# Pre Nups



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Or Binding Financial Agreements as they are called in Aus.

In a now closed thread a posted basically asked why do this unless you are planning on the marriage to fail.

In Aus they are not uncommon especially for second marriages. MrH and I have one as we were in our 40's when we met, him on a very high income and me with a large estate to protect. There is no malice, no intention to divorce in the future and TBH we both feel it is the wise thing to do. We know where we stand, that our kids are protected and we just get on with life.
We have a joint bank account and separate accts, we have never had one disagreement about money or who pays for what. 

It is foreign to me that people would think a pre nup meant that people were planning on a future divorce.

Anyone else here live a life where a PN is standard?


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

If I was to get married again it would be a requirement.


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

Once burned twice learned.

Near 50% failure rate. Not very good odds


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> It is foreign to me that people would think a pre nup meant that people were planning on a future divorce.


A prenup only comes into effect when a divorce is taking place, and couples create one to prepare for that occurrence. Therefore, they are planning for a divorce. In the same way that the designer of an automobile puts a seat-belt in place. He is planning for a collision.

Now, that doesn't mean that it will happen, just that they are afraid that it will. It's also an indication that you don't trust your partner entirely. There is after all, no need to protect yourself from someone who enjoys your full confidence.

Not bashing, just sayin.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

BioFury said:


> A prenup only comes into effect when a divorce is taking place, and couples create one to prepare for that occurrence. Therefore, they are planning for a divorce. In the same way that the designer of an automobile puts a seat-belt in place. He is planning for a collision.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean that it will happen, just that they are afraid that it will. It's also an indication that you don't trust your partner entirely. There is after all, no need to protect yourself from someone who enjoys your full confidence.
> 
> Not bashing, just sayin.


That's not true. People change and even though you trust your partner today there is no guarantee that they'll be the same trustworthy person a decade from now. You have the mentality of someone that is a romantic whereas I have the mentality of someone that is pragmatic, and both are reasonable outlooks on life. The best thing to do is pick a pre-nup that is simple to understand and both people think is fair.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Bananapeel said:


> That's not true. People change and even though you trust your partner today there is no guarantee that they'll be the same trustworthy person a decade from now. You have the mentality of someone that is a romantic whereas I have the mentality of someone that is pragmatic, and both are reasonable outlooks on life. The best thing to do is pick a pre-nup that is simple to understand and both people think is fair.


You have a valid point. But the fact remains that if you have doubts about your spouse, then you do not trust them entirely.

I'm not stating that it is wise to trust someone who isn't trustworthy, I'm merely pointing out the facts. Another thought to consider would be that if you do not trust someone, then why marry them?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I have some friends who married about 3 years ago. She has 3 adult sons and stands to inherit a lot (millions) when her father passes on. They have a prenup to protect her son's inheritance and both of the savings/investments that they both had accumulated prior to their marriage.

There are many reasons for a prenup that have little to nothing to do with divorce.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

BioFury said:


> You have a valid point. *But the fact remains that if you have doubts about your spouse, then you do not trust them entirely.*
> 
> I'm not stating that it is wise to trust someone who isn't trustworthy, I'm merely pointing out the facts. Another thought to consider would be that if you do not trust someone, then why marry them?


Actually that is 100% incorrect for me personally. I trust him without any doubt, with finances, emotions, fidelity etc. However my obligation and responsibility is to my children and their (future children). For us it is nothing to do with a lack of trust and it is an assumption to think that is why people put pre nups in place.

A pre nup is not only for divorce, they work hand in hand with a Will and anyone that has a lot at stake should have both unless they are in a primary relationship with the other parent of their bio kids. If people with a large estate only have a will and are in a second marriage then their estate is at risk post death. A pre nup and will protect my children as well as giving MrH and I nothing to be stressed about. In fact it could be said that a pre nup gives a marriage an even better foundation as people know where they stand from day one, that their kids are protected and that no one is marrying for money.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

We met and married in our late 40's. Both had long first marriages and adult children. I had a house and he didn't as he let his wife have the house. That's the sort of man he is. 
My solicitor mentioned a prenup but there is no way that I would ever have one. I know my husbands character and integrity, I know the kind and decent way he treated his ex in their divorce,so I have no fear of him acting badly, I trust him completely. 

We both believe that when we marry all that was his and mine becomes ours. I would never marry a man who wanted a prenup. if he didn't love me and trust me enough to share all he has with me then I am not interested. I believe the marriage vows that say, with all my world goods I thee endow. 
I wasn't going to be thinking about a divorce before I even got married and there are always wills to sort out who gets what after one dies.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> We met and married in our late 40's. Both had long first marriages and adult children. I had a house and he didn't as he let his wife have the house. That's the sort of man he is.
> My solicitor mentioned a prenup but there is no way that I would ever have one. I know my husbands character and integrity, I know the kind and decent way he treated his ex in their divorce,so I have no fear of him acting badly, I trust him completely.
> 
> We both believe that when we marry all that was his and mine becomes ours. I would never marry a man who wanted a prenup. if he didn't love me and trust me enough to share all he has with me then I am not interested. I believe the marriage vows that say, with all my world goods I thee endow.
> I wasn't going to be thinking about a divorce before I even got married and there are always wills to sort out who gets what after one dies.


Well I was the one that asked for a pre nup. And a will may be suitable for people with a small asset base but it isn't for people that have a larger estate.

It does not surprise me you don't understand the concept of the OP. As stated it has nothing to do with character and integrity, we have plenty of that here but we are smart enough to protect our children and estates. In your case if you die first and your husband remarries then his future wife will get your house and not your kids. That may be fine for you or those with not much to their names but it is foolish for people with money.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> Actually that is 100% incorrect for me personally. I trust him without any doubt, with finances, emotions, fidelity etc. However my obligation and responsibility is to my children and their (future children). For us it is nothing to do with a lack of trust and it is an assumption to think that is why people put pre nups in place.
> 
> A pre nup is not only for divorce, they work hand in hand with a Will and anyone that has a lot at stake should have both unless they are in a primary relationship with the other parent of their bio kids. If people with a large estate only have a will and are in a second marriage then their estate is at risk post death. A pre nup and will protect my children as well as giving MrH and I nothing to be stressed about. In fact it could be said that a pre nup gives a marriage an even better foundation as people know where they stand from day one, that their kids are protected and that no one is marrying for money.


If you trusted that he would take care of them, or give them their portion of your estate, then there would be no need for an insurance policy. The presence of an "insurance policy" testifies to the fact that you do not trust him with the well-being of your children when it comes to large piles of cash.

Once again, not bashing. But you can't claim to trust your daughter with her boyfriend, while having them chaperoned.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I have some friends who married about 3 years ago. She has 3 adult sons and stands to inherit a lot (millions) when her father passes on. They have a prenup to protect her son's inheritance and both of the savings/investments that they both had accumulated prior to their marriage.


Would not the laws governing pre-marital assets, inheritance and having a will cover this situation?


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

BioFury said:


> If you trusted that he would take care of them, or give them their portion of your estate, then there would be no need for an insurance policy. The presence of an "insurance policy" testifies to the fact that you do not trust him with the well-being of your children when it comes to large piles of cash.
> 
> Once again, not bashing. But you can't claim to trust your daughter with her boyfriend, while having them chaperoned.


As I said I trust him implicitly. Our situation is not standard in the amount of money and assets involved (but not dissimilar to many others around us). We are protecting against future people that may marry our children or others that may make a cash grab.

Anyway as I said down here it is not an uncommon practice and it has nothing to do with lack of trust, it is about being practical and wise.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> As I said I trust him implicitly. Our situation is not standard in the amount of money and assets involved (but not dissimilar to many others around us). We are protecting against future people that may marry our children or others that may make a cash grab.
> 
> Anyway as I said down here it is not an uncommon practice and it has nothing to do with lack of trust, it is about being practical and wise.


Your statements are diametrically opposed to one another. If you did trust him implicitly, you wouldn't feel the need to keep your money out of his reach. I shouldn't need to explain why these two ideas are contradictory.

I never said it was uncommon. It being common doesn't mean it isn't a sign of distrust.


----------



## Yag-Kosha (Sep 8, 2016)

I wouldn't ask my future wife to sign one.

But I don't really have much. Unless a box of crackers and some belly button lint under the sofa are considered assets.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

MrsHolland said:


> Well I was the one that asked for a pre nup. And a will may be suitable for people with a small asset base but it isn't for people that have a larger estate.
> 
> It does not surprise me you don't understand the concept of the OP. As stated it has nothing to do with character and integrity, we have plenty of that here but we are smart enough to protect our children and estates. In your case if you die first and your husband remarries then his future wife will get your house and not your kids. That may be fine for you or those with not much to their names but it is foolish for people with money.


As I said, I have a large 4 bedroom detached house. In the uk houses are worth a lot more than in most other countries. If I die first it becomes my children's house but he will be allowed to live in it till he either dies or marries again so no, any future wife will not get the house. She will not legally even be allowed to live in it. Besides that he would never cheat my children who he loves and has a great relationship with. Yes its very much about integrity and trust. I have no fear at all of what would happen if I died first. I have seen how he treats others. 
Wills are perfectly able to deal with large or small estates.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

I already responded in that other post, I think.
I'll have to look for it.

Short answer: Odo and I have one. We both agreed to it. We consider it to be like insurance; better to have and not need than need and not have.

I have nothing against those who consider prenups negatively or choose not to have one. That's their choice. But to only see it as something that proves distrust is shortsighted IMO. I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself and Odo, and we mutually agreed to it, for all positive reasons and because we love one another and respect that we had a life and other responsibilities before we met each other. It's really as simple as that.

One can never predict the absolute future, no matter how rosy it may seem. Life taught me this. One can choose to prepare for possibilities, and with an intention that speaks beyond mere distrust. I'm happy with our decision and so is Odo.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

There is a lot of talk and accusations of not trusting your partner by having a prenup.What about not trusting yourself?
How many people have just fell out of love with a partner,not cheating,just wanting to divorce.
In my own case when I was supposed to get married I had a watertight prenup but I never used it.

What I have noticed is that prenups are more common in the wealthier families and this is to protect property,estates,artwork etc which have been in families for generations.One of the more usual parts of these prenups concerns infidelity.If you ever see a really wealthy family but the eldest doesn’t inherit the bulk of the estate,rather another sibling does,then it is often the case that Mommy was playing away from home.Daddy may have forgiven and reconciled but Grandpa and Grandma aren’t so forgiving.
Why should a family farm or business that has been in the same family for generations have to be broken up because of a cheating partner.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Satya said:


> I already responded in that other post, I think.
> I'll have to look for it.
> 
> Short answer: Odo and I have one. We both agreed to it. We consider it to be like insurance; better to have and not need than need and not have.
> ...


So do you trust him to act with integrity if you ever divorce? If you do then why get a prenup? 
We are both divorced after long first marriages, but I still would never get a pre-nup. Firstly because for me that isn't what marriage is about, secondly because I know how my husband would act in the very unlikely event of our marriage ending.I have seen how he has acted in other difficult situations so I have no fear of what he may do in the future.
I dont actually know any couples here who have a prenup.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

No prenup here, but if I die first, my premarital assets go into a trust for my wife's support, and my son will get whatever is left, some day. In my first marriage, also no prenup, but we were both starting from nothing, so anything we gained was a joint venture.

I am very fortunate in that I feel that I can actually trust my wife to be fair and equitable if we ever do divorce - besides, my premarital assets would still remain mine as they have not been mingled or used for joint expenses. We may someday use divorce as a tool (and stay together), to shift assets or achieve savings for health coverage, in which case we may deliberately transfer the majority of assets to the healthier spouse.

That said, IF I were to ever marry again, I WOULD insist on a prenup. However, even if divorced or widowed, I seriously doubt I'd marry again, so the issue is moot.

If you do have premarital assets (particularly a business), or children from a prior marriage, then a prenup is essential. The person you trust now may not remain trustworthy - we've all seen and heard how ugly divorce can get, especially when there is cheating. You can't predict the future or a spouse's future behavior, but you can - to a limited extent - protect yourself. A prenup is insurance, and I would not go without insurance for almost anything. Marriage has one of the highest risk rates of any endeavor - protect yourself when there is something worth protecting.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

BioFury said:


> A prenup only comes into effect when a divorce is taking place, and couples create one to prepare for that occurrence. Therefore, they are planning for a divorce. In the same way that the designer of an automobile puts a seat-belt in place. He is planning for a collision.


I have life insurance. That does not mean I am planning to die.


----------



## FalCod (Dec 6, 2017)

My wife and I don't have one. We made more money this last week than we had in total assets when we got married. If either of us passed away, the other would definitely get a pre-nup if they remarried. It's something we've talked about. We worked too hard and saved too much to have our fortune and kid's inheritance taken by someone new to the family. Demanding a pre-nup would both help preserve those funds and would help dissuade someone whose primary marital interest was financial. For someone that was just in love, I don't see any reason why they would object.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

It's wise to have legal documents in place that represent your wishes. People can be very mercurial in their behavior when it comes to money.

When I was married, I included my husband on the deed to our house, which was entirely built with my inheritance. Because of that decision, I lost half a million just by putting it on the market (our values never went back up, and he wanted the house sold, as opposed to renting it till the values returned), and then I lost another half a million because he was half owner.

The money he received will be most likely be used to support a different woman - his girlfriend and her three, very young children.

Now, I want my children to receive the rest of whatever I have left when I die. All my finances are connected to them. 

If I were to get married again, I wouldn't mind sharing what I have during our time together, but he would know prior to taking vows that my children came first, and that they'll be the benefactors after I die.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

I’ve had life insurance for decades, didn’t plan to die, didn’t take irresponsible risks. But having life insurance makes sense. 

Just as a prenup does in many cases. 





MrsHolland said:


> Or Binding Financial Agreements as they are called in Aus.
> 
> In a now closed thread a posted basically asked why do this unless you are planning on the marriage to fail.
> 
> ...


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*Be wary of strategically worded prenups that might have you losing the vast majority of your own financial assets to the wealthier marriage partner! Been there ~ done that! 

The richer spouse, my RSXW, legally made off with the bulk of my meager financial assets per her prenup! I trusted her implicitly and never saw it coming! But then again, I never saw her dropping her scanty “Victoria Secrets” in her boyfriends boudiours and swanky four-star, out-of-town hotel rooms either!

But if I were to ever sign off on another one, I would inject a “turpitude/fidelity clause,” totally invalidating and forfeiting the prenup, in the event that either partner was proven unfaithful by a preponderence of the evidence in their marriage vows!*


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Married but Happy said:


> No prenup here, but if I die first, my premarital assets go into a trust for my wife's support, and my son will get whatever is left, some day. In my first marriage, also no prenup, but we were both starting from nothing, so anything we gained was a joint venture.
> 
> I am very fortunate in that I feel that I can actually trust my wife to be fair and equitable if we ever do divorce - besides, my premarital assets would still remain mine as they have not been mingled or used for joint expenses. We may someday use divorce as a tool (and stay together), to shift assets or achieve savings for health coverage, in which case we may deliberately transfer the majority of assets to the healthier spouse.
> 
> ...


I have seen how my husband acted in his first divorce(after his ex cheated on him), and in other situations in life. I know that he is a man of the utmost integrity, honesty and good moral values. Therefore I have no need to have a pre-nup even though I had three adult children when we married. Yes divorce brings out the best or worst in people, but both of us acted with integrity and fairness in our divorces and know that we can completely trust the other to act the same way if it ever happened again. If I had any doubts whatsoever about a man, I would not get married. 

Some have mentioned life insurance, not the same at all. We will all die, but we wont all divorce, and if we do we can marry someone who we trust totally. I would have serious doubts about any men who wanted a prenup, that his idea of marriage was not the same as mine in anyway. 

Some mentioned that its wise and sensible to get a pre-nup. I think its wise and sensible not to marry a man who I have any sort of doubts over and not to put money and possessions above the institution of marriage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have life insurance. That does not mean I am planning to die.


We will all die.


----------



## Template 2 (Feb 16, 2017)

I have two 20 something sons and I have advised each to secure a prenup prior to marriage. It is not because I think either will get divorced, but in my 60 plus years, I have seen quite a few divorces and the higher paid, asset invested person, usually the man, gets taken to the cleaners. I do not want to see that for my sons. People do not play fair during a divorce. They are scared and angry and looking to get as much as possible out of the end of the relationship. The attorney is usually quite happy to rack up billable hours, so the conflict continues. There are so many nuances in the laws that the whole divorce process can be a crap shoot. A prenup can help sort that out and each person knows what to expect, financially, should the marriage fail. I have seen unevenly yoked couples split up and the underemployed or unemployed spouse walks away with more than half the assets and spousal support that reduces the employed spouses' standard of living below that of the unemployed/underemployed spouse. With a prenup, everyone knows how things will be divided up. They also know how to title assets as they are accumulated over the length of the marriage to fit into the prenup plan. I also think a prenup is a good plan for those in second and third marriages. It protects assets brought to the marriage and provides protection for the children and grandchildren to inherit. As a side benefit, it can reassure adult children that their inheritance is safe within the confines of the new marriage. If everyone is on the same page from the get go, there is a better chance for both generations to get along and not be worried about the what if's. Better to be prepared from the get go than sorry at the end.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Life insurance. A poor analogy.

Of course we are planning to die, because we never know when it will be, but it will be 100%.

We know that. For a fact. Not wanting to die is a whole other matter.


----------



## jlcrome (Nov 5, 2017)

I was thinking about this the other day so here's my take. Statistics shows a very high divorce rate no matter what you think are what you been told yes people are leaving their marriages in droves. To me this is about protecting myself I know deep down inside I want a marriage until death and thats it. Sometimes yoy meet someone who sees marriage in a different light and just casual about the commitment and divorce you on the first sign of trivil reasons. Putting a pre-nup in place is saying you will not risk your house you spent the last 20 years paying on thats just an example. If you do divorce it can almost guarantee friendly departure. Just look at the divorce rate now days people are not staying married anyways even without the pre-nup. People are losing everything a pre-nup is saying if this does occur I know what I can walk away with. A marriage without a pre-nup is like a car without insurance. Nobody and I mean nobdoy can guarantee ya to be by your side in a marriage. Divorce happens even the most well intended people get divorce. I don't care if you heart set on until death do you part people get divorce all the time for various reasons. Even the most compatible couples get divorce. People change on a whim all you can do is protect yourself. Big thumbs up on pre-nup!!


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> Some mentioned that its wise and sensible to get a pre-nup. I think its wise and sensible not to marry a man who I have any sort of doubts over and not to put money and possessions above the institution of marriage.


I think this is a very noble ideal, but unfortunately rarely lived out.

Everyone who knows my ex-husband would describe him the same way you described your husband - 'a man of the utmost integrity, honesty and good moral values'. 

But I knew him as a very different sort of creature. 

People are flawed, and I accept that. It's cliche to say, but I can only control me, and that includes legal documentation of how I want to live - and die.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Template 2 said:


> I have two 20 something sons and I have advised each to secure a prenup prior to marriage. It is not because I think either will get divorced, but in my 60 plus years, I have seen quite a few divorces and the higher paid, asset invested person, usually the man, gets taken to the cleaners. I do not want to see that for my sons. People do not play fair during a divorce. They are scared and angry and looking to get as much as possible out of the end of the relationship. The attorney is usually quite happy to rack up billable hours, so the conflict continues. There are so many nuances in the laws that the whole divorce process can be a crap shoot. A prenup can help sort that out and each person knows what to expect, financially, should the marriage fail. I have seen unevenly yoked couples split up and the underemployed or unemployed spouse walks away with more than half the assets and spousal support that reduces the employed spouses' standard of living below that of the unemployed/underemployed spouse. With a prenup, everyone knows how things will be divided up. They also know how to title assets as they are accumulated over the length of the marriage to fit into the prenup plan. I also think a prenup is a good plan for those in second and third marriages. It protects assets brought to the marriage and provides protection for the children and grandchildren to inherit. As a side benefit, it can reassure adult children that their inheritance is safe within the confines of the new marriage. If everyone is on the same page from the get go, there is a better chance for both generations to get along and not be worried about the what if's. Better to be prepared from the get go than sorry at the end.


We have 2 married sons, neither has a prenup nor wanted one. Both of their wives are lovely women who are not at all materialistic. 
I dont think they are very common in the UK, I don't know a single married couple who has one. I think it all a bit sad when possessions and money come before the marriage vows.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

minimalME said:


> I think this is a very noble ideal, but unfortunately rarely lived out.
> 
> Everyone who knows my ex-husband would describe him the same way you described your husband - 'a man of the utmost integrity, honesty and good moral values'.
> 
> ...


I know him better than anyone and he is as I describe. I wouldn't have married a man who didnt have those qualities.


----------



## FalCod (Dec 6, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> I have seen how my husband acted in his first divorce(after his ex cheated on him), and in other situations in life. I know that he is a man of the utmost integrity, honesty and good moral values. Therefore I have no need to have a pre-nup even though I had three adult children when we married. Yes divorce brings out the best or worst in people, but both of us acted with integrity and fairness in our divorces and know that we can completely trust the other to act the same way if it ever happened again. If I had any doubts whatsoever about a man, I would not get married.
> 
> Some have mentioned life insurance, not the same at all. We will all die, but we wont all divorce, and if we do we can marry someone who we trust totally. I would have serious doubts about any men who wanted a prenup, that his idea of marriage was not the same as mine in anyway.
> 
> Some mentioned that its wise and sensible to get a pre-nup. I think its wise and sensible not to marry a man who I have any sort of doubts over and not to put money and possessions above the institution of marriage.


People change. People make mistakes. If my wife passes away, half of our money is still "hers" in a way that I would never put at risk with another woman, no matter how much I love her. It would be an insult to my wife. If this new woman really loved me, why would a pre-nup bother her?


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

There is a great deal of uncertainty in life. We think we know people and they surprise us. People change and evolve. Traumatic events can spark unpredictable and puzzling behavior. At best is is naive to think that we can always predict the actions of someone else under all circumstances. At worst it is arrogant.

Have a prenup or don't. It's a personal decision. I don't have one because I didn't have a vast fortune prior to marriage and I believe that what you build together belongs to both of you. 

Perhaps fewer people would feel the need for such an agreement if property division were more clearly codefied in law and said laws were applied in a uniform and predictable manner. Courts are notorious for inconsistency and arbitrary decisions. I surely can't blame someone who wants to protect the assets he or she has before the fact. Marriages often fail. Fact. Despite all the good intentions in the world.

Let's look at some of the typical posts on this site. How many posters come here bewildered, not able to understand why their spouse has suddenly left them, cheated or become hostile? Most of those posters were very confident when they married that this person would never do these things. Their marriage would endure indefinitely, or so they believed. Some people are unwaveringly good. Until they are not.

Precautions are not plans. They are safeguards against possible negative outcomes. The more severe the consequences, the more sensible it is to take precautions. Even if the chance is relatively low.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

A prenup can help assure that the other person is not looking to fleece you, and thus they are actually marrying out of good intentions (love, companionship, shared interests). If you say a prenup indicates lack of trust, then you would also say that estate planning using a Trust shows lack of trust in your spouse. Yet I've never heard that argument made about estate planning.

I've seen people do some very honorable things after an unexpected death of a spouse or in a divorce. Even though smart estate planning was not in place, the surviving spouse really did the right thing by the step-children. But much more often, and really the norm, people get very greedy. Just look at how the vultures descend when there's a death in the family. Look at how vicious many divorces get. We can trust somebody today yet acknowledge human nature and say I wouldn't trust anybody to be benevolent towards me in a divorce.

In my family a loved and trusted second wife stole several tens of millions of dollars. That's what trust will get you.

A prenup is just one of several important legal documents needed. Prenup, will, and trust. The prenup can help establish or reinforce the intent of the will or Trust. The more $$ is involved, the more attacks there will be.

A will is important, but in the USA (not sure about other countries from what is being posted in this thread) it simply conveys property once. Once conveyed, that property is now fully owned by the heir without any strings attached. For example, a home owned prior to marriage can be given to the spouse, but then the spouse is under no obligation to convey it to the children of the deceased later on. Or, the home can be conveyed to the children, but the children are not obligated to allow the surviving spouse to remain living in the house.

A Trust dictates how the assets are to be handled, and the trust can continue many years into the future. In the example of the house above, the Trust can retain ownership for the duration of the life of the surviving spouse, and then convey ownership to the children. Thus the spouse is cared for but the heirs' interests are protected.

If you have any significant assets at all I strongly suggest a Trust. And a prenup and a good Will (designed to mesh with the Trust).


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> Some mentioned that its wise and sensible to get a pre-nup. I think its wise and sensible not to marry a man who I have any sort of doubts over and not to put money and possessions above the institution of marriage.


It's your choice, and your belief that it IS possible to marry someone with such integrity. You may succeed, and I do think it is possible to improve the odds of making a good choice of partner if you take your time up front to do so. However, people and circumstances change, and even a person of integrity can change in some cases. To think otherwise is delusional, IMO. So, it comes down to how much is at risk and how much you are willing to trust in someone's behavior at some future time. If you have little at risk, or don't care what happens, then a prenup is a waste. But even if your partner is trustworthy, and you agree on things in a divorce, you can't be sure _the judge_ will respect your agreement if he/she thinks it should be changed. A prenup helps with this - but even that won't guarantee a particular outcome.

My ex was presumably a very ethical/moral person, and acted that way during our entire marriage, but she became greedy and manipulative during our divorce. So, my own experience contradicts my belief, and so I can only hope you never face this. Many will regret not having a good prenup, should they ever divorce. I would have, but was able to wait her out until she wanted to finalize the divorce more than she wanted to screw me over (with no ethical basis or reason for doing so). I don't have one for this marriage, either, but most of my assets are protected anyway, because they were acquired before this marriage and never mingled.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> However, people and circumstances change, and even a person of integrity can change in some cases. To think otherwise is delusional, IMO.


Exactly. I was thinking naive, but delusional works. :grin2:


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> I know him better than anyone and he is as I describe. I wouldn't have married a man who didnt have those qualities.


Did your first husband have these same qualities?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

FalCod said:


> People change. People make mistakes. If my wife passes away, half of our money is still "hers" in a way that I would never put at risk with another woman, no matter how much I love her. It would be an insult to my wife. If this new woman really loved me, why would a pre-nup bother her?


If you loved this new lady why you would you even ask? Me not accepting a pre-nup would have nothing to do with me not loving him, but due to the fact that his idea of marriage isn't the same as mine. That he wasn't trusting me to act with integrity. I believe in the promise, 'with all my worldly good I thee endow'. 

People basic character and integrity don't change over time. They either have it or they don't. I remember talking about this a while back when a man said to me, well I bet you didn't have anything when you married and your husband had a lot. I enjoyed telling him that in fact I had a house and he had nothing so a pre-nup would have benefitted me far more than him.
My husbands main concerns and priorities in life are not financial or material which is why he let his former wife have their marital home because he didn't think it was right to go to court and fight for it. That's the sort of man he was and is. 
That's why I have no worries.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

zookeeper said:


> Did your first husband have these same qualities?


My first husband and myself both acted very fairly and decently throughout the divorce. There was no bitterness or greed from either of us. Everything was split very reasonably as well.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> My first husband and myself both acted very fairly and decently throughout the divorce. There was no bitterness or greed from either of us. Everything was split very reasonably as well.


So is your assertion that everything you thought you knew about your first husband when you married was completely accurate? Nothing changed?


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

FalCod said:


> People change. People make mistakes. If my wife passes away, half of our money is still "hers" in a way that I would never put at risk with another woman, no matter how much I love her. It would be an insult to my wife. If this new woman really loved me, why would a pre-nup bother her?


It would bother her because you're stating that you suspect her to be a covetous and greedy snake.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

BioFury said:


> It would bother her because you're stating that you suspect her to be a covetous and greedy snake.


Well, the very first question that my ex-husband asked me when I told him I wanted a divorce was - 'Is my name on your trust fund?'

Not...let's work this out, what about the children, etc. These eventually followed, but they weren't the priority.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I would have agreed when younger that a prenup implies a lack of trust. But now that I'm older, have some assets, and have seen human nature, I see a prenup as also protecting my children's interests in the event of my error in judgment should I marry the wrong person.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

zookeeper said:


> So is your assertion that everything you thought you knew about your first husband when you married was completely accurate? Nothing changed?


When we married I was 19 and he 23. At that age you do change more, but when I married my second husband we were both in our late 40's, so far more mature and far more aware of what we wanted in a marriage and partner. I had far far higher criteria for a husband by then, firstly he had to be a strong Christian,be totally honest, have strong moral values, and great integrity. I hit the jackpot.


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

Thor said:


> If you have any significant assets at all I strongly suggest a Trust. And a prenup and a good Will (designed to mesh with the Trust).


Agreed 100%!

If I was to ever get divorced, which I will get destroyed in, the second it's finalized I will be setting up a trust. The Will is already set up, but would be changed in the event of a divorce.

There's a snowballs chance in hell I would ever get married again. No way I would sign up to be a 3 time loser, but on the off chance I went mental and did, a pre-nup would absolutely be executed. Even living together would be a risk as common-law would kick in a a specific date in the future.

In some places, that's as little as 6 months. Mind blown over that! Definitely food for thought.

Added food for thought. All one has to do is cruise through this forum to see the devastating effects of underestimating your spouse.

To the best of my knowledge, only one person that walked this planet was ever perfect!


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

It depends on when you are married and what you have to protect. Here prenups protect existing accounts and property. It doesn’t protect future profits and property later bought together.


So a young couple with no investments, kids, and no property have no real need for one.  As a divorced dad with kids, pension,House, investments I would never consider marriage without one.


It isn’t about planning for the demise of your marriage it is all about insurance protection. We all buy insurance for various things this is just another form of that.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

MrsHolland said:


> Well I was the one that asked for a pre nup. And a will may be suitable for people with a small asset base but it isn't for people that have a larger estate.
> 
> It does not surprise me you don't understand the concept of the OP. As stated it has nothing to do with character and integrity, we have plenty of that here but we are smart enough to protect our children and estates. In your case if you die first and your husband remarries then his future wife will get your house and not your kids. That may be fine for you or those with not much to their names but it is *foolish* for people with money.


Yep

And the two old,but true, sayings summarize it best

A fool and his money are easily parted

The person you divorce isn’t the person you married 

Prenups when you have kids and assets are a necessity. It really should be mandatory my opinion


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I have heard that in the states that they are unenforceable. Is this true?


----------



## Betrayedone (Jan 1, 2014)

Best advice is not to re-marry........avoid the problem altogether!


----------



## Randy2 (Jul 19, 2016)

Wow! 4 pages of posts in less than 24 hours. Great that we can disagree on this. 

As a man who has worked hard, delayed gratification for decades and saved and has difficulty trusting the future, OUR Pre-Nup made it possible for me-at age 56-EMOTIONALLY to marry and commit to a wonderful widow and her 3 adult children. The pre-nup was difficult for her to accept at first; now we're 7 years into the marriage and things are fine. We do need to review our estate plan soon. I am fearful that she'll want to erase the pre-nup. I may not be able to do that, emotionally.


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

Randy2 said:


> Wow! 4 pages of posts in less than 24 hours. Great that we can disagree on this.
> 
> As a man who has worked hard, delayed gratification for decades and saved and has difficulty trusting the future, OUR Pre-Nup made it possible for me-at age 56-EMOTIONALLY to marry and commit to a wonderful widow and her 3 adult children. The pre-nup was difficult for her to accept at first; now we're 7 years into the marriage and things are fine. We do need to review our estate plan soon. I am fearful that she'll want to erase the pre-nup. I may not be able to do that, emotionally.



Why would you erase it?

That would be crazy!


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> I know him better than anyone and he is as I describe. *I wouldn't have married a man who didnt have those qualities.*


If that were true you wouldn't be on your second husband.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> When we married I was 19 and he 23. At that age you do change more, but when I married my second husband we were both in our late 40's, so far more mature and far more aware of what we wanted in a marriage and partner. I had far far higher criteria for a husband by then, firstly he had to be a strong Christian,be totally honest, have strong moral values, and great integrity. I hit the jackpot.


I'm glad for you that you are so happy with your husband, but I don't really understand how you can be so blindly sure of what will happen down the road after already having one marriage that didn't go as planned. 

Faith may be enough for you. Others prefer legal assurance.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have heard that in the states that they are unenforceable. Is this true?


There is very little in the law that is absolute. Here a pre nup is just part of the whole picture and the courts can over rule them. Our advise is that we are to review and update the pre nup and wills regularly, 3 yearly roughly. That is a warning to others that have one in place although your laws may be different. For eg. you get married and have a pre nup, let 20 years go by without any review, update or simply signing off that the current one is still valid, then it can be petitioned that the pre nup has become watered down or invalid because so much time has gone by. By reviewing and updating on a regular basis the courts can see that your wishes are solid and it is much harder to be over ruled.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have heard that in the states that they are unenforceable. Is this true?


It depends where you are and what the terms are. Each state has different laws. A prenup generated in one state can be useless when you move to another state. Some provisions are not enforceable. The quality of the document is very important, too.

In my state they are generally enforceable.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have heard that in the states that they are unenforceable. Is this true?


Private contracts are trumped by state law, so a prenup can be overturned in court. It really depends on the knowledge and skill of the lawyer(s) who wrote and/or reviewed the prenup.


----------



## snorzola (Jan 7, 2018)

Randy2 said:


> Wow! 4 pages of posts in less than 24 hours.


Most of the posts are @Diana7 telling everyone how great her second husband is.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

snorzola said:


> Most of the posts are @Diana7 telling everyone how great her second husband is.


So because I disagree with most of you I get that. Thanks. Oh and BTW he is great, sorry I am not going to lie about that, but whoever I married I would never ever get a prenup. No matter how rich or poor he was or how rich or poor I was. A marriage for me isn't one where I start off by withholding assets from the marriage or my husband, nor he me. A marriage for me is one where we share everything, money, possessions, assets, pensions, etc. Otherwise why get married. I made promises when I married him that with all my worldly goods I thee endow, and I am not going to go back on those promises. Also neither of us are materialistic or money oriented. We know that there are more important things in life, such as how we act towards each other and the example we set our children. How we act in difficult situations such as a divorce.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Personal said:


> If that were true you wouldn't be on your second husband.


AS I said I was 19 when I married my first husband, and as it happened I dont regret marrying him. 30 years on I was far more strict about the sort of man I wanted to marry. I wouldn't have settled for second best even if that meant I remained single for the rest of my life.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> Private contracts are trumped by state law, so a prenup can be overturned in court. It really depends on the knowledge and skill of the lawyer(s) who wrote and/or reviewed the prenup.


I am pretty sure that they are not enforceable in the UK. The first priority here is that any dependant children are looked after and have a home, no matter what the pre-nup says. Things change once you have children. They come first.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> So do you trust him to act with integrity if you ever divorce? If you do then why get a prenup?
> We are both divorced after long first marriages, but I still would never get a pre-nup. Firstly because for me that isn't what marriage is about, secondly because I know how my husband would act in the very unlikely event of our marriage ending.I have seen how he has acted in other difficult situations so I have no fear of what he may do in the future.
> I dont actually know any couples here who have a prenup.


Consider for a moment, a prenup as front loading the integrity you mention.

The integrity is already there and trusted. If the time ever came to employ it, he's held to his promise, as am I.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

I think it all boils down to where your treasure is, or what you treasure most in life. If it is money and material goods you will do everything possible to maintain it and seek to control who maintains it even after you're dead. You might truly love and respect your prospective mate but protecting your "treasure" comes first. If its the marriage itself then you are more concerned with building that relationship on a different foundation than money and material goods. 

In the Bible, the Rich Young Ruler's encounter with Christ it says he ended up walking away sad. He was sad because he knew a relationship with Christ was more important but he could not give up any of his riches to pursue it.

I recognize that a vast majority of the posters on TAM are not Christians and and believe that the Bible is a work of fiction or at best an outdated school of thought. This is probably where the Great Gulf lies between the two schools of thought on pre nups.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

thefam said:


> I think it all boils down to where your treasure is, or what you treasure most in life. If it is money and material goods you will do everything possible to maintain it and seek to control who maintains it even after you're dead. You might truly love and respect your prospective mate but protecting your "treasure" comes first. If its the marriage itself then you are more concerned with building that relationship on a different foundation than money and material goods.
> 
> In the Bible, the Rich Young Ruler's encounter with Christ it says he ended up walking away sad. He was sad because he knew a relationship with Christ was more important but he could not give up any of his riches to pursue it.
> 
> I recognize that a vast majority of the posters on TAM are not Christians and and believe that the Bible is a work of fiction or at best an outdated school of thought. This is probably where the Great Gulf lies between the two schools of thought on pre nups.


I'm a Christian, and I'd refer you to the Parable of the Talents. It's not about loving money and things more than people. It's being a wise steward of what you've been entrusted with.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

I would like to know what percentage of soon to be married couples end up parting ways because a pre nup was suggested. 

I can see and agree with a prenup if it’s designed to protect children or other family members. I would ask for the same protection for my children but beyond that I’m not sure I’d be able to overcome the insulting nature of being asked to sign a prenup if there’s no one to protect. 

If I was in a relationship with marriage potential and had assets I was concerned about marriage wouldn’t be an option, not if I really cared about him. I would never ask someone to marry me then ask them to sign a prenup.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

minimalME said:


> I'm a Christian, and I'd refer you to the Parable of the Talents. It's not about loving money and things more than people. It's being a wise steward of what you've been entrusted with.


I see it as being about greed and wanting to deprive your spouse of money and assets in the event of a marriage ending. 
I see it as not seeing marriage as a covenant where everything you both had before marriage becomes ours and not yours or mine.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Not said:


> I would like to know what percentage of soon to be married couples end up parting ways because a pre nup was suggested.
> 
> I can see and agree with a prenup if it’s designed to protect children or other family members. I would ask for the same protection for my children but beyond that *I’m not sure I’d be able to overcome the insulting nature of being asked to sign a prenup if there’s no one to protect.*
> 
> If I was in a relationship with marriage potential and had assets I was concerned about marriage wouldn’t be an option, not if I really cared about him. I would never ask someone to marry me then ask them to sign a prenup.


 @Not, your perception is valid if that's how you see it or maybe experienced it in reference to others. In a situation with no children, but assets, I could see the purpose in asking for a prenup, however.

A lot of difference of opinion here seems to be the immediate impression of a prenup. In general I believe it is thought of as a negative thing by many, not a positive. I actually see it as positive to start, and only negative if it gets into incredible levels of detail.

It's difficult for me to explain the reasoning behind ours, because I believe that it was authored with a very different intention than many prenups tend to have. I did not enter our relationship with much of anything other than my savings. Odo had many more assets and three children (2 of which were adults at the time). I was the one who originally asked his opinion of a prenup. He was pleasantly surprised to know that I did not see it as a negative, distrust, or anything of the sort. I saw it as a logical step given the situation and feel that it exemplifies the kind of respect we have for one another and desire to maintain that level of respect regardless of what might happen to our relationship.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

thefam said:


> I think it all boils down to where your treasure is, or what you treasure most in life. If it is money and material goods you will do everything possible to maintain it and seek to control who maintains it even after you're dead. You might truly love and respect your prospective mate but protecting your "treasure" comes first. If its the marriage itself then you are more concerned with building that relationship on a different foundation than money and material goods.
> 
> In the Bible, the Rich Young Ruler's encounter with Christ it says he ended up walking away sad. He was sad because he knew a relationship with Christ was more important but he could not give up any of his riches to pursue it.
> 
> I recognize that a vast majority of the posters on TAM are not Christians and and believe that the Bible is a work of fiction or at best an outdated school of thought. This is probably where the Great Gulf lies between the two schools of thought on pre nups.


I totally agree with you. This is why my husband let his wife have their house. She had made it clear that she wanted the house, and he knows that the Bible tell us as Christians not to take our fights to secular courts. So he let her have it with no conditions rather than fight in court. That's the sort of man he is, he has integrity and a strong faith. He trusted God for all his needs and for his future and very soon we met and married so God took care of him very quickly and gave him a new wife who loves him, new step children who he gets on really well with, and a home. His wife is still single 13 years later after her affair partner ended their relationship after less than a year. We know that God will take care of us if we act with decency and fairness. If we try and hold on to 'things' at all costs, not treating people well in the process, then we may well loose them. 

For both of us our treasure isn't in worldly wealth or assets, but in our spiritual life and our family and marriage. We value many things more than money, belongings and assets. A pre-nup to us is something that isn't in anyway part of the sort of marriage we believe in. There are no circumstances under which I would even consider one. We are not interested in large houses, vast savings, fast cars, boats, designer clothes, jewels, expensive holidays and such like.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> I see it as being about greed and wanting to deprive your spouse of money and assets in the event of a marriage ending.
> I see it as not seeing marriage as a covenant where everything you both had before marriage becomes ours and not yours or mine.


That's fine. We just see things differently.

I mean, technically, as Christians, the majority (or only under very specific circumstances) shouldn't be getting remarried anyway. Most of the divorces and remarriages are simply adding to the mess of modern society.

And a prenuptial agreement isn't depriving a would-be spouse of everything. It simply sets guidelines of will and won't be given.

In my fantasy world of the prefect prenup, I'd also include sexual activity (my marriage was sexless) and a commitment to actually speaking up and working through problems (as opposed to choosing silence, masterbation, and pornography - the choices of my ex).

My house closed last month, and I lost a million - conservatively. Legally, in my state, I could've gotten that back when I initiated the divorce, because it was inheritance, and my ex contibuted nothing. I chose not to do that. I wanted him to have it. At least that's how I felt at the beginning. 

Also, I asked for nothing. I didn't seek alimony or access to his 401K from a previous job.

He still managed to come away thinking of himself as a victim, but I know that my behavior was above board, and I was not greedy.

The money he received, the majority of it, will be used for the benefit of his girlfriend and her children - NOT our children, who, for the most part, are grown.

For me, that won't happen again. My children will benefit from whatever I have left. They'll come first.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

minimalME said:


> That's fine. We just see things differently.
> 
> I mean, technically, as Christians, the majority (or only under very specific circumstances) shouldn't be getting remarried anyway. Most of the divorces and remarriages are simply adding to the mess of modern society.
> 
> ...


Divorce and remarriage is allowed for sexual immorality. I see God restoring many lives by finding them a second spouse and a good marriage. As he did with us. Also giving children a good step parent is valuable as well. 

My children will still get the house after our death, as his will get the house he let his wife have after her death. Wills are easily done. As for divorce, its not going to happen. I would never marry again anyway so there would be no point, and my husband doesn't believe in going back on the promises made in marriage. It was his wife who ended their marriage, he never would have done.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> Wills are easily done.


Excellent point! A will plus a prenup is even more powerful.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Satya said:


> Consider for a moment, a prenup as front loading the integrity you mention.
> 
> The integrity is already there and trusted. If the time ever came to employ it, he's held to his promise, as am I.


But if a person truly has integrity why would you need a legal document to hold said person to their promise?




Not said:


> I would like to know what percentage of soon to be married couples end up parting ways because a pre nup was suggested.


I don't know the stats, either, but I've done it. ExBF from my young years asked me to marry him and talked about a prenup during the proposal. I declined and ended the relationship.

I see asking for a prenup as planning for a divorce. If my intended thought that the probability of our future divorce was high enough that he wanted a prenup, let's just save ourselves the time and bother, not get married, and part ways.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> But if a person truly has integrity why would you need a legal document to hold said person to their promise?


If everyone in this world had inherent integrity, we wouldn't have a need for any sort of contract or agreement... for anything we want to institute as binding.

For Odo and I, we don't see the prenup as a lack of trust or integrity. The opposite actually.
Maybe looking from the outside, someone else would feel differently.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> But if a person truly has integrity why would you need a legal document to hold said person to their promise?


Some might ask the same about the legal contract called marriage.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Diana7 said:


> My children will still get the house after our death, as his will get the house he let his wife have after he death. Wills are easily done.


His ex-wife may give it so someone else. Or perhaps the spouse of her stepchild will make a claim on her house when she dies.

As for your house, the same sort of thing could happen if he remarried, or even if he didn’t. If he didn’t remarry, and then after his death, what if one of his children’s spouse saw the house you brought to the marriage as fair game (or worse, didn’t care if it was fair)? So, then that stranger-to-you ties up the house in a costly court battle with your kids. Should your kids just sign the house over, without a fight?

Or, what if he remarries, and his new wife cheats and divorces him and demands the house?

The point is, you can be right about your husband, you can have a will, and your interests can still lose because you and your husband failed to use all the tools at your disposal, including trusts and prenups.

Rules may be different where you live. But unless one is truly an expert, it seems foolish to categorically dismiss any legal tool.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

thefam said:


> I think it all boils down to where your treasure is, or what you treasure most in life. If it is money and material goods you will do everything possible to maintain it and seek to control who maintains it even after you're dead. You might truly love and respect your prospective mate but protecting your "treasure" comes first. If its the marriage itself then you are more concerned with building that relationship on a different foundation than money and material goods.
> 
> In the Bible, the Rich Young Ruler's encounter with Christ it says he ended up walking away sad. He was sad because he knew a relationship with Christ was more important but he could not give up any of his riches to pursue it.
> 
> I recognize that a vast majority of the posters on TAM are not Christians and and believe that the Bible is a work of fiction or at best an outdated school of thought. This is probably where the Great Gulf lies between the two schools of thought on pre nups.


Protecting my financial treasure is completely different than anything to do with any spirituality. Are you saying the Bible commands us to be poor? To be bad stewards of our means of providing our basic needs into old age? Is it a binary choice of either having material assets OR being Christian?

If I were to remarry and then divorce, my kids will always be a higher priority than the new XW#2. Protecting my treasure is protecting my children and grand-children. It has nothing to do with spirituality.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

minimalME said:


> Excellent point! A will plus a prenup is even more powerful.


I can't stress enough the importance of a Trust. Everybody should do some basic research on how they work where they live. In the USA, a Trust bypasses the probate process, which can take at least 6 months. Heirs don't get anything until probate happens. Probate costs money. A Trust allows everything to continue as it was, and to immediately move to distribution of assets however the owner wished. This can be especially important if there are dependent children involved.

In the event of a second marriage, a Trust allows you to ensure your heirs get what you want them to, but it also allows you to make assets available to your surviving spouse during their lifetime. For example, a home owned prior to the second marriage can be owned by the Trust. Upon your death, the Trust remains the owner of the house, and it can be stipulated in the Trust that the surviving spouse can remain in the house as long as they wish. But, upon them leaving the house, the Trust will sell the house and distribute the $ to the heirs. This way a surviving spouse can be cared for, yet the heirs can also be protected.

There should be a Will designed specifically to mesh with the Trust. A Pour-over Will simply says "Everything I own at my death is to go to my Trust". Anything which somehow wasn't already in the Trust will go there and be protected by it.


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

zookeeper said:


> Some might ask the same about the legal contract called marriage.


This^ X1000


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

Satya said:


> @Not, your perception is valid if that's how you see it or maybe experienced it in reference to others. In a situation with no children, but assets, I could see the purpose in asking for a prenup, however.
> 
> A lot of difference of opinion here seems to be the immediate impression of a prenup. In general I believe it is thought of as a negative thing by many, not a positive. I actually see it as positive to start, and only negative if it gets into incredible levels of detail.
> 
> It's difficult for me to explain the reasoning behind ours, because I believe that it was authored with a very different intention than many prenups tend to have. I did not enter our relationship with much of anything other than my savings. Odo had many more assets and three children (2 of which were adults at the time). I was the one who originally asked his opinion of a prenup. He was pleasantly surprised to know that I did not see it as a negative, distrust, or anything of the sort. I saw it as a logical step given the situation and feel that it exemplifies the kind of respect we have for one another and desire to maintain that level of respect regardless of what might happen to our relationship.



In your situation I completely agree with a prenup and I think it was awesome of you to be the one to bring it up first. I was more or less thinking about what I would do if asked to sign one and in a situation like yours would have no problem with it at all. If the situation involved no children or other family members needing financial protection though I think that changes the dynamic. 

I tried to imagine what that would feel like, because in essence, without other people to protect a prenup would be one person asking for protection from the second person, the person they want to marry. That’s why I think it would be so insulting and would hurt pretty bad. I think I’d rather just keep marriage off the table to preserve the relationship. I think the very idea of a prenup in this situation would actually inject doubt into the relationship and cause real damage.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> But if a person truly has integrity why would you need a legal document to hold said person to their promise?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. If a man asked me for a pre-nup I would know that he wasn't the sort of man I wanted to marry. Firstly he thinks its ok to divorce, secondly he doesn't trust me, and thirdly he doesn't care about me enough to make sure I am provided for if he should ever leave me. Not the man I want to commit myself to thanks.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> I agree. If a man asked me for a pre-nup I would know that he wasn't the sort of man I wanted to marry. Firstly he thinks its ok to divorce, secondly he doesn't trust me, and thirdly he doesn't care about me enough to make sure I am provided for if he should ever leave me. Not the man I want to commit myself to thanks.


I'm confused. Aren't you divorced? Why was it ok for you then? Why does the idea that he might think divorce is acceptable make him unworthy but the fact that you clearly did think divorce was OK not reflect badly on you?

Seriously, I don't get it. Seems like the height of hypocrisy to me.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

PieceOfSky said:


> His ex-wife may give it so someone else. Or perhaps the spouse of her stepchild will make a claim on her house when she dies.
> 
> As for your house, the same sort of thing could happen if he remarried, or even if he didn’t. If he didn’t remarry, and then after his death, what if one of his children’s spouse saw the house you brought to the marriage as fair game (or worse, didn’t care if it was fair)? So, then that stranger-to-you ties up the house in a costly court battle with your kids. Should your kids just sign the house over, without a fight?
> 
> ...


The will says that if he remarries or dies the house will automatically be sold and go to my children. Its effectively theirs once I die with permission for him to say there till his death or remarriage. No partner is legally permitted to live there and he wouldn't live with a woman without getting married anyway. As to what his ex wife does that's her decision, but being that she is now in her 60's and has never met anyone else in 13 years,its probably not that likely she will now.If she does then its up to her to sort that out and nothing to do with us.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

zookeeper said:


> I'm confused. Aren't you divorced? Why was it ok for you then? Why does the idea that he might think divorce is acceptable make him unworthy but the fact that you clearly did think divorce was OK not reflect badly on you?
> 
> Seriously, I don't get it. Seems like the height of hypocrisy to me.


I had no choice but to end my marriage after 25 years and 2 church leaders I talked to agreed with me. I hate divorce as well, but in certain specific serious circumstances its the lesser of 2 evils. I am thinking here of serious abuse of the spouse or children or adultery. I wouldn't end a marriage for any other reason.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> Firstly he thinks its ok to divorce, secondly he doesn't trust me, and thirdly he doesn't care about me enough to make sure I am provided for if he should ever leave me.


I disagree.

First - a person who divorces or who is divorced doesn't necessarily celebrate the practice. You're divorced. Your current husband was previously divorced. In the world of endless possibilities of how a marriage will be lived out, divorce is one of those possibilities. Accepting that fact doesn't mean that I want one, or that I think they're great.

Second - I can offer you my trust, while still accepting that you're a person who's flawed, and who, sooner or later, will disappoint me. The only person I can control is me. You cannot say with 100% certainty that the person you're married to won't divorce you. 

Third - a prenup is customized to the needs and wants of the author. My dad has a prenup with my stepmom, yet she's very, very well provided for. It's not a one size fits all proposition.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

minimalME said:


> I disagree.
> 
> First - a person who divorces or who is divorced doesn't necessarily celebrate the practice. You're divorced. Your current husband was previously divorced. In the world of endless possibilities of how a marriage will be lived out, divorce is one of those possibilities. Accepting that fact doesn't mean that I want one, or that I think they're great.
> 
> ...


We will have to agree to differ, because no matter what , I would never marry a man who wanted one, nor would I ever ask for one, despite the fact that we are both previously divorced. Being divorced didnt change my mind on what I believe marriage to be about and on what I believe is right.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Satya said:


> *If everyone in this world had inherent integrity, we wouldn't have a need for any sort of contract or agreement... for anything we want to institute as binding.*
> .


The like button is not enough. QFT.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> The will says that if he remarries or dies the house will automatically be sold and go to my children. Its effectively theirs once I die with permission for him to say there till his death or remarriage.


Is this absolutely 100% rock solid in the UK with just a Will?

In the USA it is not. In the USA a will cannot put future conditions on assets. Upon death, a will transfers full ownership to the heir, who can do whatever they please.

One of my relatives had tens of millions, and his second wife brought a similar amount into the marriage. Their wills said when the second person died, all the assets were to be split amongst the children (all from first marriages, they had no children together). He died first, so all of his assets went to her. Then once she owned everything, she changed her will to give everything to her children. She erased all of his children from her will. They had a prenup, but the Will trumped that because upon death a prenup is no longer effective. While the prenup was consistent with the concepts in their original Wills, she simply changed her will after his death.

A new owner of something can do whatever they want with it, no strings attached. A Trust is different than a Will because The Trust owns the assets, and The Trust continues to own the assets after the person dies. The death is almost a non-event.

In a situation like yours here in the USA, your Trust would own the home he is in. While you are alive you control the house, and can choose to let him live there. If you predecease him, the Trust is instructed to let him stay there unless he remarries. When he dies it transfers to your children.

In the USA a Will cannot do that.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> We will have to agree to differ, because no matter what , I would never marry a man who wanted one, nor would I ever ask for one, despite the fact that we are both previously divorced. Being divorced didnt change my mind on what I believe marriage to be about and on what I believe is right.


You're digging yourself into a hole.

You did ask for one. Even though the situation was abusive, you still considered divorce an acceptable door of escape. You wanted a divorce - and you got one.

And as I said above, it's not that people are celebrating divorce. It's simply a fact. People are divorcing.

You can marry a man who tells you that he'd never divorce. That's fine and good. But you still have no control over his thoughts, motivations, or actions. You cannot guarantee what someone else will do.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> I agree. If a man asked me for a pre-nup I would know that he wasn't the sort of man I wanted to marry. Firstly he thinks its ok to divorce, secondly he doesn't trust me, and thirdly he doesn't care about me enough to make sure I am provided for if he should ever leave me. Not the man I want to commit myself to thanks.


Certainly your option but your attitude about it is exactly why, as a man, I would never marry a woman without one. All I hear is what your concerns are and not willing to understand his. Way to selfish and one sided so would get a hard pass from me.

I am willing to risk my own future to a degree but never will I risk my kids. Maybe laws are way different in Uk but clearly you have no understanding of the cesspool that is family courts here. Your eXample of how a new wife would never be able to live in your house if you died a perfect example. That absolutely could happen here without a Will, Trust and or a prenups. The default is always the existing spouse.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

BioFury said:


> Your statements are diametrically opposed to one another. If you did trust him implicitly, you wouldn't feel the need to keep your money out of his reach. I shouldn't need to explain why these two ideas are contradictory.
> 
> I never said it was uncommon. It being common doesn't mean it isn't a sign of distrust.


Actually no. my statements are not diametrically opposed. Second marriages have a much higher divorce rate than first, those that still believe in rainbows and unicorns at this stage in life comes across as very naive.

I trust my husband implicitly, he trusts me. We are both very realistic, These two things are not diametrically opposed.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Divorce and remarriage is allowed for sexual immorality. I see God restoring many lives by finding them a second spouse and a good marriage. As he did with us. Also giving children a good step parent is valuable as well.
> 
> *My children will still get the house after our death*, as his will get the house he let his wife have after her death. Wills are easily done. As for divorce, its not going to happen. I would never marry again anyway so there would be no point, and my husband doesn't believe in going back on the promises made in marriage. It was his wife who ended their marriage, he never would have done.


Not necessarily and it is quite naive to believe this. You die, he gets the house, you cannot dictate what he does with that house, he gets remarried, he dies or divorces and his new wife gets your kids house. Happens all the time.

Or his kids will have claim to the house as it is considered their dads house.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> *But if a person truly has integrity why would you need a legal document to hold said person to their promise?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do people sign a marriage contract? Why don't we all simply walk around saying we are married and forget the formalities?

Integrity and being wise about future proofing your children's lives can co exist. MrH and I have integrity in volumes, are you suggesting those with a pre nup have no integrity? I would find a person that refused a pre nup to be of very dubious integrity, sort of put your money where your mouth is.


Pre nups are not a personal attack on people, they are a document that allows for future proofing. Lots of peace comes with that.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> The will says that if he remarries or dies the house will automatically be sold and go to my children. Its effectively theirs once I die with permission for him to say there till his death or remarriage. No partner is legally permitted to live there and he wouldn't live with a woman without getting married anyway. As to what his ex wife does that's her decision, but being that she is now in her 60's and has never met anyone else in 13 years,its probably not that likely she will now.If she does then its up to her to sort that out and nothing to do with us.


So the house is in a trust or otherwise protected? If not and the house is to be left to him, you have zero input on what happens to it then.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> Actually no. my statements are not diametrically opposed. Second marriages have a much higher divorce rate than first, those that still believe in rainbows and unicorns at this stage in life comes across as very naive.
> 
> I trust my husband implicitly, he trusts me. We are both very realistic, These two things are not diametrically opposed.


Common Mrs. Holland, I shouldn't have to spell this out.

What you just said is "I trust him with things it wouldn't be stupid to trust him with. Therefore, I trust him 100%."

Your mistrust doesn't get "written off" because it's justified, or because it's your second marriage.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Satya said:


> If everyone in this world had inherent integrity, we wouldn't have a need for any sort of contract or agreement... for anything we want to institute as binding.
> 
> For Odo and I, we don't see the prenup as a lack of trust or integrity. The opposite actually.
> Maybe looking from the outside, someone else would feel differently.


I'm happy for you and Odo that this works for you. My religious understanding of marriage means this wouldn't work for me. 



zookeeper said:


> Some might ask the same about the legal contract called marriage.


For me because A) my religion requires a marriage to be legal to be valid and B) because of things like Social Security, pension, and insurance benefits.



MrsHolland said:


> Why do people sign a marriage contract? Why don't we all simply walk around saying we are married and forget the formalities?
> 
> Integrity and being wise about future proofing your children's lives can co exist. MrH and I have integrity in volumes, are you suggesting those with a pre nup have no integrity? I would find a person that refused a pre nup to be of very dubious integrity, sort of put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> ...


As I explained above, people marry instead of simply live together in committed relationships for many reasons. Social Security benefits, pension, health insurance, etc. Not to mention, I don't like lying. I wouldn't go around saying I was married if I wasn't and I'd question my relationship, whether friend or family, with anyone who would.

I am not suggesting those with prenups have no integrity. I just think it's strange to say "I completely trust you with everything I am, heart, mind, body, and soul. We're going to marry, formally pledge ourselves one to the other and become one flesh spiritually, but first I'll need you to sign this document so that I can protect my and/or my kids assets from you just in case."

For me, marriage is all in. Everything or nothing. If a man didn't trust me to properly follow his wishes and take care of his children as if they were my own or I didn't trust a man in that way, I wouldn't marry him.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

BioFury said:


> Common Mrs. Holland, I shouldn't have to spell this out.
> 
> What you just said is "I trust him with things it wouldn't be stupid to trust him with. Therefore, I trust him 100%."
> 
> Your mistrust doesn't get "written off" because it's justified, or because it's your second marriage.


some people may have a pre nup due to mistrust, yes. But you are questioning me personally and suggesting I do not trust my husband which is 100% incorrect. We are realists, full stop. I have children, a family business and a close to 8 figure estate to be smart about. 

Would you remarry with a multi million dollar wealth and think it is smart to not future proof with only a 25% chance of the marriage being life long? All power to you in this case.

I trust my husband, he trusts me, we are realists and do not believe in rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> some people may have a pre nup due to mistrust, yes. But you are questioning me personally and suggesting I do not trust my husband which is 100% incorrect. We are realists, full stop. I have children, a family business and a close to 8 figure estate to be smart about.
> 
> Would you remarry with a multi million dollar wealth and think it is smart to not future proof with only a 25% chance of the marriage being life long? All power to you in this case.
> 
> I trust my husband, he trusts me, we are realists and do not believe in rainbows and unicorns.


I'm not telling you that your choice to have a prenup was unwise, or unnecessary. I don't know your husband, or what kind of man he is. What I can tell you though, is that you do not trust him.

You state that it's unrealistic to trust your husband, because it's your 2nd marriage. You state that it would be foolish to give him access to your estate, because you have a lot to lose. All of which are justifications for mistrust. You are justifying it's presence, not providing evidence of it's absence.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Thor said:


> Is this absolutely 100% rock solid in the UK with just a Will?
> 
> In the USA it is not. In the USA a will cannot put future conditions on assets. Upon death, a will transfers full ownership to the heir, who can do whatever they please.
> 
> ...


When my parents were alive my Mom was very well educated,to a PhD level and over her career she lectured at a few universities including Harvard.My Dad had a degree in business management and that was all.When they died they were worth well in excess of a hundred million pounds sterling but most of it was made by my Dad.
When they made their will they wanted to divide the money and property etc equally between my only brother and I.However my brother was of the opinion that he should inherit the bulk of the estate and mentioned this on a few occasions and I honestly think my Mom agreed with him to a certain extent but she would never have gone against my Dads wishes.However I always thought if my father died first my brother would try to talk her around to his way of thinking.
Both my parents died on the same day in London and when the will was read my brother immediately announced he was contesting it.
The solicitor (Lawyer) told him he was of course entitled to contest it but my father had put a stipulation in the will which said if either of us contested then their share went to charity.I said to my brother if he contested then so would I,then everything would go to charity but he backed down.It took years before we ever even could stand to be in the same room together after that.
To this day I don’t know if my Mom knew about the stipulation in the will.British inheritance law is very different to US law.
Your relative needed a smarter lawyer than he had.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

BioFury said:


> I'm not telling you that your choice to have a prenup was unwise, or unnecessary. I don't know your husband, or what kind of man he is. What I can tell you though, is that you do not trust him.
> 
> You state that it's unrealistic to trust your husband, because it's your 2nd marriage. You state that it would be foolish to give him access to your estate, because you have a lot to lose. All of which are justifications for mistrust. You are justifying it's presence, not providing evidence of it's absence.


Actually I never said it is unrealistic to trust him or foolish to give him access to my estate, you have superimposed that. He has a lot of money too. 

Second marriages have a 75% chance of ending in divorce. Being aware of those odds and future proofing is being smart, it is in no way a personal judgement on the other person, seems immature to suggest it is. Neither he or I place any emotion on money, I think that people that do have an emotional attachment to money would be the ones that find pre nups so confronting.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I, for one, though only having ever been with my current husband, don't trust him 100%. He is human. He has feelings. He does things.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I, for one, though only having ever been with my current husband, don't trust him 100%. He is human. He has feelings. He does things.


If you look anything like your avatar then trust me,he’s going nowhere.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> If you look anything like your avatar then trust me,he’s going nowhere.


Have you read any of my posts? Just being wanted for my looks wouldn't work for me.  Nor would just sticking around. Thankfully he is awesome. AND he thinks I am smart, caring, fun, funny, an awesome Mom, an awesome DIL as well as being hot as hell. I'll take it.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Have you read any of my posts? Just being wanted for my looks wouldn't work for me.  Nor would just sticking around. Thankfully he is awesome. AND he thinks I am smart, caring, fun, funny, an awesome Mom, an awesome DIL as well as being hot as hell. I'll take it.


Pictures or it doesn’t count🤓🤓🤓


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MrsHolland said:


> Actually I never said it is unrealistic to trust him or foolish to give him access to my estate, you have superimposed that. He has a lot of money too.
> 
> Second marriages have a 75% chance of ending in divorce. Being aware of those odds and future proofing is being smart, it is in no way a personal judgement on the other person, seems immature to suggest it is. Neither he or I place any emotion on money, I think that people that do have an emotional attachment to money would be the ones that find pre nups so confronting.


You: "_Those that still believe in rainbows and unicorns at this stage in life comes across as very naive_". - Otherwise said, it would be foolish to believe that your marriage is going to be a success.

But, even if your marriage wasn't a success, you still wouldn't need a prenup if you trusted your husband to part ways without screwing you over.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> Pictures or it doesn’t count🤓🤓🤓


But... he already knows what I look like. Why would he need a picture?


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

BioFury said:


> You: "_Those that still believe in rainbows and unicorns at this stage in life comes across as very naive_". - Otherwise said, it would be foolish to believe that your marriage is going to be a success.
> 
> But, even if your marriage wasn't a success, you still wouldn't need a prenup if you trusted your husband to part ways without screwing you over.


75% of second marriages end in divorce, this is the reality. To deny that reality is being extremely naive. FWIW I do believe this marriage will continue to be beautifully successful  We have a big blended family full of mayhem and laughter, firm boundaries and expectations in place for all of us adults and young adults alike. It is a very harmonious albeit loud and busy home. MrH and I know exactly where our boundaries are with everything and we live very happily within them with shared morals, core beliefs etc. Tis a beautiful thing.

However life can change and yes it is foolish to not understand this. Does not mean we have gone into marriage waiting for it to end, not such a difficult concept to get your head around surely? 

As to the second part, my ex and I had an amicable divorce, no Lawyers involved. We have remained friends and share costs for our kids so my past experience is good, never been screwed over or done that to another. 

But you did not answer my question from before.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

You know, don't you all, that you _already have_ a prenup? Yes, you do! State law provides a default prenup. If you don't like, then draft one you do like - but, it still has to conform to limits set by state law.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> You know, don't you all, that you _already have_ a prenup? Yes, you do! State law provides a default prenup. If you don't like, then draft one you do like - but, it still has to conform to limits set by state law.


It only has to conform to limits in state law if it is contested. That is, you can agree to almost anything regarding division of assets and alimony in a prenup, and if it is not contested in divorce then the court may sign off on it as-is.


----------



## Marc878 (Aug 26, 2015)

Trust is great but people are human. I wouldn't consider marriage without a prenup. Period


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

MrsHolland said:


> Or Binding Financial Agreements as they are called in Aus.
> 
> In a now closed thread a posted basically asked why do this unless you are planning on the marriage to fail.
> 
> ...




I would not marry again without one. Not because of my spouse. But because of the attorney she hired.

STBX sucks at making decisions. She freezes, then some aggressive scum approaches her, gives her a song and dance about 'fairness', she says OK, then the bleeding begins. Ours is a simple divorce - no kids, simple small assets. But STBX's lawyer has extended things, filed for new things, added this, subtracted that, tried to operate in secret....My lawyer says this SHOULD have taken 8-12 weeks, having the two spouses agree to 50/50 asset split, then get a judge to sign. Should have been $2000 max. But it's now gone on five months, there's a very irate judge involved and total legal fees are past $20K. I know people who had contentious divorces involving child abuse that only cost $10k and were done in 3 months.

So, my future pre-nup is this: If we split, assets go 50/50, no spousal support. Nobody gets cut out that way, but nobody gets ripped off, either.

For me, it's about making sure WE make the decision, not an outsider.

DD


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

minimalME said:


> You're digging yourself into a hole.
> 
> You did ask for one. Even though the situation was abusive, you still considered divorce an acceptable door of escape. You wanted a divorce - and you got one.
> 
> ...


I know that he would not divorce, he doesn't believe in it. Otherwise he would have divorced his first wife of 23 years who he was never happy with.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

I don't plan on this ever coming up since if for some unforeseen reason I was ever single again I would have no interest in remarrying. However, under the hypothetical scenario I remarried, I would definitely have a prenup. Any assets I would have accumulated prior to the marriage belong to my children, so a prenup would help protect their interests.


----------



## Randy2 (Jul 19, 2016)

Talking about sex, IN DETAIL, and talking about money, IN DETAIL, are often difficult for couples, particularly in the glow of an upcoming marriage. Working through a pre-nup with attorneys for BOTH of us forced my wife and I to talk about things, in detail.

Over time, the details of sex and money change. Attitudes about both change in ways that are difficult to anticipate in the glow of an upcoming marriage. Renegotiating a prenup over time can be useful in a relationship. Having a good-2-lawyer-prenup also erases any he-said-she-said arguing, which often compromises navigating change in a marriage.


----------



## Randy2 (Jul 19, 2016)

And one more thing, EVERYBODY has a pre-nup.
Either you write it, or the state writes it.
It either reflects your values and situation, or the state's general/often-outdated values and situation.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> *The will says that if he remarries or dies the house will automatically be sold and go to my children. Its effectively theirs once I die with permission for him to say there till his death or remarriage. No partner is legally permitted to live there a*nd he wouldn't live with a woman without getting married anyway. As to what his ex wife does that's her decision, but being that she is now in her 60's and has never met anyone else in 13 years,its probably not that likely she will now.If she does then its up to her to sort that out and nothing to do with us.


This implies you do not trust your husband.


----------

