Pre nuptual Agreement...?
 

Had an interesting call over the weekend.

My cousin called to give good news....her boyfriend of 5 years finally proposed to her and she accepted.

We are all happy for them of course and she is excited but then, she tells me that he brought up the question of getting a pre nuptual agreement.

Here is the twist on it.

- She is making more money that he is, which he has no problems with.

- His idea is that the pre nup should be good for 5 years and if thier marriage survives beyond that, let the agreement dissolve.

his ideology is that he want's to do this to protect her just in case something happens. They are an otherwise happy couple with no hang ups and 2 wonderful kids but he acknowledges how marriage changes people and God forbid if something happened and they divorce, it could get really bad.

One of thier other friends that we all know had a really ugly divorce after only 4 years but had been together for 10 and as far as we know are still fighting over property.

I told her, I think it may be a good idea...I especially like the part of it not being a long lasting agreement and I told her if that is his way of thinking, I don't think he is being selfish but in a way, pragmatic about the situation and perhaps should at least look into it.

Any thoughts or opinions?

I say go for it.

Honestly, I see the practicality of a pre-nup...especially in situations where one person is making significantly more than the other person, BUT if you go into a marriage that cynical, or with an easy "out" it doesn't bode well for the marriage. I went into my marriage with the expectation that it was going to be difficult, but lasting. I knew that marriage is not easy or magic, but hard work, and worth it. There are times when I'd love to strangle my husband, but I still wouldn't trade him for anything. I might feel different if millions of dollars were involved, but I still doubt it.

that's the thing...she does have a lot more than he does and owns 2 peices of property.

I met him and he is a really likeable guy and just trying to right himself in the world.....I personally think they would last but....you never know

If they're planning on getting married in the Catholic church (dunno, you didn't mention?), then they may refuse to do the ceremony if you have a pre-nup. My future husband and I found this out through our pre-marriage classes. They say that it indicates a lack of commitment to the relationship. It is, however, permitted in cases where two widowers are marrying, and then it is to protect the inheritance of any children from the previous marriage.

Not that he and I were going to have one, we're both equally broke.

nope...Baptist...heheh

I dunno? I kinna agree with AlphaFrog. Unless one spouse is exceptionally rich and famous, I could understand the pre-nup. However, if both are not filthy rich or famous, and they are of moderate income, then I don't see the need for a pre-nup.

A better choice is to go to a financial advisor that will walk a couple through their budgets and see how well the expenses will be shared and those that are not.

Either way, married couples get tax penalized unless they have great CPA's doing their taxes... The Franchise Tax Board of California went after me during our first year of marriage. I was so worried they would take money from my husband who has NEVER lived or worked in the State of California... Fortunately, I paid off the fools and we never heard from them again.

If there are kids involved, or ANY family property, you should have a pre-nup, even to note that the property stays in the family in the event that the owning spouse predeceases the other.

I agree.

And as for her owning "2 pieces of property," she should consult with a lawyer about property and domestic laws in the state where she lives. These laws can vary a great deal from state to state. In some states, property she owns prior to the marriage remains hers unless she deeds a portion of it to him. She shouldn't assume anything there.

As for the 5-year part, I don't see much value in that. So what if at 3 1/2 years, he's figured out he wants out. What's to keep him from hanging around until the 5-year mark has been passed?

I agree with your cousin. Depending on what state the property is in, without a pre-nup, the husband has equal rights to the properties. In some states, you have Dower Rights, in others Community Property. To throw a twist into it, certain states will have equal rights for the primary residence only. However, there are states where the "what's mine is mine" rule applies.

Without knowing the details, I would do the same if I were in her situation. I am unmarried (have always been single) and have three properties. I live in a Dower Rights state, so a potential spouse would only have rights to my primary residence, BUT that would be half ownership.

Your cousin is smart to keep it simple and clean.

Get the pre-nup......

^^^ Interestingly, some states have "Covenant Marriage Licenses". Couples cannot get divorced for irreconcilable differences. Folks can divorce due to abandonment, abuse, gross monetary mismanagement, felony convictions or one other item. However the licensing folks told us that folks can still get divorced and the lawyers make alot of money...

Don't forget, a few states still don't offer "no-fault" divorces...

All of this goes to why cousin simply cannot make an informed decision without talking to a lawyer who can advise her on the laws in the state where she lives, and why no one here can give any advice other than as to what kind of tone it sets for starting the marriage off.

She probably isn't, and will not be, making enough money for a prenuptial agreement to be necessary. A lot of people talk prenup to overestimate their income and wealth reality or potential, and also as a way of being a complete self-important asshole.

As far as I'm concerned, prenuptial agreements are for substantial income and wealth differentials in which people want to agree to a set distribution if things don't work out. It is unfortunate that people are looking forward to things not working out. But, the prenup shouldn't be applied to people who are just breaking 100K-200K a year but have no wealth accumulated. That's still a paycheck from broke, as far as I'm concerned. Some people are even obnoxious enough to do a prenup because they make 80K a year and their future spouse makes 50K--making more than someone who makes a relatively small amount isn't a substantial enough income differential for a prenup.

Now as for splitting up the property, although I still think prenups are a sucky concept, that makes more sense. But not if they only have 1 house that neither owned before getting married. Only if there is substantial property to be broken up--especially a house that's worth more than 100K. I think couples need to see what the nature of their breakup is before assuming that the person with all the money and property is not going to be the reason for the breakup--i.e. infedility.

You know what they say about assuming....and actually she does make more than enough that a pre nup probably wouldn't be a bad idea.


And again...it was HIS idea....so in my eyes...he was far from being a 'self important asshole'

let's face it...in this day and age...marriages don't last like they used to and divorce proceedings sometimes last longer than the marriage. And they tend to bring the ugliness out of people...at least I think they are looking at reality on both ends and trying to find a way thru should they have to go down that road.

No one should ever have to think about going down that road but with a 50/50 chance that you might, get it on the table and pack a canteen.....

I think their chances are actually better than 50/50. I know that the "50% of all marriages end in divorce" statistic gets thrown around a lot, but even if it is accurate, you have to remember that it includes people like my friend who is on his fourth marriage. Between him and me as it currently stands, 60% of all marriages end in divorce.

I think the odds on a first marriage are indeed better than 50/50.

[/sidetrack]

Very true. My aunt's got her claws sunk in to #5. Well, actually marriage #5, but guy #4. She married and divorced the same guy twice.:rolleyes::D

as long as they have been together and all that they have been thru...I personally hope they are that one couple that stays together...period....hehehe

All well and good, but the last statistics I saw showed that 80% of couples who live together over a year prior to marriage end up divorced. I really would have thought it was the other way around.

I'd go for the pre-nup, and not limit it. Donald Trump limited his pre-nup to Marla Maples to five years, and he filed with one month left of the five years. It's always better to know where you stand before a marriage before the family law attornies ending up with ALL of the money!

If you insist. My points stand. ;)

yeah and thank u for ur 2 cents.......

We must be related! My aunt is a serial bride. Actualy, guy 2 and 3 were the same.

how about one of my friends has been married 5 times.....

got married to number 5 last year


and she is just turning 40......


Hmmm....I need to call and se if she is still marrried...I got a bet running


really...I do.

I have always said there should be a law after 2. Everyone is allowed one mistake, but 3, 4, 5 mistakes! Come on, we are not all Liz Taylor.

You started the thread. :)

I think that pre-nups are a good thing.

It's important to establish ownership of property/items acquired before the marriage so that in the event the relationship goes sour, only items acquired during the marriage are taken into consideration as "joint property."

Unfortunately, I seen some beautiful, romantic relationships turn super ugly within years where the couple starts fighting over everything.

A pre-nup can also protect a spouse from garnishment of wages in the case of child support. I know a few ladies who are playing child support because the 'baby's mama' took the man back to court when he got married.

So, the court took the entire household income into consideration when establishing child support payments. Now those ladies wished that they had a legal agreement with their spouses in terms of what they were financially willing to folk over for their step-children.

In some places, there have been court rulings where, say the one who has other children they are paying child support for dies, the surviving spouse would legally have to take over and pay.

I need to find that article...

Again, the laws in some states already provide that property acquired prior to the marriage remains "individual" rather than "joint," unless the spouse who owns it does something to demonstrate that he or she wishes it to be joint property.

What difference does it make? If you're not #6 , why should it matter how many times Jack or Jill has been married? (Unless, of course, you're about to marry Jack, who has been divorced five times, and he hasn't told you about it. In that case, I can see the benefit of having a disclosure law, but that's another thread.)

I didn't realize that the Catholic church won't marry a couple who has a pre-nup. That's interesting... I wonder what the Scientologists think. :p

Why? Because some people habitually clog up our legal system due to thinking with their eh-hem rather than their head too early in a relationship.

A friend from college had a "starter marriage"- they married right out of college and were married for around 2 years before they decided to divorce. Since neither one had any assets or money, they ended up doing a "do-it-yourself divorce"- no lawyers were involved. They filled out all of their own paperwork and represented themselves the one time they actually had to appear in court. I think it only cost them $100 in filing and court fees. Not sureif you could do that in all states (This was Ohio).

As for the pre-nup, I like the idea of the experation date in theory, but it could get a little sticky if they decide to pull a Donald Trump. I don;t know if you can put in any other continencies- such as they have to go to couseling before separating (and if they don't then the prenup holds) or something.

wait. they have children - together, right? not from previous relationships? i don't see how a prenup is going to be advantageous for anyone here.

Lots of people do the "do it yourself" divorce thing, I know several couples who were married for 15-20 years who have done it, just to save money.

I know you can do a no-frills dissolusion for filing and court costs in Ohio, but I think it's around $400 and a one-month process. Still, it's too easy.

Luckily, it takes longer to disolve a marriage than get into one. Maybe it will encourage couples to think about their vows it a little bit before pulling the plug.

This doesn't have anything to do with a pre-nup....I know in some states, when children are involved, parental counseling is required.

Pre nupts are common when property and spousal support is involved...children very rarely have nothing to do with any pre marital contracts.

here is something interesting

A sunset provision may be inserted into a prenuptial agreement, specifying that after a certain amount of time, the agreement will expire. In a few states, such as Maine, the agreement will automatically lapse after the birth of a child, unless the parties renew the agreement. In other states, a certain number of years of marriage will cause a prenuptial agreement to lapse. In states that have adopted the UPAA (Uniform Prenuptial Agreement Act), no sunset provision is provided by statute, but one could be privately contracted for.

http://www.answers.com/topic/prenuptial?cat=biz-fin

NOTHING =/= ANYTHING

I know you're trying to keep up your ghetto rep here, but you just gave your sentence the exact opposite meaning. Please, learn to express yourself correctly.

?? ghetto ??

Excuse you??


How about the fact it was just a simple typo because I didn't bother to re-read what I typed?

Pobody is Nerfect <-----translate that

what next ... you wanna put gold fronts in my mouf <----intentional spelling error BTW

Oh wow, AlphaFrog. :rolleyes: