he moves in, you keep the title in your name. In 10; years you divorce and the house is worth 5 million. The first 1 million is yours and you split the remaining 4. I think the system is fundamentally fair if lawyers don’t get greedy, or it is about punishing the other person. Would it be different with your business partner and and amicable ending of the business?

Now somethings don’t share the appreciation. Your mother dies and you inherit the house, spouse gets zero. You rent it out for 10 years and spouse shared in the income. The sale proceeds are still yours. Or so it is written. That did not stop the lawyer for my friends ex who went after the assets he was to receive as an inheritance from his wealthy mother. $20k in legal bills before a judge killed the claim. They divorced, mother lived another 25 years and spent all the money

 

[Davidoff]

Run don't walk

 

[imnontrad]

I would ONLY get married with a prenup. Most likely he would have adult children also and both sets of heirs need to be sure that the new spouse will not take all the assets.
Plus, my former husband spent every dime he could get ahold of and I would want assurance that this would not happen again.
And for older couples, a prenup needs to address the possibility that one spouse will become ill and need long term care. The estates of both people should be set up so the major illness of one spouse does not drain the assets of the other.

 

[aja8888]

I like W2R's setup the best.

Houses next door to each other, split costs when going out, have separate property, help out when necessary, "your place or mine when the occasion arises", etc.

No prenup needed! No property fights when the end comes! No baloney!

 

[tmm99]

My former co-worker told me that his ex-wife was getting alimony until he died or she remarried. That probably is not very common anymore, but he was very bitter, for a very good reason IMO. Someone like that will probably never remarry or get a prenup next time around.

 

[Gary 1958]

...

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

No marriages, no divorces, and no paying alimony for me.

I'll never have to wonder if my prenup will be tossed or not.

A prenup doesn't determine how much of your assets you hand over. A judge determines what you will pay and for how long.

No thanks.

The fact that the marriage rate is the lowest in recorded history is not surprising.

 

[Dtail]

...

Can you expand on that?

 

[happy8]

No marriages, no divorces, and no paying alimony for me.

I'll never have to wonder if my prenup will be tossed or not.

A prenup doesn't determine how much of your assets you hand over. A judge determines what you will pay and for how long.

No thanks.

The fact that the marriage rate is the lowest in recorded history is not surprising.

The rules haven't changed recently so why does this explain why marriage rates are lower now than ever?

 

[RunningBum]

The rules haven't changed recently so why does this explain why marriage rates are lower now than ever?

I'd guess that over time there has been less and less stigma associated with living together pre- or instead of marriage. And more recently, less and less stigma with having children out of wedlock. Also more women in the workplace, so they don't have to get married to afford a nice lifestyle.

Maybe there's also something to the financial ramifications of divorce. As you said, that really hasn't changed. But maybe people are just more aware of what happens.

 

[happy8]

I'd guess that over time there has been less and less stigma associated with living together pre- or instead of marriage. And more recently, less and less stigma with having children out of wedlock. Also more women in the workplace, so they don't have to get married to afford a nice lifestyle.

Maybe there's also something to the financial ramifications of divorce. As you said, that really hasn't changed. But maybe people are just more aware of what happens.

Agree, probably a number of factors, I like all the ones you mention in your first paragraph. I actually think that with wider adoption of prenups, and less couples with one spouse working, that financial ramifications might be less of a factor than before but I certainly don't know for sure.

 

[FlaGator]

Interesting, reading this thread.

I got re-married w/o a pre-nup. Recommended by the attorney, but:
-new wife thought it was a sign of distrust, and recoiled every time it came up
-new wife bypassed the opportunity to completely spit roast the ex that bankrupted them
-I'm in it for the long haul
-FL is *not* a community property state, so there is a baseline of protection
-I'm limiting the jointing held assets and she's the beneficiary on only those assets most advantaged by marriage (i.e. HSA survivorship)
-New DW will be fed and clothed after I'm gone, but the new trust ensures she's cared for while leaving remaining assets to progeny of the first marriage.

Not ideal, according to attorney, and I or my heirs could be embroiled in an expensive legal battle if things so south. So it goes.

Well past child-bearing age, so we're in it to the end.

 

[W2R]

I like W2R's setup the best.

Houses next door to each other, split costs when going out, have separate property, help out when necessary, "your place or mine when the occasion arises", etc.

No prenup needed! No property fights when the end comes! No baloney!

Thanks! That's the way we see it. We've both been married before; he's a widower and I'm a divorcee (and then my ex died). We've BTDT, and after 21 years together we sincerely feel that our level of commitment to one another is at least as deep as it was to our respective spouses. We like that.

We don't miss the financial agreements of marriage. We each have total control over how our own money is spent, so there are zero arguments about money; I doubt we will ever split up but if we do, it is nice to know that we will never have to go through the AWFUL financial Armageddon otherwise known by many as "divorce". No nagging about household chores (I hire a handyman to do the things married guys customarily do to maintain the house, and he doesn't expect me to cook or clean). We can focus on enjoying our time together as we grow older.

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

The rules haven't changed recently so why does this explain why marriage rates are lower now than ever?

You ask a good question. Why are they lower than ever?

Divorce rates hover between 50-60%. 93% of alimony payers are men.

Result: Men avoid marriage.

Not all men. The marriage rate isn't zero. And this forum will skew to a higher marital success rate.

Sure other factors play a role. But there is no ignoring the financial devastation that divorce can bring. So why do it?

For those that will dispute this, there are at least 2 contributors (men) on this thread that have discussed over half million dollar divorces in past divorce threads. And thats just here in our forum.

A prenup hasn't prevented me from a several million dollar divorce bill. Not getting married has. I hope the OP considers this.

 

[Amethyst]

Correct. I am thinking of several "situations" where the man refers to his "wife" but they are not legally married.

I'd guess that over time there has been less and less stigma associated with living together pre- or instead of marriage. s.

 

[TheHobbit]

In most states provided you don’t commingle funds they remain separate. What is always joint is any growth the assets may have. You have a home worth 1 million , get married and she or he moves in, you keep the title in your name. In 10; years you divorce and the house is worth 5 million. The first 1 million is yours and you split the remaining 4. I think the system is fundamentally fair if lawyers don’t get greedy, or it is about punishing the other person. Would it be different with your business partner and and amicable ending of the business?

Now somethings don’t share the appreciation. Your mother dies and you inherit the house, spouse gets zero. You rent it out for 10 years and spouse shared in the income. The sale proceeds are still yours. Or so it is written. That did not stop the lawyer for my friends ex who went after the assets he was to receive as an inheritance from his wealthy mother. $20k in legal bills before a judge killed the claim. They divorced, mother lived another 25 years and spent all the money

Huh? Growth on the assets is one thing a prenup is explicitly designed to protect. I'm in my 40s, I can comfortably retire. There are no "do overs" at this point in my life. There's exactly 0 chance of me not protecting my current assets along with their growth if I got married -- without the growth my SWR falls apart.

Prenups do exactly this. Now, *new* assets and any associated growth on them after marriage -- that -- you should probably cut down the middle (even with a prenup IHMO). Supporting child care expenses is also pretty clear cut in my eyes, if you have a kid you need to support the costs associated with them.

The grey area IMO is spousal support, if you spouse quits their job, and you call it splitsville one day, the question is what happens next? Are you essentially signed up to support them out of your nest egg for the rest of their life? Are you ok with that? These sorts of expectations need to be well defined in a prenup.

 

[TheHobbit]

You ask a good question. Why are they lower than ever?

Divorce rates hover between 50-60%. 93% of alimony payers are men.

Result: Men avoid marriage.

Not all men. The marriage rate isn't zero. And this forum will skew to a higher marital success rate.

Sure other factors play a role. But there is no ignoring the financial devastation that divorce can bring. So why do it?

For those that will dispute this, there are at least 2 contributors (men) on this thread that have discussed over half million dollar divorces in past divorce threads. And thats just here in our forum.

A prenup hasn't prevented me from a several million dollar divorce bill. Not getting married has. I hope the OP considers this.

You can count me among that stat. One of the paradoxes of wealth is that it makes the idea of marriage very unappealing, unless my future partner had similar wealth or maybe if a water tight prenup was in place.

Even things like children, I can do that solo (egg donor + surrogate + nanny) at costs which pale in comparison to a divorce. This decision is essentially decoupled from marriage for me, my employer would even pay the surrogate costs -- yes welcome to the 2020s.

You know those couples where both parties are lawyers? Doctors? Ya I get it now, makes 100% sense.

 

[pb4uski]

Married 38 years... most of it happily.

If DW predeceased me, I doubt that I would ever remarry... I say doubt because of "never say never".

I probably would date/romance and perhaps even cohabitate... but not remarry.

If I did, I would have a pre-nup... unless she was so much wealtheir than me that it was clear that she wouldn't need my wealth.

 

[Maidensong]

If one or both of you have children, heirs or charities you want to benefit after your passing, you should definitely have a pre-nup. This isn't mean. It's realistic. People get stupid and greedy when money is involved and they have no vested interest in those heirs.

The big plus for getting married is that you become each other's next of kin. You are able to be there no matter what. If you are merely living together, you cannot authorize life-saving care for your loved one. You may be shut out of the decision if they have adult children to make those decisions. When I had cancer a decade ago, it made a couple my DH worked with decide, after 15 years of cohabitation, it was time to make it legal for just this reason.

Commit or don't commit. Forget finances and health issues for a minute. Emotionally, trying to be roommates with benefits doesn't provide the same sense of "I'm all in" for the relationship that taking marriage vows does.

Good luck!

 

[nobody]

Was talking marriage with a gal I was in love with. I wanted a prenup, I was at 2.5 mil she was in debt. I wanted a snapshot of our finances at the time we got married. We would split everything after that 50/50. My thought was our pasts we should own and going forward we are equal. She thought I was just planning to leave her. I have an exit strategy for everything thing I do, investments, jobs, housing and even have one setup for when I die. Why wouldn't I do one for marriage, not saying I would want it to end but hey I don't want to die but I have that covered by a contract as well. She didn't like it one bit and eventually she ended it, my fault of course. LOL

 

[Chuckanut]

Even things like children, I can do that solo (egg donor + surrogate + nanny) at costs which pale in comparison to a divorce.

Ugh. That is not a plan for raising healthy mature children.

One of the biggest reasons to get married in these modern times it to provide children with a mother and father who form a unit that will raise the children, make them feel safe and loved, and sees that they get to adulthood in good shape. All these discussions of marriage seems to leave that out.

The other day I heard a school board member say that children who live with their mother and father are 'privileged'. What a sad commentary on modern life that what should be normal for the vast majority of children is now a privilege.

Needless to say, all of the above is my opinion. Take what you wish and leave the rest.