The Pre-Nup

Name: Dased | Location: NY , NY |Question: Hi,

Enjoyed your blog for quite some time. I read it almost every day. Okay here it is. Been dating someone whom I believed was great, got engaged recently. In the middle of wedding planning (coming up soon), he drops the prenup bomb. I didn’t see it coming. I don’t believe in them, at all. I hate what it represents, basically a plan for failure, for divorce. I have to say, I was shocked that we come from different principals and belief system. But I guess when you have more, you want to make sure you retain it (also a sad thought). Am I being too emotional? What should I do? 37
|Age: 37

I actually read this question to P. today and he said that he expects his fiancee to sign a pre-nup. I wasn't sure if he was digging or looking for a reaction. Not that I had one, because you bet your ass I'd ask for a pre-nup, too. And it would include future earnings as well.Who knows where this will all take me?

I can't say you're being too emotional, but I will say that you might be a little naive. I think pre-nups are far more common than you think and actually necessary depending on the assets involved. Divorces can be ug-ly. I think maybe you're taking his request for  a pre-nup as a sign that he doesn't think things will work out. Which is totally natural and the first place anyone would go, I think. I think he's just being practical. That's how you have to look at it. And practical? Is a good thing. He's thinking ahead.

Now, this is a great question for Craig.

YOUR THOUGHTS?

Comments

[Before Sunrise]

Pre-nups are very common nowadays and I don't see a reason to be offended or shocked by it. I get that it's not romantic, but it's realistic. Don't see this as a way to measure yours and his love, look at it as something that will put your minds at ease and you won't have to ask yourself "what if" when making financial decisions during your marriage. I see it as something that needs to be done, sort of like life insurance - you may never use it, but it's good to know it's there.

[SD]

You could also use it as a jump of to talk about expectations after the ceremony. Most people do something like that in pre-wedding counseling. It's a time to iron sticky wickets like the fact that after the wedding, he expects you to turn into June Cleaver or something totally opposite of your personality because his mother was. Or, it could be you have the unrealistic expectations that he will suddenly embody all the positive traits of dear old dad. Whether you talk about it or not, people often have notions about married life that may or may not be correct and may or may not make the transition difficult.

Pre-nups can also be good for you in nailing things down like, you don't have to pay him back for paying off your student loans if you get divorced ;-)

i would never sign a prenup unless it was family money or unless he ran a publicly-held corporation and it was mandated by the corporation's charter.

[Amy]

I got married 6 months ago at 49. He's 52. We both have almost-grown kids. We met with a lawyer about getting a prenup drawn up, along with new wills, which every couple should make also, especially if there are children involved.
It turned out the prenup meant a lot of different things than I thought, and was very different than my preconceptions. And I thought I was reasonably educated about them, which is why I wanted one. It turned out in our situation it really wasn't necessary, however in yours it may be. I think it is very closed minded to refuse outright without having full information about what the document means and what the parameters of it would be. It could protect you in some ways, and is about more than just preparing for divorce. With people marrying later and bringing more assets to the marriage, protection and clear understanding is important to everyone. It is not romantic, yet neither is having a will made, getting life insurance, being tested for STDs or an annual PAP test. But all are part of being a responsible adult. I would say at the very least, go to the lawyer and discuss it. It shouldn't be the document itself that you object to, but rather the terms of the document. At least see what he proposes they will be.
If my potential spouse had a knee-jerk reaction to the idea, it wouldn't make me think better of them.
Good luck!

[Steve from the city next door]

I would definately recommend at least finding out about them. Yes, as everyone said, it is un-romantic. I would generally recommend them. In fact if I was marrying someone I would certainly have second thoughts if they were refusing to have one.

That said, through my parent's neighbor's recent experiance, they do not always mean that much. The divorce judge decieded how to divide things as he saw fit with little regard to the pre-nup. He awarded things as he saw fit even if the person was not asking for it.

[KSR]

I think that especially when you get to be in your mid/late 30s, a prenup should be considered. Chances are, you both bring considerable assets into the marriage. It's just a smart thing to do. I am wondering if she also knows that much about them, or is reacting based on what her family has said about the subject.

I think the poster is being too emotional. I would suggest putting the emotions aside and talk about this and other areas regarding your financial future.

[b]

There is a great book called "Prenups for Lovers: A Romantic Guide to Prenuptial Agreements" by Arlene Dubin. Read it. It's not long, but it covers most situations, is easy to read, and takes away all the misconceptions. Go to Amazon and read the excerpt and reviews.

The best thing about a prenup is that it overrides whatever crazy divorce laws your state might try to put you through if the worst happens. New York's are the harshest, so prenups are a must in this state, in my opinion. But you have to be careful and do it right. You have to disclose everything (assets and liabilities) to each other, or the agreement can be invalidated. You also have to each have your own lawyer look at it. You can't share a lawyer, except to draw it up. Otherwise, again, it could look like one person was coerced.

As the book points out, looking after each other in the event of the worst unforeseen circumstances is a loving act, and it's something you should work out together when you're in love and wanting the best and most fair arrangement, should anything happen that changes your plan to spend the rest of your lives together.

Think about it. People don't buy insurance because they are betting their partner will get sick or be in a debilitating accident. They aren't being cynical when they buy a life insurance policy that will kick in if the worst happens. They buy insurance because, if the worst does happen, they want to make sure their loved one will not have to suffer unnecessary trauma and hardship due to circumstances beyond their control. It's the same with a prenup. You want to make sure that, should the worst happen, neither of you is going to be put through hell by a massive legal system and the greed and well-meaning but poorly-informed or biased viewpoints of others. The emotional horror of breaking up a marriage is painful enough. You don't want to be at each other's mercy and that of lawyers and family and friends advising each side about what each of you "deserves" during such a time. That's where the real ugliness comes from, not to mention tremendous expense in legal fees at a time when you're not thinking clearly and not able to be objective or fair with each other.

Take care of each other now, while you are fair minded and looking out for each other's best interest. (Hopefully, that will never change.) It's an act of love. Hopefully, you will never need to look at it again, any more than you will need to access that insurance policy.

[Ally]

I think the person who wrote the email is having an expected response--and not responding too emotionally. I think it's pretty disconcerting to have something like that come up after the proposal.

[BB]

A friend of mine is going through a nasty divorce; his wife is fighting for his premarriage assets, its costs them over a 100k in legal fees already; I'm completely for them .......I bet you he wishes she signed those papers......

[SFsingleton]

I think they just need to make sure they are both comfortable with the results and that it reflects their understanding of the how the marriage will operatere. I think pre-marriage assets are a no-brainer, but income during marriage can be a huge issue. Deciding how to deal with that depends on whether they are planning to have either of them stop working if they have kids, or if one of them has a 'more important' career where it is understood that the other would quit his/her job to move wherever the other needed to be for work.

[figleaf]

Call me a prudish libertine but anyone who calls anything as deadly serious as a prenuptial agreement a "pre-nup" probably should reconsider getting married at all. I have a theory (formed from observations of numerous successful and unsuccessful marriage arrangements) that using the word "pre-nup" is almost as sure an indicator that the marriage won't last as playing "Stairway to Heaven" at any point during the wedding ceremony. (Evidently wedding photographer claim that if Stairway's in the program he asks for payment in advance.)

That's not to say you shouldn't consider drawing up and signing such documents together, especially if you have or anticipate substantial asset differences or think there's a high probability you'll divorce. But bottom line? If you're going to give it a cutsie nickname you'll probably wind up needing the actual document too.

figleaf

[Ryan]

It's insurance, in case something happens!!

Ok , you don't believe in it, probably because you don't bring much to the table financially!

So lets say you actually get married and your husband says "Honey, I don't believe in life insurance. I hate what it represents. I'm not going to get a policy to protect you." Are you going to object to that?

Or "Car insurance, that stuff is stupid, I'm a great driver, why do I need that?"

Or "Health insurance is for sick people, we are completely healthy and just like our marriage our health will always be fantatstic, no need to get health insurance or visit the doctor ever, because like our marriage we will out last everyone."

Or "Home owners insurance, What? Who needs that? That represents a natural disaster or fire is going to destroy our home. What are the odds? Let's not bother with that aspect of the payment because that will never happen to us."

See how ridiculous it is NOT to have a prenuptual agreement? Would you be a bit upset if he didn't plan every other aspect of his life? I'm assuming he is somewhat successful. He didn't get there overnight and honestly things happen in relationship to change them. He doesn't want to lose it over night.

I'm sure he loves you dearly. I'm sure he love himself dearly when he took out the life insurance policy too. He doesn't want the relationship to deteriorate, but if it does, he doesn't want to fight for what he has worked so hard for up the point of saying "I DO".

Regardless of what you think it represents, if you don't sign it, you probably won't be getting married anyway. Because he probably is going to think that all you really want to do is take him to the cleaners.

[WO7]

The fact that you're so against it sends off warning bells in my brain that you're looking for your insurance policy in case their's a divorce. Like other's have said...I'm guessing you're not the one bringing more money to the table?

[Crotch Rocket]

Yeah, it's unromantic. Welcome to marriage. If everything _does_ work out, in 20-30 years you're going to be changing each others' diapers; that's not so romantic either. In 40 years one of you (most likely you, given life expectancies) is going to be putting the other in the ground; that's not so romantic either. Life isn't all roses and kittens.

By your age, you should have your own assets you're looking to protect, not just him. And if you don't, or yours are significantly less than his, can you really blame someone for wanting an insurance policy that says he gets to keep what's his if the worst happens? Don't you want ot keep what's yours? As others have said, this is just another insurance policy, and unlike auto insurance, this is for something that you'll have a 50% chance of needing within 5 years. What sane person _wouldn't_ buy a policy in that case?

I'm in my 20s, and there's no way in hell I'll ever say "I do" without a pre-nup. Is that planning to fail? Not at all. I desperately want to believe in "till death do us part." But I know many people do not, and most of the people I know who did believe it ended up getting divorced anyways. Some of those without prenups didn't exactly get taken to the cleaners by their wives, but several went through multi-year battles where the lawyers ended up taking _both_ spouses to the cleaners. The odds are just too damned high for me to risk my life's savings, retirement plan, potential kids, etc. to a hopelessly romantic notion that I, in the end, have little control over.

There's no harm in listening to what a lawyer has to say. I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised with the terms that he's looking for; after all, you're still at a point in the relationship where you're in love and want to be fair with each other. Better to spend a few bucks now to save a few hundred thousand bucks later, even if it takes a little bit of the shine off the relationship -- but that shine doesn't last much past the honeymoon anyways. Think of it as a chance to see how the two of you can settle something that's unpleasant to _both_ of you. If you can't get through this and still be crazy about each other, you don't belong together at an altar in the first place.

Crotch Rocket, perhaps I am misreading your comment but the last line in the second to last paragraph you mention potential kids. To the very best of my knowledge that is ONE thing you cannot put in a prenup anything to do with custody of children nor child support like there will be no child support.

Everyone here who is successful with a lot of money, and I take people at their word so it seems as though a lot of successful people read here, learn from the Master of Prenups, Mr. Donald Trump, and he took a couple prenups himself to learn - It could be the Man or Woman, whoever has the most to lose, if you contest this prenup YOU will be responsible for my legal fees as well as your own. He learned that one from Ivana as she cost him tons in legal fees contesting so both Marla and Melania had that written into their prenups.

Craig - Where are you today - Your Expertise is needed on this one big time!

[Crotch Rocket]

Anon@9:37: My state allows parents to make an "alternative arrangement" on custody/support; it still has to pass muster in family court, but that's not a challenge if you do it right. However, spouses cannot execute a contract with each other, so it has to be part of the pre-nup if you're getting married -- even if the kids aren't conceived yet. There's similar challenges with wills.

Out laws are actually pretty good, though; most people in other states (like NY) need a pre-nup just to get all the rights and protections that we get as a matter of law. My interest is mainly in reducing legal fees, since that's the real killer here (often consuming over half the community assets), and to add a provision for "separation" since our state doesn't have that concept -- standard stuff that anyone would have a hard time arguing with if they thought about it instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the word "pre-nup". I'm not out to screw anyone, and our courts would toss a pre-nup out for being "unfair" if I tried.

[karen]

True kids change everything. My ex husband could have signed a prenup with his current wife but she would not get everything as he has other minor children. If you marry someone who stays home and raises kids and has no income for several years before the divorce, the prenup does not guarantee you walk away with all you walked in with. As for me, if I remarried I would want what I have earned and owned be left for my kids. Yet some laws state that the spouse has the right to my assets despite a Will. It can all be challenged. I agree that a Prenup is good and hash out what could potentially happen as circumstances change. I'm not at all against prenup but I've seen situations where the Prenup does not always prevail.

Crotch Rocket, I honestly did not know that any states did "alternative arrangement" on custody/support. Will that actually allow for deciding custody upon divorce in a prenup agreement?

This is a little off topic but I was just curious to your opinion on a subject that comes up here on this blog once in awhile. I believe you are one who has said you don't have any preconceived ideas on when it is right to sleep with someone. If a girl sleeps with you on date 1, 3, 7 or whatever you don't think differently. Do you have a set thought process in your head that " I will continue to use condoms until such and such" so as not to get tricked into fatherhood before you choose. With Tom Brady just recently finding out he is going to be a father "not with his intent" it got me thinking. I always told my brothers "Do not believe anyone about birth control for a very long time". There is NO EXCUSE for girls/women getting pregnant "On Accident" and YET there is Tom Brady with a new girl friend and he will become a father to the child to be born of the old girlfriend. I respect your opinions and that is just why I am curious to know at what point to you trust that a girl/woman won't trick you into fatherhood? Hopefully you don't mind my asking you this question. Also I have gathered when you said your nephews will give you back your old toys when you have kids that at some point you want them but I am guessing you don't want someone else giving you a timetable that should be decided together.

It is my hope that one day men won't get "Tricked" or whatever you want to call it into fatherhood but I don't see that happening in our lifetime as it doesn't seem to have changed much over the years. And for all those who want to say it takes two, as a woman I knew what I needed to do if I did not want to get pregnant as does every other female and yet you hear all these stories even today.

[Craig]

It's funny, but in my experience as a matrimonial lawyer, it's always the spouse with no money that objects to a pre-nup or anti-nup (it's a little-known fact that you can do them AFTER you get married too). Now why do you suppose that is? Moving on, that illustrious poet Kanye West said it best in his hit song "Gold Digger". To quote him, a pre-nup is "GEICO for your money". Truer words were never said. They are like any other insurance: you hope never need it, but having it is piece of mind if you do.

Now all the romantics among you can swear up and down that you'll never sign one, but here's some reality for you: the divorce rate in this country is approaching 60%. This means if you get married, odds are in favor of you getting a divorce. Who here wants to bet half their shit on worse than 50/50 odds? If someone wants you to sign a pre-nup, don't take it personally. Marriage is a legal contract (that's why you need a judge to break that contract). Think of any pre or ante-nup agreements as amendments to that contract, not a fear of divorce. A contested divorce can run you as much as $100k in NYC. If you are the monied spouse, you may have to pay for BOTH parties lawyers, expert witnesses, etc. A pre-nup will cost you a couple grand. Do the math.

That said, these agreements are not ironclad. If they are so patently one-sided it's unconsciable, a judge will invalidate them. For example, if a rich spouse has one that gives the other spouse so little that it leaves them on welfare, that agreement is toast. Now I'm not going to tell anyone whether they should or shouldn't get one of these agreements. All I can do is provide some facts and data and leave it up to each individual to decide for themselves based on their circumstances. Would I draft one for myself if I were getting married right now? Probably not. I don't have substantial assets at this point other than my 401(k). I figure to attain most stuff I will someday have with the help of my spouse's income (I don't believe in the stay-at-home wife thing, I'll need a dual income for the lifestyle I want). Thus, should we split, she will have earned 1/2 of everything anyway.

[b]

I'm really surprised you wouldn't get one, Craig. Just because you believe that in the event of divorce, you should split everything 50/50 doesn't mean it would actually go down that way. By not having an agreement in place, you're leaving it open. That means you or she could decide, depending on a host of circumstances that could happen during the intervening years, that 50/50 doesn't quite seem right anymore. You would then have to get lawyers get involved and fight it out. If you both think 50/50 is the way you'd want to handle the division of your assets in the event of a divorce, you should certainly put that in writing and sign it. Otherwise, you leave yourselves open to things taking a turn for the decidedly less fair, and depending on the circumstances and the lawyers you each can afford, the judge might just be persuaded to agree.

I wouldn't leave anything so personal as a divorce open to outside forces. Decide together how you would want to have it go down if it ever did, sign it, and forget about it. I thought you of all people would advocate for these agreements.

I'm a woman, BTW, and I have no substantial financial assets. I was divorced a few years ago in Indiana, which thankfully is a no-fault state, where my ex and I were very civil and fair-minded with each other, and I walked away a few months later with less than half, by personal choice. In New York the draconian laws force couples to tear each other to shreds, because "no fault" is not allowed. Someone HAS to be "at fault." You're forced to accuse each other of terrible things and prove them in court in order to dissolve the marriage. A system like that brings out the absolute worst in human nature. If you have a viable prenup or anti nup, you get to do it your way, not the state's way. Everyone should have one in place. I will insist on it when/if I marry again, even though I am most likely going to be the partner with less assets. I don't want the state and others all up in "our" bidness if we ever decide the marriage should not continue.

[goldigger]

hey goldigger if you were a smart goldigger you would have signed it and shut your mouth...but your stupid and you openned your mouth and opined to the contrary of his wants for securing himself in case of something catastrophic...so now he knows you want his money...he won...you lost...you blew it all...dumb bitch...

[karen]

I wanted to say that when I was divorced we split everything even the debts. I have seen in some divorces where someone defaults on the debt and REGARDLESS of what the divorce decree states, both parties are liable and they both will be pursued for it. It would be nice to think that a prenup would solve all this but it is not iron clad. The divorce decree isnt even iron clad when it comes to this. When children are involved alot of times the man leaves with no more than his clothes because Judges always decide in favor of allowing the custodial parent (usually the woman) keep belongings in the house so the kids will still have what they are accustomed to. Men get screwed alot of times and I see this as unfair. But I do realize that the courts will always see that the children are provided for. I think both people should be able to take care of their own needs and not be so reliant on the other. No prenup, divorce decree, child support/custody orders are Iron clad as courts always have the right to over rule.

There was a case recently decided in Chicago where a woman was artificially inseminated with her ex-boyfriend's sperm and had twins. the man gave his sperm stating that he did it as a favor but was taking on no financial responsibility for the children resulting from his sperm. Both very successful professional people. the Judge followed the letter of the law. Bottom Line the courts NEVER rule, in essence, against the children. The man was ordered by the courts to pay support until the age of 18 and then provide for half the costs of college. Men do not ever donate your sperm unless you want to be a parent. Women can go to anonymous sperm banks. That is not a favor you want to do. The judge came down with the final ruling in this case I believe in january of 2007. And no prenup absolves anyone of taking care of children produced in the marriage. And like Karen said Men get screwed left and right, I too am a woman, and I don't like it either. yes, women get screwed too but everyone should protect themselves. you also need to be careful to make sure Wills are in order for everyone. Even people in their 20's get killed in car accidents. Often times grown children think they should get their parents money when in fact second marriages can last upwards of 20 and 30 years and the spouse wants their money to go to the spouse who shared their life with them and was their for them for a huge part of their life not grown children in their 30's, 40's and even 50's who think they deserve their parents money. So like insurance the prenup and wills are so very important.

[Craig]

B, what I meant was I wouldn't get a pre-nup if I were to get married today because I don't need one as things sit today. I currently don't have anything to give my wife should she divorce me save my retirement assets, most of which would be pre-marital and thus, untouchable. I also am not concerned about alimony, because I would never marry the career housewife type who is not self-sufficient and is totally dependant on me. That's not my kind of woman. However in the future, things may change that will require one. I do stand to inherit quite a bit, and if that happens before I get married, then I will need one. If I inherit after marriage, inherited property is not marital unless you co-mingle it.

As for the cost of lawyers, I will never have to worry about the cost of divorce litigation, as I'm the best divorce lawyer I know.

[Crotch Rocket]

"I honestly did not know that any states did 'alternative arrangement' on custody/support. Will that actually allow for deciding custody upon divorce in a prenup agreement?" Yup. Here, the parents are allowed to reach any "alternative arrangement" they want and the court _must_ comply with that unless doing so is obviously against the child(ren)'s interests. For example, the parents can agree on custodial parent, a non-standard custody schedule, different child support and visitation from the guidelines, etc. Just about the only thing you can't do is waive child support, unless the custodial parent has enough income/assets that it wouldn't hurt the kid(s).

"This is a little off topic but I was just curious to your opinion on ..." If Mox would like to make a separate blog for that, I'd be happy to comment, but I'm not going to hijack this one.

"There was a case recently decided in Chicago where a woman was artificially inseminated ..." That's Illinois law; everywhere is different. The law here specifically exempts men from child support and voids their parental rights if the child was conceived via artificial insemination. (We used to have the same stupidity as Illinois, but there was a case a while back where a donor found out his kid was being raised by a lesbian couple, sued for custody, and won; the backlash was pretty severe and the law got fixed post haste. Who would have expected it'd be lesbians fighting for a law that benefits straight men 99% of the time?)

"the Judge followed the letter of the law. the courts NEVER rule, in essence, against the children." While that's true, state laws vary widely. That's why folks should go talk to a local divorce lawyer to find out what applies to them instead of listening to random anecdotes online. Even mine.

"If they are so patently one-sided it's unconsciable, a judge will invalidate them." The standard here is that they have to benefit both parties. Of course, "benefit" is pretty broad, so a lawyer can craft one that screws one spouse over more than the other, but pre-nups from other states are frequently tossed out because they're one-sided. (e.g. "he gets everything" will be toast here, but "she gets X and he gets everything else" will stand)

"Thus, should we split, she will have earned 1/2 of everything anyway." And what, exactly, guarantees that she will have? What if she pops out a few kids and decides not to go back to work? You're going to divorce her and let her take most of your joint assets plus child support, alimony, and all her legal fees? Sorry, but if you want something as fair as 50/50, and you're marrying someone of equal income, what's the downside to signing a paper saying that's how it'll go? You sound like my lawyer, who handles motorcycle injuy accidents for a living yet refuses to wear a helmet when he rides. Don't you think most of your clients thought they didn't need one and everything would be "fair" back when they got married?

"I will never have to worry about the cost of divorce litigation, as I'm the best divorce lawyer I know." There's a saying that "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."

[Craig]

"What if she pops out a few kids and decides not to go back to work? You're going to divorce her and let her take most of your joint assets plus child support, alimony, and all her legal fees?"

Trust me, my friend. Not gonna happen. That would not be a unilateral decision. Furthermore, I don't get involved with deadbeat women. My girlfriends are always self-sufficient career women. Such women would not get alimony under NY law. As for child support, a pre-nup has no effect on that. Child support can't be waived in NY. That said, I didn't say I would never need one. I said I would not need a pre-nup as things stand currently. That may change at some point in the future however, in which case I would have one. I also thought I was clear that most states allow the option of doing a ante-nupial agreement after the marriage, so it's not like it must be done before you get married.

"There's a saying that "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."

It may be foolish, but it's a lot cheaper. So I'll take my chances. If you were an auto mechanic would you pay someone to fix yor car?

Craig, I have a question for you. If you had your wills drawn up in one state and moved to a new state would your wills be valid in the new state or do wills have to be drawn up in the state you reside at the tiime of death?

Crotch Rocket, I know the laws differ from state to state and I agree wholeheartedly that Illinois has some very stupid laws. A good friend of mine who is a lawyer told me that at least in the state of Illinois, and perhaps I misunderstood him but I thought it was all 50 states so correct me if I am wrong, that a baby born to a union of two married people is presumed to be the child of the husband. he also said that there have been cases in Illinois where it turned out the wife had an affair and the DNA test proved the husband was not the father. The father was still obligated to pay child support even though he was not the biological father. I L L I N O I S !!!!!!!! I have heard it joked that "Only the Mother Knows Who She is the Mother". Truly Scary for a man.

[Bob]

Pre-nups are great! Say we are in an auto accident and it's your side of the car that gets creamed with you becoming a paraplegic. I would be able to save my assets and leave you with all of yours, so that you could handle your own problems. Whoever said that marriage was a partnership. Really, nowdays you have to realize that it is primarily about what I have and you don't. No need to share. If you can't keep up, that's your problem. There is no problem with pre-nups. There is only a problem with those who don't want them.

[Mike]

Dased is absolutely right. A pre-nup is an agreement. It's unthinkable to expect your beloved to actually AGREE with you about money.

[Crotch Rocket]

"I thought it was all 50 states so correct me if I am wrong, that a baby born to a union of two married people is presumed to be the child of the husband." The parents are presumed to be whoever's on the birth certificate until proven otherwise. However, a child support/custody case here now requires DNA tests of all three persons, and has for at least the last decade. There's a bill that pops up every few years to make DNA testing mandatory at birth, but so far it's still optional (and false paternity rates are still ~10%, though falling slowly) thanks to civil liberties and privacy groups.

[Tsee]

Asking for a pre-nup doesn't make someone not great, so there's a red flag for me about the questioner. However, this could be a timely bell for pre-marriage counseling for the couple. They've obviously got issues to iron out before the wedding.

[Cathie]

My ex-husband offered to get one knowing that I came with assets and he came with a lot of debt. We were done 2+ years later and the pre-nupt saved my past and future earnings. I don't believe in wormen or men taking from someone else regardless of the situations and pre-nupts sometimes set the standards when emotions get in the way after things go downhill.
I realize what you think going in and that this should have been a discussion before the wedding plans but if you love him, don't worry about what "could" happen - anything could and it would protect both people (that is if both have something to protect).

[playfulfiction]

I think a pre-nup is a great idea for those who want to protect what they have accumulated before the union.

Especially, now people are getting married later in as opposed to 20-30yrs ago.

Granted you will obtain more after the marriage but, should the marriage fail at least you will leave with no less than what you started with. Isn't that fair?

If you both have nothing then who cares?

That is one of those touch issues that both parties need to be comfortable with because if you go into it with a deep grudge and manifest itself in other areas.

[c]

I personally would never get a pre-nup. Just in case of a divorce? Does no one take marriage seriously anymore? "Til death do us part" Yeah when I say it I actually want to mean my VOW. It is a vow. And I believe by saying you want a pre-nup you are just saying to your partner "well if I break my vow I want my shit back."

It would be nice if people would actually take marriage seriously.

[Mike]

'...I believe by saying you want a pre-nup you are just saying to your partner "well if I break my vow I want my shit back."'

Or "if YOU break your vow I want my shit back" (It sounds a lot fairer that way).

At this point in my life, I'm more interested in what a future wife thinks would be fair, than I would be in the protection a pre-nup would give.

[Ailene]

These conversations are exactly why divorce rates are skyrocketing. I would not marry with a prenupt but I'm also a person that would rather marry a responsible person that I love, respect, am attracted to and compatible with regardless of his financial status versus a marriage out of convenience or a marriage to inherit wealth. Everyone marries for different reasons. Hopefully, you're marrying someone with the same intent and purposes.

My parents didn't have a prenupt. I'm divorced with one child from the marriage and didn't have a prenupt. (I married for the sake of the child as well as cultural and religious pressures.) The only sufferings we had were emotional; it helped that we have similar values. I financially helped my ex-husband considerably throughout our marriage. Despite our grave differences, I have few regrets. Should I reconsider marriage again, I still would not consider having a prenupt.

You’re not being too emotional.

I'd like to think of myself as pragmatic and, to me, marriage is a choice primarily made on emotions. It’s romantic. It’s not a corporation.

I find it interesting how the conversation has spun. I believe that the main concern is the timing of the proposal of a prenupt. Shouldn’t this have been done during the time of conversation when speaking about your beliefs on children, family, God and politics? Forget the semantics of the prenupts but doesn’t anyone find it odd that this was brought up after the engagement and in the middle of wedding preparations?

I don’t believe the concern is about the prenupts or the assets but the timing of it all.

[Walden]

Timing?? The only right time is before the wedding plans are set in stone! For everyone who believes that a pre-nup is an automatic death sentence to a marriage I will only say these three words, Sir Paul McCartney. Not having an agreement didn't keep his marriage together and now the soon to be ex is throwing all sorts of charges around to make her case better for the division of assets and custody their child. People who say they would never marry someone who wanted a pre-nup should stop watching so much Lifetime Television and look at the real world.

[Mike]

"I would not marry with a prenupt"

What if the responsible guy you want to marry just happens to be a lot poorer than you, and your Mom and Dad think he's after your money? Would you force him to endure years of suspicion from your folks just because "it's not romantic"?

What if your posessions include a number of items of huge sentimental value to you and not insignificant value on the open market? Is it so wrong to say "The jewlery that's been handed down from mother to daughter in my family for generations is not part of the communal pot"?

More importantly, if you can't sit down and discuss ANYTHING with your beloved, what chance does your marriage have?

[b]

"What if the responsible guy you want to marry just happens to be a lot poorer than you, and your Mom and Dad think he's after your money? Would you force him to endure years of suspicion from your folks just because "it's not romantic"?"

Excellent point! In my case, I will almost undoubtedly be the poorer partner if and when I marry, if my dating experience thus far in NYC is any indication. I know the well-off men here are used to dealing with women who are dating them with an eye to climbing the economic ladder someday on their wallet, or even worse, to taking advantage of them in a divorce. There are plenty of horror stories out there.

That is another good reason why I would insist on a prenup and would be the first to bring it up if the prospect of marriage started to come into the picture. I would want to make sure there would be no doubts, no suspicions on his part or on the part of anyone who cares about him as to why I want to be with him. A great guy who truly loves me might be timid about broaching the topic, fearing a bad reaction, but that doesn't mean he isn't thinking about it. I'd much rather it come from me, so he can put any worries to rest and be assured that I'm in it for love, not money.

Now THAT is romantic.

[Michael (Chicago)]

Easy fix clauses: Invalidate any pre-nup for cause. Meaning, unless there's *evidence* of infidelity, pre-marital assets of both parties should be protected. In the case of proven infidelity, fuck em'. Marital assets are marital assets. If you put time into a marriage, you should rightfully divide the spoils of your war, by any division a fair court sees fit.

Probably not a popular position, but certainly cuts to the chase.

[Jaden]

I just want to clarify the 60% of marriages end in divorce statistic. Please note that 60% of marriages end in divorce, NOT 60% of people who get married get divorced. Factored into that number are people who marry multiple times and divorce multiple times. Don't forget that.

[zara]

I would be more troubled by the fact that he "drop[ped] the prenup bomb" on her shortly before the wedding (which is what it sounds like)

[MSG]

So Im about to be married in less than two months and its my fiance's father who is insisting on a pre nup; however, no date has been scheduled to meet with a lawyer or anything. Im afraid its all going to spring forth at the last minute and I wont be about to make negotiations if I feel they are necessary. Also, given that we both have four year degrees, he wants me to be a stay home Betty Crocker. In the case of divorce, wont I be shooting myself in the foot if he is earning income and growing his assets and I am doing nothing? Its not that I dont want to work, its he wishes that I don't. Im not closed off to the idea of this agreement; I just dont want to be screwed over after our HUGE wedding has already been completely planned and the countdown is on.

[Barbara Leat]

At the moment, I'm in a real pickle. I've read the above posts but only see a few that pertain to me. I live in Upstate NY (Orange County). I inherited a home in the Hamptons, I sold out my share to my brother therefore leaving me with some cash. I moved upstate and purchased a home and a new car, new furniture, etc in 2002. I met a guy and he moved in with me. "I" paid for his bills, money he owed on things , etc to the tune of $10,000. He installed new kitchen cabinets for me that I paid for. He has nagged me from day one to put his name on my house constantly saying that "in the case of splitting up, that he didn't want my home, he just wanted his name on it". Now, I've graduated from two colleges and think I'm fairly smart and I just do not get this at all. Anyway, he slowed the bull and we started to get along well and he wanted to get married. I said OK, but I want a pre nup which we got and he signed. I thought that would end the bull. NO. It didn't. I really love him, I am just protecting myself from being a bag lady in NYC. If he would cut the crap and just let life be: we would be the happiest people on this earth as we get along very well, otherwise but....... He is still constantly nagging me to put his name on my house. Now he does pay all the bills as I am disabled and receive zero money from the state or gov't, but his son and daughter both lived here. The daughter (22) still lives here. I have agreed to leave my home to him if I die but apparently that isn't good enough for him. The pre nup states that if we divorce he gets nothing from me and I get nothing from him. There's more to this but that is the gist of things. Will my prenup stand up in court?

[Barbara]

I forgot to mention that he trashed my credit by not paying my credit cards (that he ran up) which was my fault (his running them up) as I let him. They are in my name. I'm ready for a divorce, I'm just tired of the bull and I would rather be alone than go thru this as he also doesn't want to work and has been fired once already and is on the poop list at work now.

[Elizabeth]

My fiancee dropped the pre nup bomb on me a few days ago and it's been fight after fight ever since. He's been engaged twice before and both women told him to shove his pre nup. He's threatening not to marry me if I don't sign it and yaps about how if I don't then I'm a golddigger. I told him if he really loved me and trusted me he would not insist I sign it. I reminded him that I have my own money and a great job and don't need his money. Plenty of golddigging men out there, but men have this perception that it's women who are the goldiggers. So as it stands now I'm not signing it. I told him a marriage is about love, it's not a business arrangement. He had the gall to tell me I'm being too emotional about the whole matter, lol. Unreal! Typical male answer. So at this point I am reconsidering marrying him and right now the marriage is postponed at my request. He and I are deadlocked in the matter and are far apart in opinions. My opinion of him has totally changed and not for the better. I plan on evaluating the situation carefully before deciding whether to marry him or not and frankly right now I don't want to marry him.

[Steven]

The ONLY people who oppose a pre-nup agreement are the one's with no/little assets. If you really and truly love the man you are marrying AND you are not marrying for his money, then WHY on earth would you have a problem showing YOUR good faith and signing a pre-nup? Unless in your heart-of-heart you feel an attraction for this other person for his/her wealth........and frankly historically men have been quite abused by gold-diggers availing of favorable laws enacted by our fore-fathers! It's no different from SOME dating relationships, where one party (usually the female) freeloads on the other - 50:50 amongst professionals or taking turns is indeed the appropriate way....marriage is also a partnership not a one way street.....RIGHT?