[Arcanist]

Would you sign a prenuptial agreement if your partner requested it? Why, or why not?

[mieu]

Depends on what's on it, but if reasonable, then yes, because I'm not a psychic

[Distance]

Barring the fact that I'll never marry again, depends on how the prenup's structured. I have assets to protect as well, so a jointly created prenup would be the only type I sign.

But as to the nature of prenups, embrace them fully.

[AnnaMolly]

Sure. I'd likely request it, actually.
On a slightly related note, I'm also absolutely for paternity tests right after a child is born.

I don't see these things as signs of distrust or "planning ahead for failure" -- quite the opposite. I see them as signs of trust. If I have nothing to hide, and no shady motivations, why would I *not* sign a prenup or arrange a paternity test?

If both partners sign a prenup, that doesn't make things "less romantic", it actually makes them more romantic, because it more or less proves that neither of them is in it for the money, and it makes it easier to have fights about money not be an issue in the future.

[AlfredSchnittke]

If I had that substantial an amount of assets, I would just have various trusts setup feeding me funds on a monthly basis.

I'd still sign a prenup, but legally my partner couldn't take anything from me anyway in divorce, as I would have nothing. Prenups get run over in divorce court all the time, it's like hoping your white picket fence will keep out all troublemakers.

Why some wealthy people don't pay for better financial planners is beyond me.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I had that substantial an amount of assets, I would just have various trusts setup feeding me funds on a monthly basis. I'd still sign a prenup, but legally my partner couldn't take anything from me anyway in divorce, as I would have nothing. Prenups get run over in divorce court all the time, it's like hoping your white picket fence will keep out all troublemakers. Why some wealthy people don't pay for better financial planners is beyond me.

Firstly, anyone of any degree of wealth will already have legal trusts setup if only for tax purposes, prior to marrying. As far as having the trusts feed you on a monthly basis, there's no purpose to draining trusts if you don't need the money.

Next, in many jurisdictions, as long as you don't comingle premarital assets, they won't be considered joint property. Add in the prenup, as well as marrying a partner who too has assets to protect and you're already in a reasonably protected state.

What most whiners disagree with, at least of the MRA types, is that they resent the 50/50 splitting of joint property acquired during the term of the marriage and yet want stay-at-home partners to see to their creature comforts, ensuring they don't have to lift a finger or maybe one finger (remote control to change the channel) towards domestic duties. Unfortunately, what happens is that their partners lose the best years of building future income potential by popping out brats and acting as all around doormats for their partners to wipe their feet all over.

[Arcanist]

I guess I should answer my own question. I would definitely sign one as I think it allows a graceful end to a relationship. A sort of exit strategy.

Depart on mutually agreed terms. Both parties may be hurt and irrational, but at least they won't have to worry about who gets what nor do they get to turn it into an ugly divorce battle.

The only thing that worries me is that judges can throw these agreements out. Kind of outrageous when you think about it! Both parties sign the agreement, voluntarily, and the judge in his arrogance deems it irrelevant.

[Fishism]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The only thing that worries me is that judges can throw these agreements out. Kind of outrageous when you think about it! Both parties sign the agreement, voluntarily, and the judge in his arrogance deems it irrelevant.

Yes, this is a scary concept. You manage to get your partner to agree to this delicate, possibly deal-breaking contract, pay a bunch of money to get it drawn up and then have the negative event of divorce actually occur only to have some judge cite a misplaced comma to make the whole arrangement moot. Then, the emotional and financial carnage you thought you prevented, only occurs anyway.

[Lilie]

I used to think I would, but now I think I probably wouldn't.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Would you sign a prenuptial agreement if your partner requested it? Why, or why not?

I do anyway. It's a basic part of getting married in Judaism. Solves all the hellish divorce problems that everyone else has to deal with. So everyone is more relaxed about the marriage, and it actually lasts LONGER.

[ThingInItsSelf]

If he asked I would sign one - then I would ROFL! We are both students the items of value we have are worth very little. At least he can sleep sound knowing i'm not after his cash =P

[Kryptonite]

yep. I have my own shit. I have me. I have invested most of my time and money in my education. Can't get that from me so I would respect if his money went else where. it's fair and leads to healthy relaxed start to relationship.

[Traverser]

Arcanist and AnnaMolly really hit the nail on the head. I personally believe prenups can settle issues way earlier than anticipated, and can thus make the relationship easier to proceed. Imagine going through the marriage ceremony without the priest saying anything about the terms! A prenup, in essence, is really just an extension of the original agreement, tailored by the couple, in order to know where they stand with regards to each other's companionship and other details.

In fact, a prenup would entail more than just property settlements, but also issues of guardianship over children or the SO. Given the legal muckups in marriage, I'm surprised most people don't even bother with this simple precaution. I suppose one could argue that it's a matter of "faith", but I would then ask why we even bother with contracts to begin with on virtually every other important step in our lives.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Barring the fact that I'll never marry again, depends on how the prenup's structured. I have assets to protect as well, so a jointly created prenup would be the only type I sign. But as to the nature of prenups, embrace them fully.

Ditto. Especially if you both have kids.

[Collide]

Yeah, I'd probably be the one to suggest it. Although, it seems a bit unromantic already planning for divorce before even getting married. I can see why this could be a deal breaker.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ditto. Especially if you both have kids.

Absolutely!

	Originally Posted by Collide To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, I'd probably be the one to suggest it. Although, it seems a bit unromantic already planning for divorce before even getting married. I can see why this could be a deal breaker.

It's no different than getting car or house insurance. You don't plan to be in an accident or set your house on fire but just in case, at least you're covered.

[Muse]

My mother strongly advises me to get a prenup. She doesn't even mention me getting married without reminding me about it.

[AlfredSchnittke]

Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What most whiners disagree with, at least of the MRA types, is that they resent the 50/50 splitting of joint property acquired during the term of the marriage and yet want stay-at-home partners to see to their creature comforts, ensuring they don't have to lift a finger or maybe one finger (remote control to change the channel) towards domestic duties. Unfortunately, what happens is that their partners lose the best years of building future income potential by popping out brats and acting as all around doormats for their partners to wipe their feet all over.

So? It's their choice isn't it?...

Oh, no, it couldn't be the women's fault. Sorry, I forgot, women are incapable of being held responsible for the choices they make...

My bad.

---------- Post added 06-17-2012 at 04:03 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Fishism To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes, this is a scary concept. You manage to get your partner to agree to this delicate, possibly deal-breaking contract, pay a bunch of money to get it drawn up and then have the negative event of divorce actually occur only to have some judge cite a misplaced comma to make the whole arrangement moot. Then, the emotional and financial carnage you thought you prevented, only occurs anyway.

And this happens very commonly. I mean, basically even the best lawyers can't guarantee it won't happen.

It's ridiculous.

I mean, sure, go ahead, but if your spouse really wants to they can find the right lawyers, and judge to get your prenup tossed out. Happens all the time, probably most of the time.

---------- Post added 06-17-2012 at 04:07 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Firstly, anyone of any degree of wealth will already have legal trusts setup if only for tax purposes, prior to marrying. As far as having the trusts feed you on a monthly basis, there's no purpose to draining trusts if you don't need the money. Next, in many jurisdictions, as long as you don't comingle premarital assets, they won't be considered joint property. Add in the prenup, as well as marrying a partner who too has assets to protect and you're already in a reasonably protected state.

The point is you have no money, just various things that trusts own, but that can't even be legally accessed by your partner post-divorce.

So if you weren't draining the trusts, you'd be begging on the streets...

Really not sure what you are talking about.


Lawyers can convince plenty of judges that commingling has occurred with the flimsiest of technicalities. It's not a big deal to accomplish in many cases.

---------- Post added 06-17-2012 at 04:08 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Lilie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I used to think I would, but now I think I probably wouldn't.

Because you think they are worthless? Or what?

[Arcanist]

I'm honestly surprised that the vast majority of posters in this thread are in favor of these contracts. I asked a couple of my friends what they thought (both guys, both married) and they seemed kind of insulted that I even asked. They both gave the "I don't plan for failure." excuse.

Now if only judges would enforce these legally binding contracts...

Though doesn't this give an incentive to seek arbitration, thereby cutting lawyers and judges out of potential profit? I wonder how that works? What if one party wants to go to court and the other wants arbitration?

[AlfredSchnittke]

^

Most people are idiots.

[Thrasymachus]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm honestly surprised that the vast majority of posters in this thread are in favor of these contracts. I asked a couple of my friends what they thought (both guys, both married) and they seemed kind of insulted that I even asked. They both gave the "I don't plan for failure." excuse.

I'm not suprised that most people who would want to post in this thread are those who are for pre-nuptuals so I am not surprised that most of the posts are for getting them. I for one saw this thread a while ago and didn't even think about posting.

In any case since I am posting having my significant other start talking to me about pre-nuptuals before we are married is included on a list of reasons that are serious enough for me to rethink my relationship.

If everything is perfect and the only thing that gives me pause is a prenuptual I just might sign in, but in the same way that if everything else is perfect and the only thing that gives me pause is that they are a drug-addict/have kids/50% chance to have Parkinson's Disease would give me pause.

So there are several, several instances in which serious talk of a pre-nup would be the last talk we would have as a romantic couple.

[DeepThought]

Having had first hand experience with divorce I would have to say that yes, I would most certainly consider getting a pre-nup on the next go-round.

[Zsych]

Prenups are a problem if you marry legally... I'm fine with some private ceremony with no legal impact.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So? It's their choice isn't it?... Oh, no, it couldn't be the women's fault. Sorry, I forgot, women are incapable of being held responsible for the choices they make... My bad.

Such a stunningly brilliant response to what I posted. Kudos to you!

	The point is you have no money, just various things that trusts own, but that can't even be legally accessed by your partner post-divorce. So if you weren't draining the trusts, you'd be begging on the streets...

This makes absolutely no sense considering non-community and community property, as well as income accrued and realised during the marriage.

	Really not sure what you are talking about.

That much is blatantly obvious.

	Lawyers can convince plenty of judges that commingling has occurred with the flimsiest of technicalities. It's not a big deal to accomplish in many cases.

This response is severely disabled. Something tells me you haven't had any legal dealings or had much to do with the legal system beyond what's 'learned' on TV, The Daily Mail, etc.

[AlfredSchnittke]

Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Such a stunningly brilliant response to what I posted. Kudos to you! This makes absolutely no sense considering non-community and community property, as well as income accrued and realised during the marriage. That much is blatantly obvious. This response is severely disabled. Something tells me you haven't had any legal dealings or had much to do with the legal system beyond what's 'learned' on TV, The Daily Mail, etc.

There would be no community property realized/accrued in my scenario.

I have a degree in business law, marriage law was part of what was studied. My opinion mainly comes from the classes on marital law I took.

And yes, it was a quite brilliant response. I know the thing you fear most is women having to take responsibility for their own actions hahaha