What's reasonable for a pre-nup?

[BunsGettingFirm]

I may be a committed single guy, but if you were going sky diving and were told that 50% of the parachutes don't open, what is wrong with asking for extra-bouncy underwear?

 

[MJ]

I may be a committed single guy, but if you were going sky diving and were told that 50% of the parachutes don't open, what is wrong with asking for extra-bouncy underwear?

Yeh, what's wrong with a little fallout protection.

 

[haha]

Yeh, what's wrong with a little fallout protection.

Oh man, I am trying to help you guys. Instead of wasting money on mostly useless pre-nups, hire yourself your own Cato Fong, and give him instructions to beat the crap out of you every time you start getting serious about marriage.

This will likely cost less, and is 100% effective.

Ha

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Only thing I can figure is that you must be a STUD!

Methinks theres another explanation...

As far as the topic, any time I've seen someone prepare for failure, they usually did.

 

[Nords]

I may be a committed single guy, but if you were going sky diving and were told that 50% of the parachutes don't open, what is wrong with asking for extra-bouncy underwear?

When I was at jump school (the one run by the 82nd Airborne at Benning Country Club) they took us eager-beaver students out to a place near the jump zone (not actually IN the jump zone) to gather around an 18"-deep soldier-sized depression in the ground. That spot was about 1500 feet directly below the location where one of the students had not followed the jumpmaster's recommendations on recovering from a parachute problem. Due to his own failure to follow clear directions panic misconduct the student separated himself from his main canopy, attempted to deploy his reserve, and ran out of time.

They said he bounced about four feet the first time. And that was without the special undies. The reserve canopy had deployed enough to serve as his shroud.

But, yeah, let's torture this analogy a little. You could spend more time on jump training or shop at a better parachute store or spend more money for a better parachute, too. While the first store might cheerfully refund your money (to your survivors anyway), in the long run the extra effort on preparation is probably a lot cheaper and certainly less painful than it would be to spend the effort on planning for failure.

Or, as you said, just don't get on the plane in the first place!

 

[Martha]

Martha if you don't mind, just a bit more clarification.
You used the word property, I'm not sure if it only refers to RE, cars, boats etc.
At the time of marriage, one of the partners comes in with, $1000k investment portfolio (stocks, funds, CDs, cash and no real property) and these remain under that partner's name after the marriage. If the couple divorces after 10 years, will the partner with the original $1000k + $500k growth have to split the $500k in a 50/50 state.

By property, I meant all your assets, including your portfolio. Even if you were married a long time and you supported your wife, you still have a good argument that you are entitled to the original million. The argument is weaker with the 1/2 million growth, but you might be able to argue it is separate property. This is hardly cut and dried. Your young wife, who gave up her career for you, may try to get part of your assets or alimony or both. Don't ask for details--this is way out of my area of knowledge.

MJ, you can't get married. You will destroy my romantic fantasies! If you do, get a pre-nup and don't tell me.

 

[modhatter]

I think anyone who has any assets to speak of, is crazy to get married WITHOUT a Pre-Nup. This business, "if you love me, you wouldn't ask for such a thing" is pure bull. If your intensions are so good, then you will have no problem signing an agreement.

There are too many deceiptful and cunning people out there, and NO YOU CAN'T TELL THEM BY KNOWING THEM FOR A WHILE. I have a sister who is a prime example of this. God help the next poor soul she gets her hands on. She has taken every man to the cleaners who she married.

The last one, who she made sell most of his retirement stock to buy her everyting she said she must have, finally drew the line when she gave him the ultimatum - "Put your house in my name, or I will leave you." She knew how crazy he was about her, so she thought she could make him do it, but he renaged, and so she left him.

No man ever got to know my sister, until it was too late. She could pull the wool over the best of you out there. So, there is NO REASON ON EARTH NOT TO HAVE A PRE-NUP. And if your mate objects, I'd seriously reconsider marriage. And this is a woman speaking.

 

[wildcat]

I think anyone who has any assets to speak of, is crazy to get married WITHOUT a Pre-Nup. This business, "if you love me, you wouldn't ask for such a thing" is pure bull. If your intensions are so good, then you will have no problem signing an agreement.

There are too many deceiptful and cunning people out there, and NO YOU CAN'T TELL THEM BY KNOWING THEM FOR A WHILE. I have a sister who is a prime example of this. God help the next poor soul she gets her hands on. She has taken every man to the cleaners who she married.

The last one, who she made sell most of his retirement stock to buy her everyting she said she must have, finally drew the line when she gave him the ultimatum - "Put your house in my name, or I will leave you." She knew how crazy he was about her, so she thought she could make him do it, but he renaged, and so she left him.

No man ever got to know my sister, until it was too late. She could pull the wool over the best of you out there. So, there is NO REASON ON EARTH NOT TO HAVE A PRE-NUP. And if your mate objects, I'd seriously reconsider marriage. And this is a woman speaking.

Sent chills down my spine

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

Didn't you learn the answers in lawschool? 

I probably did, and then promptly forgot!

Believe me, I recognize how pathetic this is:  I am a lawyer, and yet I ask legal questions anonymously to other anonymous people on the internet who may or may not have helpful answers.

Nonetheless Martha, I think your advice is probably worth more than what I paid for it.  Thanks!

 

[haha]

Nonetheless Martha, I think your advice is probably worth more than what I paid for it.  Thanks!

Another gracious gentleman!

Ha

 

[MJ]

MJ, you can't get married. You will destroy my romantic fantasies! If you do, get a pre-nup and don't tell me.

Martha, not to worry.
To this board, i'll always remain single. I would not want to spoil my "bachelor" image.

 

[Billy]

MJ's not been to Thailand yet...

My guess is he'll be married in less than one week from his arrival date...

Billy

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

Nords, now you know I respect your opinion, but I don't think that calling pre-nups "preparing to fail" is fair. As an nuclear engineer, you certainly would not enter into a nuclear submarine knowing that the nuclear sub doesn't have any back up systems and emergency procedures. Why? Do you plan to personally scuttle the sub after 2 week out at sea? The answer obviously would be no, but that doesn't mean that you don't practice the emergency procedures even though U.S. submarines sink at a rate nowhere near 50%.

 

[MJ]

MJ's not been to Thailand yet...

My guess is he'll be married in less than one week from his arrival date...

Billy

Billy, I'm too level headed to do it in less than a week.
I'd give myself at least 2 weeks b4 I breakdown and cry "uncle".
For my honeymoon in Chiang Mai, where can I stay inexpensively, for me, my new wife and her 105 immediate and extended family members? :
There goes the $25/day budget.

MJ

 

[MJ]

All kidding aside, we all assume that 2 people, getting married, have the best intentions to make it work but it doesn't prevent 50% of the marriages from failing.
I wonder what % of the failed marriages where there was substantial assets, had one of the partners wishing they had had a pre-nup.

 

[Glo]

I've been married 35 years, but if I were suddenly single, I'd never get married again. I'd probably have a significant other and live with him, but no marriage for me. I could never trust another individual that much!

 

[SteveR]

I've been married 35 years, but if I were suddenly single, I'd never get married again.  I'd probably have a significant other and live with him, but no marriage for me.  I could never trust another individual that much!

Glo,

Never say never.

Trust and love are possible any number of times in ones' life. It may not happen to you but I have seen it happen to those who never thought they would even date again who are now very happily remarried.

Living with someone can have some financial benefits but can also create some negative ones due to ownership and estate laws. These can usually be overcome, but in states like Utah, cohabitation has few legal benefits and is not the desired state so the state frowns on any arrangement short of marriage and these are reflected in estate laws.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Glo,

Never say never.   

Trust and love are possible any number of times in ones' life.  It may not happen to you but I have seen it happen to those who never thought they would even date again who are now very happily remarried. 

Living with someone can have some financial benefits but can also create some negative ones due to ownership and estate laws.  These can usually be overcome, but in states like Utah, cohabitation has few legal benefits and is not the desired state so the state frowns on any arrangement short of marriage and these are reflected in estate laws. 

I basically agree with "never say never", but in my case
(married 36 years - 2 different spouses), not only would I not remarry
but would remain totally single. If DW sees this post, she knows it is
because she could never be replaced.

JG

 

[Nords]

MJ's not been to Thailand yet...

My guess is he'll be married in less than one week from his arrival date...

Billy

MJ, after seeing what surprises Billy has in store for your first meeting, are you sure you guys want to get together?

We want pictures!!

Nords, now you know I respect your opinion, but I don't think that calling pre-nups "preparing to fail" is fair. As an nuclear engineer, you certainly would not enter into a nuclear submarine knowing that the nuclear sub doesn't have any back up systems and emergency procedures. Why? Do you plan to personally scuttle the sub after 2 week out at sea? The answer obviously would be no, but that doesn't mean that you don't practice the emergency procedures even though U.S. submarines sink at a rate nowhere near 50%.

First, I think I've been quoted out of context. Let's go to the tape:

...in the long run the extra effort on preparation is probably a lot cheaper and certainly less painful than it would be to spend the effort on planning for failure.

IOW if you're going to give your marriage your best shot, would you devote more effort to improving spousal relations or to drafting prenup clauses? Which goal is more worthy of your efforts?

Second, a prenup IS planning to fail, and not only that, it's planning to fail miserably by presuming that you'll lose all inputs to the process.

For example we carry insurance on fire, liability, & healthcare. In all of those cases I'm planning for failure and, other than normal precautions, I'm not expecting to have much control of or effect on the results. The insurance helps me recover from a casualty that I otherwise couldn't survive.

I think it's worth a prenup to insure prior-relationship kids/family because they don't have a voice in the matter (just like fire, liability, & healthcare). However like a good will, I wonder if that could also be handled just as well by a trust or some other legal maneuver.

But aside from those associated with prior relationships, a couple has inputs to their marriages. They can decide whether or not to marry in the first place, and they certainly have an affect on how that marriage turns out. They can also constructively participate in the divorce process.

IMO a prenup presumes that not only will the marriage eventually fail, but that all attempts to negotiate like reasonable human beings will also be doomed to failure. It projects an entirely unfavorable opinion of how you value your assets in relationship to your spouse. Not only are your assets worth more to you than your spouse is, but also that spouse is assumed from the start to be uncooperative, unfair, and vindictive. Nice impression to make before the nuptials.

It seems to me that a far better impression could be made by participating in premarital counseling, discussions about family planning, agreements on how each others' careers will be supported, and so on. Care & feeding of the marriage seems to be a much better goal than focusing on how to carve up the carcass.

Other than the prior relationships, it seems that prenups arise when one of the couple has a lot more than the other. Spouse and I started our marriage as penniless equals, but if I was going to marry someone despite our inequalities then I'd have to be willing to pool our resources and share fairly. (Otherwise I'd just offer plenty of sex and shared chores.) Anything less than that indicates a lack of commitment to what's intended to be a lifetime relationship. It could even be perceived as selfish.

Please understand that I'm not against other people having prenups. IMO they're potentially poisoning a marriage by raising the topic, and if that's the kind of marriage they want then they're welcome to it. I do think it's worth exploring the logic or motives behind wanting a prenup because many thought processes may be less than clear on the subject.

Spouse has reminded me that we actually do have a form of a prenup. We've agreed that either of us is free to leave our marriage at any time, as long as we take the kid with us!

Nuclear safety & backups-- that's a topic for a separate post.

 

[MJ]

MJ, after seeing what surprises Billy has in store for your first meeting, are you sure you guys want to get together?

I'm only meeting Billy to get to Akaisha.

For example we carry insurance on fire, liability, & healthcare. In all of those cases I'm planning for failure and, other than normal precautions, I'm not expecting to have much control of or effect on the results. The insurance helps me recover from a casualty that I otherwise couldn't survive.

I would change part of your statement to "I'm planning in case of failure"

IMO a prenup presumes that not only will the marriage eventually fail, but that all attempts to negotiate like reasonable human beings will also be doomed to failure.

Even though we all carry insurance, as reasonable people, don't we do everything under our control to, remain health, avoid liability suits, or keep our house safe from damage.
Knowing myself, I would bend backwards to salvage a troubled marriage as long as the process didn't destroy me.

 

[HFWR]

If I re-marry, I'll have a prenup...

YMMV