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

[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.

[Jane Bond]

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.

I wouldn't get married again, but if a miracle happened and I wanted to give it another go, the prenup would be more water tight than a frog's ass.

[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.

[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.

[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.