Does not look good

[SirLancelot 1]

From a womans perspective (mine)

I had significant assets prior to my marriage to my second husband. Everyone told me to get a prenup. I refused because of my strong belief that asking for a prenup showed a lack of trust in the relationship. That it would by its very mention diminish the relationship and start it off on the wrong level. Some may think naive, I don't. I lived with him for three years also before marriage. The marriage itself only lasted a year and he ended up with way more then he was entitled to as I didn't even fight it through the courts. He had nothing when I first met him, now he has a kings ransom in comparison. Would I do same again if in same position.....you betcha. The relationship is far far more important to me than anything material. Just my 2 cents

Aussiewench, in a free society--and Australia is one--you are free to do as you choose, but others may interpret your actions as lacking the humility and maturity to learn from your past mistakes. It takes a mature and humble person to admit that their beliefs may be incorrect and that they can improve upon them for the future.

Or one could continue with one's course of actions and never learn from past experiences.

It reminds me of most gamblers at casinos. Their naive hope that they'll win the next bet inevitably leads to bad results for the vast majority.

Either ways, you're free to live the way you choose. Best of luck.

I'm just glad I'm not the insurance company insuring you.

[zauberblume 0]

Like I said earlier, I've never entered into a pre-nup. But because of some of the stuff I've seen, I don't regard them as horrid. I think they should be discussed, calmly if possibly, and not used as a strong-arm tactic. And I don't believe that undying protestations of trust and love will protect a couple either. Life and other nasty stuff happens.

Rebecca,

I completely agree.

My husband and I discussed it. He was against it. I was actually on the fence because I understand the complexity of it all. I know the statistics about failed marriages and I've seen horrible divorces. However, I still think that it goes against the values that my husband and I outlined in our marriage; therefore, we ultimately decided against it. We're both realistic and we know the risks involved, but we are working toward success.

I feel like if we were no longer together, more would be lost than my or his money. We've experienced quite a lot together, even in our relatively short relationship. I couldn't imagine us giving up on all of this. I think we're both too stubborn. We'll have our problems but I can't and really won't fathom this relationship not working even though I know it's possible.

Plus, we really have no assets to protect even though our families have assets. We've already outlined the basic ideas of our partnership and our goals.

If I trust him with my body, mind--myself, then I trust him with my money too, even in the event of a divorce. (I've also seen amicable divorces.)

-Z

[SirLancelot 1]

My husband and I discussed it. He was against it. I was actually on the fence because I understand the complexity of it all. I know the statistics about failed marriages and I've seen horrible divorces. However, I still think that it goes against the values that my husband and I outlined in our marriage; therefore, we ultimately decided against it. We're both realistic and we know the risks involved, but we are working toward success.

Since you two discussed it, then that's the end of the story. No one is suggesting you absolutely have to have a pre-nup. If you both agreed that one is not necessary, then that's all there is the discuss.

Back to topic, the OP did NOT agree that there shouldn't have been a pre-nup. If one party believes there should be one and the other party disagrees, there shouldn't be an immediate jump to conclude that the party who wants a pre-nup is the mis-trustful party. It can and is argued that the party who will not agree to sign a pre-nup is the mis-trustful party.

I'm glad you two agree on this matter and you have no pre-nup. Perhaps you'll be like Aussiewench as well, even in the event of divorce, you may still think it was best not to have a pre-nup. As a free country we're allowed to make our own decisions. You and your husband did. Please allow others who want to have a pre-nup their freedom of choice to do so.

[aussiewench 9]

From a womans perspective (mine)

I had significant assets prior to my marriage to my second husband. Everyone told me to get a prenup. I refused because of my strong belief that asking for a prenup showed a lack of trust in the relationship. That it would by its very mention diminish the relationship and start it off on the wrong level. Some may think naive, I don't. I lived with him for three years also before marriage. The marriage itself only lasted a year and he ended up with way more then he was entitled to as I didn't even fight it through the courts. He had nothing when I first met him, now he has a kings ransom in comparison. Would I do same again if in same position.....you betcha. The relationship is far far more important to me than anything material. Just my 2 cents

Aussiewench, in a free society--and Australia is one--you are free to do as you choose, but others may interpret your actions as lacking the humility and maturity to learn from your past mistakes. It takes a mature and humble person to admit that their beliefs may be incorrect and that they can improve upon them for the future.

Or one could continue with one's course of actions and never learn from past experiences.

It reminds me of most gamblers at casinos. Their naive hope that they'll win the next bet inevitably leads to bad results for the vast majority.

Either ways, you're free to live the way you choose. Best of luck.

I'm just glad I'm not the insurance company insuring you.

Oh I learn from past experiences, I just don't compromise what I believe in, who I am. I do believe that each to their own when it comes to prenups, its just not in my vocabulary. Was I burned in the past, yes. Could a prenup have pretected me, definately. Would I have felt good about myself in doubting the persons intentions that I was to marry if I asked for a prenup, no. That is what is important to me and always will be, the relationship and my commitment to it. So therefore if a want for a prenup was asked of me, I in turn would then have doubts about my partners trust in me and they wouldn't be the person for me because of that. Would I abandon the relationship because I was a gold digger that seen her future go up in smoke via the prenup, definately not. I would leave purely because to me the trust is not there. I would live in a tent with the person that I loved, and I have done. Money and assets mean very little to me in the scheme of things.

[KarenCee 3]

From a womans perspective (mine)

I had significant assets prior to my marriage to my second husband. Everyone told me to get a prenup. I refused because of my strong belief that asking for a prenup showed a lack of trust in the relationship. That it would by its very mention diminish the relationship and start it off on the wrong level. Some may think naive, I don't. I lived with him for three years also before marriage. The marriage itself only lasted a year and he ended up with way more then he was entitled to as I didn't even fight it through the courts. He had nothing when I first met him, now he has a kings ransom in comparison. Would I do same again if in same position.....you betcha. The relationship is far far more important to me than anything material. Just my 2 cents

Aussiewench, in a free society--and Australia is one--you are free to do as you choose, but others may interpret your actions as lacking the humility and maturity to learn from your past mistakes. It takes a mature and humble person to admit that their beliefs may be incorrect and that they can improve upon them for the future.

Or one could continue with one's course of actions and never learn from past experiences.

It reminds me of most gamblers at casinos. Their naive hope that they'll win the next bet inevitably leads to bad results for the vast majority.

Either ways, you're free to live the way you choose. Best of luck.

I'm just glad I'm not the insurance company insuring you.

Oh I learn from past experiences, I just don't compromise what I believe in, who I am. I do believe that each to their own when it comes to prenups, its just not in my vocabulary. Was I burned in the past, yes. Could a prenup have pretected me, definately. Would I have felt good about myself in doubting the persons intentions that I was to marry if I asked for a prenup, no. That is what is important to me and always will be, the relationship and my commitment to it. So therefore if a want for a prenup was asked of me, I in turn would then have doubts about my partners trust in me and they wouldn't be the person for me because of that. Would I abandon the relationship because I was a gold digger that seen her future go up in smoke via the prenup, definately not. I would leave purely because to me the trust is not there. I would live in a tent with the person that I loved, and I have done. Money and assets mean very little to me in the scheme of things.

This is exactly how I feel. Although I have nothing of substance financially, nor does Joel, we felt there was no reason to contemplate one even if there were assets. Trust. That's one of the main components here. I find it distasteful that one is considered a "gold digger" for not wanting to sign one in the first place. I feel the same way Lorelle does....I would live anywhere as long as I am with my beloved Joel. If money meant something to me, I seriously doubt I would be married to him now.

There's just too much suspicion in this world today. How sad....how very sad.

[desert_fox 32]

If you aint bringing anything to the table, if you have nothing to protect, then there would be no need for a pre-nupt. But, if you do, then that would be like driving around without insurance, afterall, it wasnt your intent to hurt or injure anyone, it just happened, but it will cost you a fortune. You had so much trust that you were a safe driver, that you just knew that you would never need insurance.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

My husband and I discussed it. He was against it. I was actually on the fence because I understand the complexity of it all. I know the statistics about failed marriages and I've seen horrible divorces. However, I still think that it goes against the values that my husband and I outlined in our marriage; therefore, we ultimately decided against it. We're both realistic and we know the risks involved, but we are working toward success.

Since you two discussed it, then that's the end of the story. No one is suggesting you absolutely have to have a pre-nup. If you both agreed that one is not necessary, then that's all there is the discuss.

Back to topic, the OP did NOT agree that there shouldn't have been a pre-nup. If one party believes there should be one and the other party disagrees, there shouldn't be an immediate jump to conclude that the party who wants a pre-nup is the mis-trustful party. It can and is argued that the party who will not agree to sign a pre-nup is the mis-trustful party.

I'm glad you two agree on this matter and you have no pre-nup. Perhaps you'll be like Aussiewench as well, even in the event of divorce, you may still think it was best not to have a pre-nup. As a free country we're allowed to make our own decisions. You and your husband did. Please allow others who want to have a pre-nup their freedom of choice to do so.

Agreed. Frankly, I am surprised that after all of this discussion, misconception with respect to the purpose of a prenup is still so rampant. The purpose for me in engaging in this discussion, was more an educational exercise than anything else. I have to say that seeing some of the reactions, it seemed all the more important that I lend insight into what it's utility is.....and also to demonstrate that if people perceive the party who does present a prenup as having less trust in his/her partner, that such a reaction, in and of itself, demonstrates the same

However, if circumstances are such that a prenup *could* provide some protection to one's situation, it is a personal choice whether or not to consider one viable, that is, unless one has children. Then personal choice should not be the focus...

[rebeccajo 14]

However, if circumstances are such that a prenup *could* provide some protection to one's situation, it is a personal choice whether or not to consider one viable, that is, unless one has children. Then personal choice should not be the focus...

Well made point. It's bad enough to quarrel with your soon-to-be ex over property without having the assets you intended for your children to be drawn into the mix. In the case of minor children especially, I personally believe that placing 'trust' in a new spouse over the well being of those children would be nothing short of irresponsible.

Having said that, here's another illustration of how sometimes you just can't win. A client just left our office with similar concerns but in her case we are writing wills. It is a second marriage for both of them, with three children apiece. They are trying to make provisions in their wills that the jointly held real estate be divided evenly amongst the 6 children after the demise of both of them.

My boss was swift to add that these provisions could easily be stricken after the death of the first spouse simply by the second spouse re-writing their own will.

Thus illustrating that sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't provide for every eventuality.

[PurrSuede 0]

I took the ####### shoot... and rolled 'snake eyes' it seems...

I planned on this being the ONE, the one that would last...

Guess that God/dess had other plans.... LOL

Trust me, I'm wrathful, but I'm the one who filed... after she tried to trump up a DV visit from the police when we were having an arguement... their finding was "domestic disturbance, no evidence of violence by either party"... but realize she had done that once...

I wasn't going to stick around and found out what other bull-cr*p she could come up with... I'm the one who filed for divorce... I'm the one who paid for everything from start to finish... including what I mentioned above...

-- Dan

Dan, I think that's the exactly the point, that I was tryin got make earlier, though...It shouldn't be a ####### shoot. True, you can never know anything for certain. Not really. But there are probabilities in this world. How long did you know your fiancée before you married her? How much time did you spend with her in person? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.

Hey Kirsten... you're in Mad Town? Awesome place, I used to go visit it a lot when I had a g/f at the U of W long ago...

Anyway, no you can never know anything for certain.

I'd known her for a year. In fact we got married EXACTLY one year to the date we met. Call me romantic, will ya??

Time spent in person? Approx. one month, though during that year we communicated via phone and emails.

And you just never ~know~. I'm sorry, but no matter how much time you spend together, you don't always KNOW... there is a committment of FAITH in any love relationship... faith in each other...

I think she "cared" for me, but mostly thought she'd get a better life, and if the marriage worked out, so much the better...

But I've talked to some friends, including some Russian women, about the things she did (not revealing everything here) and several women have said to me just simply: "there's no way I could have done that if I were in love with a man..."

So you know, I don't think she was -truly- in love with me, she wanted the better life and if love worked out, well then fine...

c'est la vie, as they say en Français

In all fairness, this is a community property state and I pretty much stuck to what was right and proper in giving her a fair settlement of the community property for two years of marriage.

She thought she'd walk off with a heck of a lot more. My attorney also pointed out to me that a pre-nup can not protect you from the basics of divorce law under the statutes of your state.

It's also interesting to point out that when I bought my house, she actually signed a "sole and separate" agreement, indicating the house was NOT community property, because she had no credit report, it could not be mortgaged in her name.

I pointed that out to her, she said "oh I just tell them I didn't know what I was signing when I signed this..."

SOMEONE was coaching her in a lot of stuff...

But anyway, being the kind of person I am, I signed the house back to "us" as Joint Tenants, in case anything would have happened to me.

Little did I know... LOL

Anyway, she tried to get a LOT more than what she actually got, but I still had to fork over some cash just to finance her independence... but of course, this was titled as Alimony (deduct from income during tax season!) and as "non-modifiable support" (to satisfy the affidavit of support aspects).

So all in all, it still hurt to get "forked" for the cash... when the original purpose of bringing her here to America, to get married was ostensibly for "home, family, children" which is what she SAID she wanted.

She sure changed her mind once she was here...

-- Dan

[Do I know that things change over time? Yup. Do I think the basic character of a person changes much over time, though? No, not really. I think that's much rarer. I think if you take the time to truly know someone at the beginning, you'll generally (not always, but usually) have a pretty good idea of the behavior of which they will or won't be capable later.

In all fairness, Kirsten... we also knew mutual friends who had rather introduced us, told both of us good things about the other, so both of us had had references from people we knew that the other person was OK.

However, that being said.... her character changed considerably as she "Americanized" into the American culture. This does not mean I was adverse to her making choices.

But the choices she made were "all about her" and NOT all about her husband, having a family, building a life together, etc.

So while you can look at the basic character of an immigrant, I don't think you can accurately predict just what the process of coming to America and developing their new life in a brand new culture will do to a person with 100% accuracy.

-- Dan

I spent more time in my previous marriage than some of the posters here are old. It wasn't all bad and I'd be lying if I said it was. But it certainly was eye-opening. The changes that happen to two people in a relationship have many more dimensions than 'character'. Life ebbs and flows and things happen that character can't compensate for. Peoples values can change, and as they age their needs change. Some of the changes are good - some are not.

And an immigrant's character and especially VALUES can and will change as they assimilate into a culture they have NEVER been exposed to before... without a doubt!

-- Dan

[mrsushi66 0]

aussiewench I am with you on this one. The one thing I have learned is that if people are out to screw you and get their hands on your stuff they will find a way around the pre-nup or whatever device you put in place.

On the flip side if you ask someone who has no doubt about the relationship or the SO by asking them to sign a pre-nup you sow the seed of doubt and suspision.

We can say it is in everyones best interest and such but when you try to mix business with matters of the heart you end up with a business relationship rather than a loving relationship. I am fully aware that if things end badly with Anna and I that she could get all my stuff and that is a risk I am willing to take to have the kind of relationship I want.

Paul misses Anna

[garya505 2]

I've noticed some assumptions made here about division of property upon divorce. State laws vary, and in "Community Property" states where property owned previous to the marriage is defined as separate property, a pre-nup is irrelevant if the assets you are concerned about are owned before the marriage.

[PurrSuede 0]

aussiewench I am with you on this one. The one thing I have learned is that if people are out to screw you and get their hands on your stuff they will find a way around the pre-nup or whatever device you put in place.

On the flip side if you ask someone who has no doubt about the relationship or the SO by asking them to sign a pre-nup you sow the seed of doubt and suspision.

We can say it is in everyones best interest and such but when you try to mix business with matters of the heart you end up with a business relationship rather than a loving relationship. I am fully aware that if things end badly with Anna and I that she could get all my stuff and that is a risk I am willing to take to have the kind of relationship I want.

Paul misses Anna

Gee, I felt the same way as you... until I saw her TRYING to get all my stuff when things ended badly...

Then I was very glad I'm in a community property state, and that I had bought the cars and most of my other property prior to the marriage so they were "sole and separate".. and that I had kept a moderate level of debt after marriage, from the acquiring of the house, so she couldn't walk away with more $1,000's in appreciated equity from the house than what she actually got...

Amazingly, a friend of mine in another state, also a community property state, told his Russian immigrant wife about our divorce... she asked him "how much will he have to give her every month?". He told her "nothing...".

He told me her jaw fell on the floor, she was astonished because she thought after American divorce, husband has to send wife a check every month...

funny the stuff they hear, from each other, ya know???

-- Dan

Edited October 23, 2006 by PurrSuede

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I've noticed some assumptions made here about division of property upon divorce. State laws vary, and in "Community Property" states where property owned previous to the marriage is defined as separate property, a pre-nup is irrelevant if the assets you are concerned about are owned before the marriage.

At last reckoning, there are only 9 states that are community property states. Hmm. Not necessarily true on the separate assets either. Indeed, property owned before marriage would be deemed separate in a community property state, but let's say, for instance, that community property (income) is used to maintain that separate asset. Then effectively, co-mingling can be a bit of a problem, with resepct to equity ....

[john_and_marlene 162]

I've noticed some assumptions made here about division of property upon divorce. State laws vary, and in "Community Property" states where property owned previous to the marriage is defined as separate property, a pre-nup is irrelevant if the assets you are concerned about are owned before the marriage.

Even in community property states, in the absence of a prenuptual agreement, separate property may be converted to marital property. It happened to me.

[anya-D 8]

I've never a big fan of a pre-nup as it's not widely acceptable in my culture.. even with my family - if they know i've sign a prenup they might as well prevent me from marrying my husband!

But I sign it anyway.. becasue my pre-nup is not just about him.. but it protect me too. we discuss this before we decide to get married and the first time i heard it i wasnt so thrill (coz the only pre-nup i know is from the TV lol) anyway.. when we talked about it and he asked me what i want to have in there we just sit down and write it together. It's also include that if in case we have children he wants them to be where he could be close to both of us still (in the US so to speak) either with me or with him and that in case of something might have come up we wouldnt run and get a divorce but will try our best to solve a problem and give it a long time before we decide to divorce (and about other things too)... i

t's more like a written promiss... from both of us... and it doesnt makes me feel like we are setting for failaur as we both wanted to grow old together. and it gives me a different perspective about pre-nup.

just my thought