Infamous Member
How Do You Identify?: Biological female. Lesbian.
Relationship Status: Happy
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hanging out in the Atlantic.
Posts: 9,234
Thanks: 9,840
Thanked 34,661 Times in 7,652 Posts
Rep Power: 21474860
|
I am a realist and a pragmatist. I am also 57 years old. I would insist on a prenup for both parties.
The reason, for me, is to protect premarital assets, to shield each other from premarital debt, and to protect any foreseeable future monies that are unconnected to the marriage.
To me, at my age, it just makes sense. We each have made decisions and financial plans for ourselves and our future well before the marriage. Positive or negative, we each have to live with the consequences.
In addition, at my age, my earning capacity is time limited. To have to assume someone else's debts is just illogical, and to have to rebuild a nest egg is self defeating.
Dapper, I am also confused about why you are lumping the distribution of assets after the death of a partner with a prenup. They are totally separate issues in my head, each with their own legal instrument and purpose.
__________________
|