Some states are fillial responsibility states. I wanted a prenup to protect our assets during the marriage, so that the state wouldn't be able to come after stuff in my name to support her deadbeat dad. We're protected in a different way because his prior actions was considered abandonment. If we had any "real" money (wife's mother was very dismissive about the amount I saved up), then i guess I could still set up a trust.
I still think a prenup would have been good. Why not decide on what is fair and reasonable when on good terms and you're not clouded by hate or resentment? It would save massively on legal fees. My wife didn't want one. She never gave a reason, but it's safe to assume that the conditions under the court eiild be more favorable than a prenup that excludes alimony. Her mother made some huge deal about me "not knowing what I'm doing", even though she has a prenup and couldn't give any explanation of why it's a bad idea. So overall, it feels like I was taken advantage of and they basically bullied me (repeated unsupported emotional attacks) into not getting one.
Frankly, I don't see much reason to get married in today's world. Sure, there are some minor or fringe benefits when dealing with taxes and stuff, but most companies are recognizing domestic partners for benefits even without official domestic partner certificates. Marriage is just a piece of paper from the government and shouldn't be neccessary to validate one's relationship.
This is also great advice when forming a business partnership. It was a great help to me when I was ready to leave a business I owned 50-50 and saved us from ending up in a lawsuit.
> If you want a prenup you shouldn't get married.
That's as nonsensical as saying if you want to wear a seat belt you shouldn't get in a car. Some of us would like to drive a car and avoid unnecessary injury. They are not mutually exclusive.
There are already rules about what happens during divorce. If a partner does not a want a prenup it does not mean they don't want rules. They merely want the "default" rules of divorce. Likely because those rules favor them at great expense to their partner. Alimony, gaining assets they did not contribute to obtaining, etc.
The current laws around divorce are medieval in cruelty and are modern day indentured servitude. With suicide being the only escape. If your partner prefers these laws, they are either ignorant, or do not truly care for you.
That's only true if you include all marriages. People who have been divorced tend to get divorced again if they get married.
First marriages are more likely not to get divorced.
And to answer the question, I didn't sign a prenup because I went through a period where I dated a bit and my wife was much better than everyone else I had dated. We'll be celebrating our 10th anniversary in a few months.
Have a university degree + get married over the age of 25 + women have a job
Do these and its ~80% success rate
The default rules seem reasonable enough that trying to do better for both parties without knowing specifics seems unreasonable. Comingling finances is a useful reduction of the total burden of financial management, and wouldn't be possible if you were trying to keep separate accounts.
In this instance, I was the breadwinner, and I would have no problem with an equal split of marital assets, plus or minus making adjustments to keep things easy: no sense giving each person half of three cars, can sell one and give one of the remaining to each spouse, the house might be challenging to split, but we're both reasonable and could figure something out that's more beneficial to both parties than a legal battle.
I think whenever someone says that it defeats the purpose of marriage, what they mean is you probably shouldn't marry someone who doesn't bring you forward and someone you wouldn't want to give more than half your stuff to.
I'm saying that under a prenup, I'd probably be more generous than the laws would allow for. If you're not marrying someone who you would be generous to, why marry them?
If anything, it's the time of marriage that's when I don't have perfect judgement. Pre-nups would be the worst time to sign a contract.
The laws are generally guidelines. Judges can basically do what they want and make exceptions. There can also be fights in the undefined areas and proving ownership of specific items, etc. I would think business ownership would be a big one for many people on this site. If divorce under the law was straightforward, then it wouldn't cost tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to navigate the system.
If you have a prenup, the terms are more settled and more specific to the individuals. Courts are generally more compelled to honor the terms under contracts that are consistent with law than making those same determinations through examination and application of the laws alone (I've witnessed many incompetent magistrates and judges). This can also avoid some of the nastiness that can come up in court testimony that may impact/involve any kids involved.
Roughly what’s your expected worth times the subjective probability you’ll get a divorce. Also should probably include a scale factor or term to account for the up front legal fees and the later fees.
Now if not having a prenup come out as a risk adjusted loss say… -150k, then ask yourself if you’re willing and it’s reasonable to give your partner a gift of that size right now.
In my case we were both broke when we got married anyway so nothing to prenup about.
