Prenuptial Agreements. Anyone have one? Anyone who would consider one if they married?

[DapperButch]

With the recent passing of same-sex marriage in many states, getting married, is no longer "getting married". People can take your shit now!

I was just wondering what people's thinking was about prenups. Do you have one? Would you have one? Do you have any future inherited property you would lose, money, other things of value to you that you want to make sure that you will still have after you divorce?

Here is the first article I found on the subject:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ows-30283.html

If I married my partner, I would want a prenup. I would want one due to my future inheritance. My partner and I have talked about it and it doesn't matter to her. I think we should have one for her sake, as well. Although she says she would be comfortable with much/most of her money going to me when she passes as she knows I will pass it onto her son, it is important to me that she designate a certain percentage to him (whatever she decides upon), that would be "his" upon her death (or at whatever age she thinks would be appropriate for him). It would just make me feel better for some reason.

Any money we make after getting married I would have no problem with splitting. It is what I am coming into the relationship with and will get from my family upon their deaths (ok, so my mother's death), that I am concerned about.

How do others feel? As I said earlier, if you had something/things that you don't want to chance losing in the divorce, would you tell your partner you would like a prenup? How would you feel if your partner wanted one?

[Kent]

No, I would not want a prenuptial agreement before marriage. I will only marry once and I will not be contemplating divorce before the marriage. It will be for the rest of my life and/or hers. I would want to leave everything I own to her if something were to happen to me. I would want to make sure that she would be taken care of in the event of my death and I'd want to have a life insurance policy in case of such an event.

Marriage is a very serious relationship and should be taken as such. If I have doubts before I marry her, then she is not the woman for me. If there is a need for a prenuptial agreement then there would be no marriage for me.

Just my two cents...

[*Anya*]

My partner and I have talked at length about money.

I never really had any money to speak of till my current job but it is so soul-crushing, I am looking for another job. If I change jobs, I will be back in the same general salary ball-park I always was.

My surgeries and hospital stays put me in debt that I am still climbing out from under.

My GF is a regional director and makes way more than I do and always has. She spent a short time after college working as a PE teacher and then went into the transportation industry for a corporation; a primarily male industry.

I still don't have a lot of money to speak of. She does.

She got soaked when her 21 year relationship ended. They were domestic partners but had no pre-nup.

I know a lot of people think a pre-nup is awful, untrusting and unromantic. I personally think it is wise. I don't think that I have a right to expect any of the money or property that she had when we got together. I have daughters and grandchildren. If I die, I want them to get what is fair.

She had nieces and nephews that she wants to do the same.

All cards on the table, no surprises before the I do's. A lot is not going to be easy to talk about. My welfare years were grim and they were some years that should have been good earning years but were spent in poverty instead

She needs to know all of it. Just a couple more secret shames around bad money choices during my time living on poverty lane. Even though it was long ago-it still has repercussions today....

Yeah Kanye, we want pre-nup, we want pre-nup!

Everything nice and kosher. It protects both of us.

[blush]

It's interesting to me how a marriage, or the end of one, can come down to protecting money. There are many "assets" in a marriage, money is the only tangible thing we can control when the bottom falls out. So, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money selling marriage insurance in the form of pre-nups.

Bottom line for me is I need to trust my partner enough NOT to screw me over if things go bad. Otherwise, I don't need to get married. Marriage doesn't have a net.

I am a firm believer in air-tight wills, power of attorney, etc...that is where I'll spend my lawyer money.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kent

No, I would not want a prenuptial agreement before marriage. I will only marry once and I will not be contemplating divorce before the marriage. It will be for the rest of my life and/or hers. I would want to leave everything I own to her if something were to happen to me. I would want to make sure that she would be taken care of in the event of my death and I'd want to have a life insurance policy in case of such an event.

Marriage is a very serious relationship and should be taken as such. If I have doubts before I marry her, then she is not the woman for me. If there is a need for a prenuptial agreement then there would be no marriage for me.

Just my two cents...

Hey, Kent, just to clarify, I am talking about two separate issues in the prenup. Money that happens at the time of divorce, and my partner's money in relation to her son at her time of death. I am not saying my partner would not get all of the money I have at the time of my death (including any money I received from my mother upon HER death).
---------------------

To clarify our position a bit more, neither of us our actually coming in to the relationship with a large amount of our own money (well, I am coming in with some retirement money). My partner is coming into the relationship with some money she received at her father's death. I will be getting some money at the time of my mother's death (most likely). So, for us, it is about protecting money that we received through our respective parents (her's now, mine later).

There is certainly no reason why we can't split the money we received from our parents when we divorce even if we have a prenup in place, but I can't think of a reason why that would make sense to either one of us to do that.

Currently, my partner and I do not share money. We do not share a residence. We would not do those things until we did marry. Perhaps if we were already sharing expenses it would feel different.

-------------------

To roll back to the original point though, and to be clear the above is not seen as me attempting to backpeddle, if we did come into the relationship with radically different amounts of money (see Anya's post), I assume I would still want a prenup. It would make things nice and clean at the time of divorce and I do feel that people should leave with the money they entered the relationship with. A prenup ensures that emotions don't come into play when it comes to the biggest stressor at the time of every divorce, the splitting of assets. For me a prenup has nothing to do with trust, it has to do with making things clean and easy. It has nothing to do with not trusting my partner.

[Kobi]

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.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kobi

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.

Prenups can actually include assets after death as well. However, I made things confusing by mentioning that (which I noticed by reading Kent's post), so I was clearing that up for Kent and essentially saying to ignore that part of my post.

However, yes we will have a wills, power of attorny, etc.

[Kelt]

I am in the same camp with Dapper and Kobi.

I think a prenup is essential for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that it would encourage, actually force, a frank and open communication about money with all cards on the table. And, like Dapper, I am in the situation of probably having a substantial inheritance in my future. I don't do my planning around that, but the potential is there. I am also finding that age has a big and immediate way of ripping the blinders off.

The specific reasons for having it have already been articulated quite well. I have not been researching this as I have no current need for it. But I did read the the document that was linked to in the OP, and it raised a question in my mind.

This part:
"Encourage" divorce. At one time, many courts viewed any prenup specifying how things would be divided up in case the couple splits as void and unenforceable because it promoted divorce. The modern approach allows such agreements, but judges in some states still take a hard look at them. If the agreement appears to offer a financial incentive for divorce to one party, it may be set aside.

It made me run some scenarios through my mind, and I found this disturbing. In the "what if" department I was wondering about this. What if you were married to a person and they had a sudden behavioral change? E.g. Your partner develops a penchant for heavy gambling, or another habit that rapidly incurs huge amount of debt for which you would be liable. This makes it seem that if you were to seek divorce because the person became something other than what you initially married, a judge could view this as trying to preserve your own assets, (and that would probably be part of it), and could overwrite the prenup. Curious.

In some ways I think that gay couples in general have not had to deal with some of these hard decisions by default of circumstances. On the other hand, I suppose it would be no different than straight couples, some people will go in fully responsible, and some will not. (Acknowledging that different people define "responsibility" differently). In any event, it is a new discussion within our community and I think an interesting one.

Thanks for the great thread Dapper!

[QueenofSmirks]

My sentiments run along the lines of what blush had to say about it. I think anyone concerned about protecting their assets from the person they are about to marry should rethink marriage. This isn't coming from a "marriage is love, love should be romantic" place, because I'm much more practical than that. Marriage in this country is a legal contract, essentially, and yes, legal contracts often involve assets. But to put protections in place up front -- to me that just says "I don't trust this person."

Edited to add: If protecting assets is a major concern, maybe the "benefits" of marriage don't outweigh the potential pitfalls.

Another thought: Someone mentioned that a prenup would force a frank discussion about finances. Living together doesn't automatically equate to the sharing of assets, pooling of funds, etc. These types of discussions should be had *anyway* -*before* deciding to live together and especially before considering getting married to each other. If you need a prenup to force a discussion, then it seems strange to me that marriage would even be a consideration.

[Kelt]

Originally Posted by QueenofSmirks

<snip>
Another thought: Someone mentioned that a prenup would force a frank discussion about finances. Living together doesn't automatically equate to the sharing of assets, pooling of funds, etc. These types of discussions should be had *anyway* -*before* deciding to live together and especially before considering getting married to each other. If you need a prenup to force a discussion, then it seems strange to me that marriage would even be a consideration.

I quite agree with this sentiment. My comment was based on observations of what has happened to couples I have known in the past who had clearly not had such a discussion with each other prior to becoming involved with each other in such a way that their finances were enmeshed. Unentangling became a huge problem. Myself included, in my youth.

I believe that getting involved in a relationship that would include legally binding commitments without being fully informed would be irresponsible.

My understanding of the conversation is that we're discussing "in the event of divorce". I would not knowingly get into a relationship that I thought would come to an end, but sometimes surprises happen.

[blush]

Originally Posted by QueenofSmirks

My sentiments run along the lines of what blush had to say about it. I think anyone concerned about protecting their assets from the person they are about to marry should rethink marriage. This isn't coming from a "marriage is love, love should be romantic" place, because I'm much more practical than that. Marriage in this country is a legal contract, essentially, and yes, legal contracts often involve assets. But to put protections in place up front -- to me that just says "I don't trust this person."

Edited to add: If protecting assets is a major concern, maybe the "benefits" of marriage don't outweigh the potential pitfalls.

Another thought: Someone mentioned that a prenup would force a frank discussion about finances. Living together doesn't automatically equate to the sharing of assets, pooling of funds, etc. These types of discussions should be had *anyway* -*before* deciding to live together and especially before considering getting married to each other. If you need a prenup to force a discussion, then it seems strange to me that marriage would even be a consideration.

I'm practical too. I've also been through a divorce without a pre-nup. It was fine. We're both decent human beings, and we didn't try to screw each other over. Any contract can be battled out in court. If someone wants to screw you over, a pre-nup isn't going to stop them. It just gives them another contract to fight over.

[QueenofSmirks]

Originally Posted by Kelt

I would not knowingly get into a relationship that I thought would come to an end, but sometimes surprises happen.

I think this is true for most people - not all, but most. And I'm in agreement - "forever" doesn't always mean forever. Things happen.

[deb_U_taunt]

I would request a pre-nup. Realist here.

At work I see daily people in stealing from family. Its also family and friends putting bugs in ears to TAKE what you can. People can be greedy and sometimes its not about the money, but revenge. Maybe, I am jaded due to my job.

I am not young and I have a 401k, IRAs and savings. I am not in a position to start over. I have worked very hard for what I have.

Don't see this as I am unwilling to share, it means if hy or she finds someone new or wants to move on, I don't want to be the one supporting their retirement.

[*Anya*]

My perspective:

Pre-nup to ensure that what each of us brought into the marriage is protected (assets and respective liabilities).

Starting fresh, so-to-speak, as a married couple.

Then, 50/50 on all assets and liabilities incurred as a loving partnership, once married.

Divorce happens.

No one plans it, expects it or wants it when they get married (OK, maybe some do-I don't).

50% of marriages in this country end that way.

Maybe stats for non-straight people will be different.

That remains to be seen.

[Novelafemme]

As usual, I can agree (to a degree) with both sides...and then there's the four-five more other sides, and I can understand those perspectives as well.

As with Blush, I have been through a divorce as well. We went through a mediated divorce proceeding and it was very clean and smooth. But...and this is the caveat, neither of us came in to or left the marriage with a large some of money (or anywhere even close).

I cringe a bit when someone goes after "their half" of the other persons retirement or other personal assets. But then again, each scenario is unique and these types of personal contracts are typically heavily loaded in the emotion department.

I am just guessing here, but I don't think many of us on this site are multi-millionares. If I were, and I met someone at this stage in my life (40) who had very little financial resources they themselves were bringing into the relationship, I would think it prudent to protect myself, from a fiscal perspective.

People change when money becomes a deciding factor.

[Kent]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Hey, Kent, just to clarify, I am talking about two separate issues in the prenup. Money that happens at the time of divorce, and my partner's money in relation to her son at her time of death. I am not saying my partner would not get all of the money I have at the time of my death (including any money I received from my mother upon HER death).
---------------------

To clarify our position a bit more, neither of us our actually coming in to the relationship with a large amount of our own money (well, I am coming in with some retirement money). My partner is coming into the relationship with some money she received at her father's death. I will be getting some money at the time of my mother's death (most likely). So, for us, it is about protecting money that we received through our respective parents (her's now, mine later).

There is certainly no reason why we can't split the money we received from our parents when we divorce even if we have a prenup in place, but I can't think of a reason why that would make sense to either one of us to do that.

Currently, my partner and I do not share money. We do not share a residence. We would not do those things until we did marry. Perhaps if we were already sharing expenses it would feel different.

-------------------

To roll back to the original point though, and to be clear the above is not seen as me attempting to backpeddle, if we did come into the relationship with radically different amounts of money (see Anya's post), I assume I would still want a prenup. It would make things nice and clean at the time of divorce and I do feel that people should leave with the money they entered the relationship with. A prenup ensures that emotions don't come into play when it comes to the biggest stressor at the time of every divorce, the splitting of assets. For me a prenup has nothing to do with trust, it has to do with making things clean and easy. It has nothing to do with not trusting my partner.

Dapper, there's nothing wrong with the way you feel about the topic. But, just to clarify my feelings: if money is that important to someone, I doubt that I'll be marrying her. To me marriage is a sacred bond between two people who love each other til death do they part, money or no money. Money does not figure into my equation for marriage in any shape or form. Love is all that I want and need from a woman. Money is not important to me. Love is all it's about for me.

[Chancie]

It has been almost 20 years since the commitment ceremony where my ex and I celebrated our love in front of 135 friends and family. My best friend sang, When I Fall in Love, as we walked in hand in hand; my mother told a story she wrote for us; our respective sisters read poetry; and we danced with our fathers to Dinah Washington. I wore a dress that was made for me, with a satin bodice with embroidery and pearls, and tulle sleeves and a full skirt. My ex wore a cream colored suit with tails and Kenneth Cole boots.

I usually say, She fell out of love with me, but we were both unhappy and our breakup was ugly. I was financially dependent on her because I was in school. We had made an agreement that when I graduated, she would quit the job she hated, although she made a lot money. But, she hired a lawyer, which meant I had to hire a lawyer, and she fought me on every detail of the dissolution of our shared assets. Six thousand dollars later, I was in debt, without a job, with no place to live.

When we first met, I took an HIV test, and she cried when it was negative. Now I'll have you for the rest of my life, she said, but when our relationship ended, she would have kicked me out of the house we bought together.

[CherylNYC]

This thread caught my eye because I've been commenting to friends lately that the possibility of full and equal marriage seemed so far away for so long, and the reality that it will actually become available to us any day now came so quickly, that we as a community haven't even settled on the words we would use to refer to our legally wed partners, much less acclimated our minds to the messy reality that the state and the courts would become involved in the possible disintegration of our previously unrecognised relationships. I'm in no danger of marriage at this time, but many of my friends are or will be married.

For those who feel that a pre-nup wouldn't be relevant to them because marriage is forever, please consider what happened between my friends W and G. They're both professionals though G was the bigger earner. G had spent her working life building her assets which were considerable by the time she married W who had been far less concerned with her personal finances. They were married in a state that recognises marriage equality. G felt that her marriage was a sacred and permanent trust. Period.

W left the marriage after seven years. They hired lawyers. G gave W half her life savings in the divorce. Both women are my friends, and no one has suggested that W was a gold digger. The marriage simply failed, and W happened to leave the relationship in a far better financial position than she was in when she entered it. After a bitter period W and G are now friends again, thankfully.

There are way too many variables when it comes to personal relationships. This is a purely theoretical question to a single person without many assets such as myself, but relationships sometimes fail, and losing property/assets that you worked hard to accrue to someone who has left you would certainly be a bitter pill for me.

[sierragirrl]

I have gone thru a divorce the house was bought before we married the stocks were there before I came into the picture.
I took nothing when I left besides what was mine going into the marriage.
the only thing I took that was made during that time was a child.
I was a housewife and did not work but I did feel it wasn't fair to try to take what wasn't mine.to this day he still owns the house,his stocks,& 401k..

me I own a car and that's it.
I do however have his respect and I am lucky enough that he is one of the rocks in my life.
gold digger I am not

I would hope that If I ever did get married again the same respect would be there

[The_Lady_Snow]

I'm going to spend all the little bit of money I have on me, my adventures, my slave, my mini trips, my road trips, my Leather, my causes, my toys, and on HK stuff... Everyone else is on their own!!!


That said, no need fo' a pre nup.....