Advice re: prenup agreements

S

slimm

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
64
Location
Central Oklahoma
22 years after my divorce, I have met someone very special. We are discussing marriage & he suggested we get our prenup agreements in place and then make wedding plans. I'd like to research the issue before contacting my attorney. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.


p.s. I'm 54 years old, no children, retired at 42. Full time cattle rancher, investor - no debt whatsoever.
My intended is 65 with 3 grown children - 2 ex wives. He is also a rancher & businessman....involved with several media endeavors.

His net worth far exceeds mine, but so do his liabilities.
 
slimm said:
22 years after my divorce, I have met someone very special. We are discussing marriage & he suggested we get our prenup agreements in place and then make wedding plans. I'd like to research the issue before contacting my attorney. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.


p.s. I'm 54 years old, no children, retired at 42. Full time cattle rancher, investor - no debt whatsoever.
My intended is 65 with 3 grown children - 2 ex wives. He is also a rancher & businessman....involved with several media endeavors.

His net worth far exceeds mine, but so do his liabilities.
Click to expand...
Say there were no such thing as a pre-nup, or what is more likely, no such thing as one that will stand up under concerted attack.

Would you see tangible benefits to yourself in getting married? Risks?

If the risks outweigh or match the benefits, can you accomplish your life goals with regard to this situation without a marriage?

Ha
 
Can you just keep you assets separate with your own will or trust so that your assets go where you want them to go in case of the inevitable, or in case of another divorce? I don't know how OK law views this but I think there are some states that allow you to keep your assets separate.

Also, no intent to pry too deeply, but I've always felt that there were question marks as to the viability of the marraige when pre-nups are an issue. Just sayin...

R
 
Rambler said:
Also, no intent to pry too deeply, but I've always felt that there were question marks as to the viability of the marraige when pre-nups are an issue. Just sayin...

R
Click to expand...

I think we all have different views on the business side of marraige. At our age, not many of us view marraige strictly through the lovely glow of romance.

I think the OP is wise to consult an attorney. Look into a revocable trust for your own assets. And look VERY closely at your fiancee's debt burden. That's where I would be most concerned and would want to make sure there would be no contingency in which I would be responsible.
 
The very concept of pre-nuptial is a dirty word to a lot of folks. It is actually the most sensible thing for persons entering into marriage with separate assets acquired prior to the marriage. Especially when assets/liabilities are uneven.
A pre-nup does not mean the marriage is doomed. It will actually be more useful in more grim situations. Use your imagination. :(
I just went through soup-to-nuts estate planning last spring. My attorney asked me all of the tough questions about my assets, my fiance's assets gobbled up by divorce, his heirs, my lack of heirs, etc etc.
He listened, thought for a bit, and then...
His advice to me was to firmly establish, in legal and recorded documents, what was separate property for BOTH of us prior to any wedding marches. It had nothing to do with me or dh2b, it had everything to do with the laws of separate vs marital property and inheritance. It had everything to do with "what-if".
He told me my revocable living trust is almost as good as a prenup because it establishes my ownership of my assets as a single person. Every single asset I own that can have a beneficiary designation has been changed to "The Revocable Living Trust of Freebird". In closing, he advised a pre-nup on top of that when the time comes.
 
freebird5825 said:
The very concept of pre-nuptial is a dirty word to a lot of folks. It is actually the most sensible thing for persons entering into marriage with separate assets acquired prior to the marriage. Especially when assets/liabilities are uneven.
A pre-nup does not mean the marriage is doomed. It will actually be more useful in more grim situations. Use your imagination. :(
I just went through soup-to-nuts estate planning last spring. My attorney asked me all of the tough questions about my assets, my fiance's assets gobbled up by divorce, his heirs, my lack of heirs, etc etc.
He listened, thought for a bit, and then...
His advice to me was to firmly establish, in legal and recorded documents, what was separate property for BOTH of us prior to any wedding marches. It had nothing to do with me or dh2b, it had everything to do with the laws of separate vs marital property and inheritance. It had everything to do with "what-if".
He told me my revocable living trust is almost as good as a prenup because it establishes my ownership of my assets as a single person. However, he advised a pre-nup on top of that when the time comes.
Click to expand...

What better time to draw up mutually satisfying financial arrangements than when you are most in love. It should be a part of most relationship formalizing: then it would be acceptable and not a stigma.
 
Oldbabe said:
I think we all have different views on the business side of marraige. At our age, not many of us view marraige strictly through the lovely glow of romance.

I think the OP is wise to consult an attorney. Look into a revocable trust for your own assets. And look VERY closely at your fiancee's debt burden. That's where I would be most concerned and would want to make sure there would be no contingency in which I would be responsible.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is my point exactly. Keep the assets separate. My point about viability when a pre-nup is necessary is that one or both of the parties sees that there is a high likelyhood of divorce...in which case, why get married at all? But yes, married or not, do what you can to keep the assets delineated, and your contingent responsibilities to a minimum. Perhaps that is what some/this pre-nup is all about, but I just get this nagging feeling about pre-nups.

Maybe W2R can chime in about the "be together but have your own place and your own assets" alternative that she and Frank seem to have worked out nicely.

R
 
I must have been writing this when Freebird was writing...maybe I'm just behind the times...if so, sorry for the irrelevant comments. Would still like to hear from W2R on the subject though. Best of luck yo you though, Slimm, however you decide.

R
 
I knew I could count on ya'all to provide insight (and humor)! I already established a revocable living trust - back in 02 when I first started buying ranches in Oklahoma.
There are several issues that need to be addressed and I feel comfortable with the process. As an aside, I think this is prudent business/estate planning and does not reflect on the quality of the relationship OR feeling that it may not be successful. After many years of perfecting the art of living a full life alone, I am amazed to have met someone whose outlook and sensibilities fully complement mine.
 
Rambler said:
I must have been writing this when Freebird was writing...maybe I'm just behind the times...if so, sorry for the irrelevant comments. Would still like to hear from W2R on the subject though. Best of luck yo you though, Slimm, however you decide.

R
Click to expand...
I didn't understand the pre-nup thing either til I went through the trust exercise. I had a lot of pre-conceived ideas about pre-nups due to the so highly publicized palimony cases we were bombarded with over the years. :rolleyes: In my case, I am still unmarried. My trust provides for me first in case of my incapacity, both of us if both incapacitated, a family trust for only dh2b if I do the pushing up daisies thing, but with no inheritance for him or his heirs.
I'm giving details about a real live example not as instructions, but to illustrate some possibilities.
OP needs to consult her own estate attorney and go from there.
 
Rambler said:
Maybe W2R can chime in about the "be together but have your own place and your own assets" alternative that she and Frank seem to have worked out nicely.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple, I guess. We choose not to marry as we have both BTDT (Been There, Done That). I went through a divorce, and there is no such thing as a nice divorce. He is a widower who was a caretaker for his wife during her decline, and that is just plain tough. So, we choose not to marry.

We live in separate houses, near to one another, and do not have any joint accounts or other jointly owned property. We see one another when that appeals to both of us, and that way when we are together, we know that the other is happy about that. We have been friends for 9 years, but have been "going steady" like this for about seven and a half years.

We are as emotionally committed as a married couple, but without the financial entanglement. For us, this has eliminated a lot of potential conflict about money before it happens. He can keep his house, well, uh, the way bachelors keep their houses and I don't feel like I have to pick up after him. I can paint my walls pink if I want to with no objections. When we want to be alone, we can just tell the other we want to be alone and maybe we can get together tomorrow. Simple. His family accepts me as much as if I were his wife, and my family accepts him similarly.

When we move north to our retirement location, we plan to buy houses within a mile of one another and ideally right next door to one another (or across the street).

Works for us, though I am sure it is not for everyone.
haha said:
Say there were no such thing as a pre-nup, or what is more likely, no such thing as one that will stand up under concerted attack.
Click to expand...
Someone I know with a legal background, whose judgment I trust, has told me that this is indeed the case so I really would not depend on a pre-nup completely.
 
Last edited:
Want2retire said:
It's pretty simple, I guess. We choose not to marry as we have both BTDT (Been There, Done That). I went through a divorce, and there is no such thing as a nice divorce. He is a widower who was a caretaker for his wife during her decline, and that is just plain tough. So, we choose not to marry.

We live in separate houses, near to one another, and do not have any joint accounts or other jointly owned property. We see one another when that appeals to both of us, and that way when we are together, we know that the other is happy about that. We have been friends for 9 years, but have been "going steady" like this for about seven and a half years.

We are as emotionally committed as a married couple, but without the financial entanglement. For us, this has eliminated a lot of potential conflict about money before it happens. He can keep his house, well, uh, the way bachelors keep their houses and I don't feel like I have to pick up after him. I can paint my walls pink if I want to with no objections. When we want to be alone, we can just tell the other we want to be alone and maybe we can get together tomorrow. Simple. His family accepts me as much as if I were his wife, and my family accepts him similarly.

When we move north to our retirement location, we plan to buy houses within a mile of one another and ideally right next door to one another (or across the street).

Works for us, though I am sure it is not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Sounds ideal to me. I don't even want to think about living with someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W2R
Oldbabe said:
Me neither. I think W2R has the right idea! ;)
Click to expand...

I'm happily married, no pre-nup (didn't have anything when we married). But if there was a nasty divorce, and later I found someone, I think this is the way I would want to keep it for a LOOOONG time, and would probably never marry again. (I'm religious, so I would not become quite so "emotionally attached" if I did not marry again, however).

R
 
I can certainly see the advantages of not combining certain assets but there is something to be said for living together . The other situation while nice to me lacks the spontaneity that occurs when you live together . Plus there is a certain closeness that comes from everyday living .
 
Moemg said:
I can certainly see the advantages of not combining certain assets but there is something to be said for living together . The other situation while nice to me lacks the spontaneity that occurs when you live together . Plus there is a certain closeness that comes from everyday living .
Click to expand...

Like I said, it is not for everybody and I am simply responding to a request to post about our arrangement, certainly not criticizing anyone else's. We can be together as much or as little as we want - - which for us leads to far more closeness and spontaneity than we would have if we didn't allow ourselves the choices and freedom that our arrangement allows. But that's just us.
 
Last edited:
Want2retire said:
Like I said, it is not for everybody. And we can be together as much or as little as we want - - which for us leads to far more closeness and spontaneity than we would have if we didn't allow ourselves the choices and freedom that our arrangement allows. But that's just us.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who kind of did this in reverse. She and her husband could not get along living together, so he moved to his own place, but they remained married and were much happier. She finally divorced him just before she inherited a large chunk of money, presumably to make sure it was all hers. They still vacation together.
 
travelover said:
She finally divorced him just before she inherited a large chunk of money, presumably to make sure it was all hers. They still vacation together.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, even in most community property states (IANAL), inheritances in one spouse's name are typically considered legally as sole and separate property, just like assets owned before the marriage. As long as she didn't put the proceeds into a joint account, anyway. It really depends on state law, though.

Still, if my wife pulled something like this on me, I don't think I could still vacation with her. I wouldn't care that the money was all hers, but divorcing me when she receives it shows a lack of trust that I couldn't forgive. Depends on that couple's dynamics, I guess.
 
Want2retire said:
Like I said, it is not for everybody and I am simply responding to a request to post about our arrangement, certainly not criticizing anyone else's. We can be together as much or as little as we want - - which for us leads to far more closeness and spontaneity than we would have if we didn't allow ourselves the choices and freedom that our arrangement allows. But that's just us.
Click to expand...

A friend once told me she needs a man in her life but not in her house.
 
Moemg said:
I can certainly see the advantages of not combining certain assets but there is something to be said for living together . The other situation while nice to me lacks the spontaneity that occurs when you live together . Plus there is a certain closeness that comes from everyday living .
Click to expand...
Everyday interaction has definite advantages if a higher level of companionship is important. It certainly is to me. :flowers:
dh2b and I live together as husband and wife, just no legal license. I'd marry him tomorrow, but pension and health benefits rules prevent us.
We have my money, his money, and our money. It is a perfect system.
If he wants a toy, he can ask me if I want it too. If I say yes, we will split the cost. If I give him the eyeball roll :rolleyes:, he pays for it himself. Same goes for me.
We purchase larger cost things "for the house" together. He lost a lot of personal property in his divorce, so I gladly share what I already had with him.
We knew it was serious when we combined our tool collections. :LOL:
 
I think a legal agreement is valuable after the first round of romantic marriage. We drew up a legal partnership agreement that, when combined with coordinated wills, preserves mine for my heirs and hers for her heirs while letting us both get the benefit of the shared cash during our both of our lives (assuming a different termination date).

After 14 years and counting, the agreement means much less but it made us both comfortable in the early years. Just make sure that you have a separate and really sharp lawyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

haha
Family Court as Outcomes Randomizer
Replies
11
Views
2K
Zoocat
Z

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom