Marriage question for the ladies.
 

Ok.

Say you were going out with a man with a huge monetary advantage over you. You make a decent wage but he is just rich.

He treats you great, he adores you. You are head over heels for him.

After a couple of years you realize that he won't marry you. He will live with you forever, maybe even share some things in both your names. He'll even have kids with you and draw up a contract that makes sure they are taken care of. But he won't get legally married to you.

The reason: He knows if something goes wrong that you could take a huge chunk of his net worth in a divorce. A networth that he made without your help.

The question is: Would you stay with him anyway ? Or would you let that little reason tear you apart?

Using your scenario, the man’s wealth would not automatically be protected. Several factors would come into play, including jurisdiction and what, if anything, the girlfriend/lover/whatever contributed to the relationship after they were together. The guy would also be responsible for child support. Anyways, in a case like this, there would probably be a little shifting of wealth in the direction of a few good lawyers. Setting the potential legal problems aside, if it were me, I wouldn’t stay in such a relationship. I guess I’m a bit old fashioned. This is an interesting question.

Another answer would be to see if he wouldn't mind having a prenup drawn up so then you could get married, otherwise I'd have to agree that I would leave the relationship.

Hmmm.....

Now, without the introduction of children, I can see myself not minding getting married. Because if there was children, I would demand a marriage. I wouldn't want my children growing up with the, "My mom and dad live together but aren't married" ordeal, I just couldn't do it.

Also, why would I want to be with someone who already doesn't think we will work out?

I'd be outta there!

But, we gotta sign a prenup anyway. That's life.

I'd leave his sorry ass regardless of his money.

I respect your opinion but why is he a sorry ass? And if he is a great mate, is that one piece of paper so much of a validation that you have to leave him?

I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting the traditional validation of a life long relationship. Even though I'd leave the relationship, or hopefully never allow myself to get so deeply involved in the first place, if the guy is a sorry ass, what would the girl be in this situation?

But what about a prenup?

I think he's a sorry ass because he cares more about his money than he does about us.

If he'd consider a pre-nap, I would do it, but I think that takes the romance out of things. I think a pre-nup dictates a lack of trust.

How good are they?

Also, what if the guy is entering a career where his income will dramatically outstrip his wife's.

He might not want his assets or future assets in jeopardy.

I think there is nothing wrong with wanting a traditonal life. And certainly marriage is part of that tradition.

However, romance aside, marriage has a whole other side to it caused by the State's involvement. The legal and economic aspects of Marriage have daunting and often underestimated consequences that people don't think about when they are starting out.

What if the situation were reversed?

My sister is wealthy & has two children. She has said that while she may decide to have another child, she's not sure she would get married w/out a prenup b/c of her $$$. She wants to make sure no guy is marrying her for her money.

Common law spouses in some states have the same claims to money that legally married couples do. In this case a Prenup would make sense, as the woman could prove common law marriage and still get a portion of the dough, if she so desired.

I don't understand why he wouldn't just sign a prenup.

But no, I wouldn't have a big problem with this situation.

Co-sign

It's understandable for someone with wealth to want to protect what he/she has but, in your scenario, that person is already planning for the demise of the relationship and putting his/her pocketbook first.