Pre-nups

[smoke20 0]

I don't think that's an accurate statement. I know plenty of American women, including myself, who would be insulted.

In my opinion, if one party is so insulted by a pre-nup, it is THEY who may have the doubts about the relationship, or may have alterior motives. Assuming the soon-to-be marriage is based upon love, it really doesn't matter what papers are signed beforehand; the marriage will last forever so it will in the end be a moot point.

Oh but it so *does* matter to me. IMO, asking someone to sign a prenup is a sign of mistrust.

[rebeccajo 14]

My boss' (an attorney) didn't want to ask his wife (a nursing student with two kids from prior relationships) to sign a pre-nup.

She insisted on having one. She wouldn't marry him without it. In her opinion, if the marriage failed she was leaving it with what she came in with - the two kids.

They drew one up, signed it, and are still together.

I wouldn't be offended if I was asked properly. Emotionally I'd probably be a bit miffed, but I'm too practical to let it get the best of me.

The tricky question might be...how do you approach the subject?

[JoeMama 0]

When divorce happens, there's no winners. Except for lawyers. Both spouses lose out. Especially, the children if they are involved. I spent $20,000 and it wasted 1.5 years of my time having to fight all the bullshit and accusations in court. But I got all 3 of my daughters. That is what was more important to me. If you feel that you must protect yourself, your children (if any are present now and future), and what you have worked hard for all your life before meeting your girlfriend, then by all means, do what you think is necessary Bill. Sure, everyone speaks of trust, mentioning a pre-nup is insulting, etc. But who knows exactly what the future will bring about for any relationship. Whether you are doubting your relationship, a person can't always allow their heart to make decisions. That is why we have a brain. We either use it or lose it.

On a personal note, doing a pre-nup for me would be pointless. My divorce completely wiped out what financial plans I had for the future for myself, my 3 daughters, as well as, personal assests. I have to start all over again. 11 years of hard work right down the toilet. My fiancee and I will be having to do this together for both of us and our children. What we earn together will have to be split together if something was to happen.

Now, if I had emassed a big fortune and assests, absolutely I would present a pre-nup. It's not mistrust. It's the future of my children that I would be thinking about.

Even if you did mention the pre-nup and she agreed to it without being insulted, that would tell me your fiancee actually cares for the relationship. All I can do is wish you the best as you try to find the right proceedure to approach it.

Edited July 30, 2007 by JoeMama

[doug & angel 0]

You need to check your state laws each state makes up its own rules .. the trend has been though that they become less enforceable over time. Since your in hawaii a quick google search shows that your state practices the form of prenup which has to be executed in front of a office of the court which means a trip to the attorneys office for both of you ..

Here is my lay opinion on how to deal with the subject if your assets are disproportionate and there are concerns about them. You can create one which sunsets over time .. These are the ones which appear to be the most enforceable and the least emotionally damaging ... in effect you establish the asset list which you want protected .. (stocks, shares in an LLC, etc) and set a time limit . 5, 10 whatever years where if they still exist in situ that they will become community property outside of the normal mechanics of your estate.

[trailmix 77]

I don't think that's an accurate statement. I know plenty of American women, including myself, who would be insulted.

In my opinion, if one party is so insulted by a pre-nup, it is THEY who may have the doubts about the relationship, or may have alterior motives. Assuming the soon-to-be marriage is based upon love, it really doesn't matter what papers are signed beforehand; the marriage will last forever so it will in the end be a moot point.

Oh but it so *does* matter to me. IMO, asking someone to sign a prenup is a sign of mistrust. To others, that may not be the case and that's fine. Two people who are not compatible on this issue may just not be suited for each other.

Really these are all valid points of view, the bottom line is each person will feel differently about the issue, some would think it is smart for both parties, some would find it hurtful and some it wouldn't faze.

The question is, what kind of person is your fiancee'? I suspect from your question that you feel it would hurt her feelings. If you think it will, you are probably right. You just have to decide if it is worth it to you to hurt her feelings (I'm not saying it is or isn't, that's for you to decide). Good luck with your decision.

[rebeccajo 14]

You need to check your state laws each state makes up its own rules .. the trend has been though that they become less enforceable over time. Since your in hawaii a quick google search shows that your state practices the form of prenup which has to be executed in front of a office of the court which means a trip to the attorneys office for both of you ..

Here is my lay opinion on how to deal with the subject if your assets are disproportionate and there are concerns about them. You can create one which sunsets over time .. These are the ones which appear to be the most enforceable and the least emotionally damaging ... in effect you establish the asset list which you want protected .. (stocks, shares in an LLC, etc) and set a time limit . 5, 10 whatever years where if they still exist in situ that they will become community property outside of the normal mechanics of your estate.

I think that might mean a trip before a judge?

[mawilson 2,133]

In America, this conversation wouldn't phase or insult a girl one bit, it's just smart for both parties to discuss these sorts of things BEFORE marriage.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. I know plenty of American women, including myself, who would be insulted.

Probably because you have no significant assets to protect.

[doug & angel 0]

Oh but it so *does* matter to me. IMO, asking someone to sign a prenup is a sign of mistrust. [...]

I can't speak to this situation, but I can to one near my own .. In a partnership I was involved in from the past the LLC *required* that any of the partners getting married (or even cohabitation) with someone secure a prenuptial or habitation of convenience document to protect the companies interest. As the company grew, shares would be distributed out to the partnership and thus would be community property inside of a marriage. As it turned out, it was needed as one of the minor partners (woman) had a considerably younger fiancee (man) who in the deepest love of her :sarcasm: when he found out that he would never share control of the company, dropped her like a hot rock two days after reading the agreement.

[Jenn! 918]

In America, this conversation wouldn't phase or insult a girl one bit, it's just smart for both parties to discuss these sorts of things BEFORE marriage.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. I know plenty of American women, including myself, who would be insulted.

Probably because you have no significant assets to protect.

You know what they say about assumptions.

And you're way off base anyway. It's the principle of the matter. It has nothing to do with how much money either partner has.

ETA: What the fukc is your problem anyway? Leave me alone.

Edited July 30, 2007 by jenn3539

[mawilson 2,133]

And you're way off base anyway. It's the principle of the matter. It has nothing to do with how much money either partner has.

If there's no money to protect, there's no need for a prenup, is there?

ETA: What the fukc is your problem anyway? Leave me alone.

Are you talking to me?

[Jasman0717 9]

If you have a lot of assets then get one. I elected to not do a pre-nup but Claudeth didn't have a problem signing one. I do have a living trust and will that will meet my needs.

[Jenn! 918]

And you're way off base anyway. It's the principle of the matter. It has nothing to do with how much money either partner has.

If there's no money to protect, there's no need for a prenup, is there?

ETA: What the fukc is your problem anyway? Leave me alone.

Are you talking to me?

Yes, I was talking to you.

Duh, if there's no money to protect, there's no need for a prenup. My point is that if there are assets to protect (and you're in no position to make specualtions about my assets or lack thereof thank you very much), that does not necessarily mean that a person will feel the need to request a prenup. I know women who have more assets than their future husbands that would not dream of asking them to sign a prenup.

So I don't know what your brilliant point is.

[smoke20 0]

whats ETA mean?

[mawilson 2,133]

Duh, if there's no money to protect, there's no need for a prenup. My point is that if there are assets to protect (and you're in no position to make specualtions about my assets or lack thereof thank you very much), that does not necessarily mean that a person will feel the need to request a prenup. I know women who have more assets than their future husbands that would not dream of asking them to sign a prenup.

So I don't know what your brilliant point is.

It does in most cases - that was my point.

If you think that it doesn't, then you probably don't have THAT much to protect.

[Jenn! 918]

Duh, if there's no money to protect, there's no need for a prenup. My point is that if there are assets to protect (and you're in no position to make specualtions about my assets or lack thereof thank you very much), that does not necessarily mean that a person will feel the need to request a prenup. I know women who have more assets than their future husbands that would not dream of asking them to sign a prenup.

So I don't know what your brilliant point is.

It does in most cases - that was my point.

If you think that it doesn't, then you probably don't have THAT much to protect.

Seems then that the superrich should probably only be marrying the superrich.