# Am I overreacting to this prenup?



## clove (Dec 28, 2016)

My fiancee and I are getting married soon, and as he is older (12 years) and is coming into the marriage with a significant amount of assets and a son we both decided a prenup would be necessary. Neither of us has been previously married. After discussion he explained the prenup would be in place to protect his premarital assets and some finances he has set aside for his son and family. 

I initially agreed to this, however upon reading the finished prenup he and his lawyer wrote together without me there, it states that he wants all of our assets to be completely separate before and during the marriage. He also wants me to waive all of my rights to alimony. The prenup states that all assets acquired by either individual in the marriage will remain separate unless specified otherwise. Also, if we were the have a joint bank account the "commingled" money will still remain the individual's assets in case of divorce. Ex: husband puts $5,000 in bank account and wife puts $2,000. When divorced the husband would get that $5,000 back and vice versa. Even land and homes acquired by each person would remain separate.

When I asked to discuss and clarify this, as well as ask why the terms changed from what I originally understood, he would get angry and refuse to discuss anything clearly and would only tell me to take it to my lawyer. After I pushed the subject further he told me no matter what he would not change the prenup because he believes a marriage is to share love and emotions only, not money and then claimed I was making it clear I was after his money, which is not the case. He doesn't seem to understand that I feel as if he doesn't trust me or want me a part of his life and that the prenup makes me sound like a gold digger when I have previously never asked for anything from him money wise.

I am also concerned because he is not an American citizen (he is legal for the time being with a temporary visa), and although we have been dating for a year and a half and have a very loving relationship the way the prenup is written and his unwillingness to discuss this, or even understand my concerns, is making me question the legitimacy of it. And now he has been freezing me out for 2 days because we got in an argument over the prenup. 

My question is, am I being overdramatic? Are my concerns unwarranted?


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Why bother getting married?

Given the restrictiveness of the prenuptual agreement it seems completely pointless. 

At best it's going to be a sham. At worst, he's making it clear he doesn't trust you in the least, why commit to this guy for a lifetime if he's playing his cards so tight to the vest?

It's almost like he's expecting things to fail.

For what it's worth, by him protecting himself from ever paying you support, he's being a total douche. "Marry me, but don't expect any of the benefits people typically get from marriage, such as financial security".

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there's a clause in there that says you have to return the rings in the event of divorce.


----------



## tropicalbeachiwish (Jun 1, 2016)

Oh I think your concerns are warranted. How he is approaching this dispute is very telling to you, or it should be.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I wouldn't marry a guy like this. He's going to nickel and dime everything in your marriage.

I can understand protecting existing assets, but to take the position that going forward what's his is his and you should waive alimony tells me he's looking for easy sex and a business arrangement.

What if you have children together and you need to take care of a baby? What if you give up pursuing advancement of your career to support his?

There are lots of things that can come up and you're not going to have a partner.

And you can't even talk about it without him angering.

He's not marriage material.

I'd tell this guy to go to hades, and can't believe a lawyer would advise you to sign something like this.

Frankly even if he backs down I would get rid of him anyway.....his attitude is telling about how he sees a marriage.

I'm not even sure a prenup like that would hold up.


----------



## tropicalbeachiwish (Jun 1, 2016)

lifeistooshort said:


> I wouldn't marry a guy like this. He's going to nickel and dime everything in your marriage.


Exactly! I was going to edit my post to include this. 

OP-this guy is going to be extremely CONTROLLING on all finances if you should marry him.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm not even sure a prenup like that would hold up.


Lots of prenups don't hold up but it makes things more expensive and costly because it's gotta be litigated.

The guy isn't an American citizen. My guess is he's using her for a green card.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

I agree with the previous posters.

To state that joint marital assets acquired after the wedding should still be split is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

browser said:


> Lots of prenups don't hold up but it makes things more expensive and costly because it's gotta be litigated.
> 
> The guy isn't an American citizen. My guess is he's using her for a green card.


Could very well be. 

Marrying someone like this is beyond foolish.....particularly for someone younger with a lot of options.


----------



## clove (Dec 28, 2016)

That was my thought, it is so extreme I was questioning if it would hold up. And also breaks my heart that he could view marriage this way.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

As others have said, this isn't reasonable or fair. Don't marry him. If you want to anyway, you MUST have your own lawyer evaluate the prenup and negotiate for you. If you do not have your own lawyer, the prenup may be invalid, anyway, as most jurisdictions require both parties to have representation for the agreement to be fair and valid.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

clove said:


> When I asked to discuss and clarify this, as well as ask why the terms changed from what I originally understood, he would get angry and refuse to discuss anything clearly and would only tell me to take it to my lawyer. After I pushed the subject further he told me no matter what he would not change the prenup because *he believes a marriage is to share love and emotions only*, not money and then claimed I was making it clear I was after his money, which is not the case. He doesn't seem to understand that I feel as if he doesn't trust me or want me a part of his life and that the prenup makes me sound like a gold digger when I have previously never asked for anything from him money wise.


I agree with @browser that there's no reason to get married if all you and/or your fiance are after is 'love and emotion'. You can share love and emotion without having to enter into a legal contract. 



clove said:


> I am also concerned because *he is not an American citizen *(he is legal for the time being with a temporary visa), and although we have been dating for a year and a half and have a very loving relationship the way the prenup is written and his unwillingness to discuss this, or even understand my concerns, is making me question the legitimacy of it. And now *he has been freezing me out for 2 days because we got in an argument over the prenup.*


Red flag alert!!!! You are NOT being overly dramatic. As someone looking from the outside in, you have reason to be concerned. It looks like the only one with anything to gain from this marriage is your fiance. 

Personally, I would NOT enter into a marriage with this man. You can move in together and get the same benefits as if you were to marry under the conditions of the prenup. 





Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

OMG, NO you are NOT over-reacting. What is the point of getting married? You don't need a piece of paper to "share love and emotions" WTH?

I think it makes sense for adults with children from previous relationships to have a pre-nup to ensure something is set aside for the children, or adults who marry later in life and bring considerable assets with them, to make sure that in the event of divorce they don't lose everything they've built up over the years.

But once you marry - you are supposed to be #1 to each other, and a unit. At least that's how I think most people look at it. I would think any income earned, any homes bought, post marriage is joint property. Otherwise, again, what is the point in being married? 

He is not going into this with an attitude of cherishing you. And he's being very controlling using anger and freezing you out to avoid a conversation and try to manipulate you into signing a document that is not in your best interest at all. If you can't talk with him about this now, how will communication be once you are married?

You might check this forum topic out - your fiance is a renter at best. I don't think you should marry this man. Buyers, Renters, and Freeloaders - Marriage Builders® Forums (There's a book on the topic too. Buyers, Renter, and Freeloaders - by Willard F. Harley, Jr. Ph.D.)


----------



## Thomas0311 (Dec 19, 2016)

OP,
So many red flags, and they block in my mind any ability to see love from his perspective - rather he's treating this proposed marriage as a financial arrangement to be negotiated - likely out of his own insecurities and fear that you'll leave. Seems self fulfilling, at this point, as I can see this driving you away (no you're NOT overreacting, I'm glad you have a feeling here... trust your gut!)... he doesn't sound worth the energy or time. It's difficult to envision love between the two of you because of this (he seems so cold; and divisive about finances)... but I'm sure you feel it, and have developed a compassion for him over the last 18 months. Make sure you take care of yourself... as someone said above, a part of marriage is financial security. Without that, what's the point? Might as well just live together, keep separate finances, and not bother with the rings.

I say this as someone who is divorced, has two children and has been dating a girl for a year and a half that I am completely in love with. When we talk finances, it's always as working as a team... to build a future. If I do get married, I would want all of our finances acquired in the marriage to belong to us both... and my only thoughts about a prenup would be to protect my retirement account that I've accumulated as a safety net (at 34, it's about $300K) for my children (sort of like a life insurance thing) should something happen to me. I wouldn't have anything in there about how to split up stuff we made while married. The whole point to being married is to work together, compromise and provide for one another... financially, and emotionally. Maybe I'm old school. This guy certainly sounds like a *******

Edit: just realized this post was in the ladies lounge... saw in on the "Recent Discussions" list to the right. Still think it might be useful  (runs away!)


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

Absolutely do not sign the prenup and don't let him bully you into this arrangement. Who the hell does this guy think he is?!! You are suppose to be equal partners, he is treating your with such disrespect and disregard for your feelings. Don't let him make the rules and set the standards. He is acting like you are so lucky to be with him. F*ck that. Keep your standards high and don't settle for anything less than you deserve. I would never sign this. But you need to be able to negotiate with him and be willing to walk away if he refuses to budge. Remember you have more worth than this.


----------



## rzmpf (Mar 11, 2016)

He just wants the privileges that come with marrying a citizen. Seems pretty selfish to me. If he is economically independent and wants to stay that way and just wants a relationship based on emotions (and I guess sex, but who knows if fidelity is in the mix, the prenup basically gives him carte blanche to cheat on you with no consequences whatsoever, except maybe his residence permit status in case of D) there is no need to get married.

Call off the wedding therefore no need for a prenup and see how he reacts. My guess is he won't be too happy about that because most likely he is the golddigger in this case. He is just not digging for gold. Also seems pretty controlling.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

I dont see anything super out of line...i mean this is just version 1...right? Its like any other contract, you can ask for the moon...that doesnt mean its gonna end that way. 

Get out your red pen and line through the items you dont like....there you go. 

For maximum fun....counter the no alimony with an offer that he make one time cash payment to you of 50K should the marriage terminate for any reason before 25 years. Hell, throw in a house too. (My dad has Repeatedly).


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

MarriedDude said:


> I dont see anything super out of line...i mean this is just version 1...right? Its like any other contract, you can ask for the moon...that doesnt mean its gonna end that way.
> 
> Get out your red pen and line through the items you dont like....there you go.
> 
> For maximum fun....counter the no alimony with an offer that he make one time cash payment to you of 50K should the marriage terminate for any reason before 25 years. Hell, throw in a house too. (My dad has Repeatedly).


Did you miss the part where she said when she challenges him on it he gets furious and shuts her out for days?


----------



## lucy999 (Sep 28, 2014)

That prenup is highly inequitable. Frankly, I would call off the wedding.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

browser said:


> Did you miss the part where she said when she challenges him on it he gets furious and shuts her out for days?


Nope, i got that. He wants her to go through the attorney...then by all means she should do so, at his expense. 

Im simply recommending that instead of just taking his BS transparent intimidation attempts....she should take a page out of his book. Call that bluff....if he is attempting to use her fir a visa...this will get it right out there on the table for all to see. 

OP is a big girl and and shouldnt hesitate to play hardball to get to the truth.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Is he marrying you to gain citizenship, do you think? I'm thinking this...which explains why the prenup is so specific. I don't see anything wrong with prenups, in general, but in your case, seeing that he's not a citizen, it seems like his way of gaining citizenship and then leaving you without losing anything. 

You should sign the prenup with not your name but ''BYE.'' lol Let him become a citizen first, then think of marrying him. Then, we'll see what happens, and if he still desires marrying you.


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

I would walk away from this and him....tell to wait a couple more years....by then Amazon Alexa's will come with a vagina and breast and he can marry it.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

MarriedDude said:


> OP is a big girl and and shouldnt hesitate to play hardball to get to the truth.


This is no basis for which to start a lifelong legal commitment.


----------



## clove (Dec 28, 2016)

Reading through all of these responses comforts me that I made the right decision. I told him no and was willing to come to a mutual agreement with some edits. He countered with saying I had the mindset of someone who was using him for money, not marrying for love and wouldn't hear it when I switched it around on him. We're probably going to wait a few years until he's ACTUALLY ready to be married, if it makes it that far.


----------



## clove (Dec 28, 2016)

Edit: just realized this post was in the ladies lounge... saw in on the "Recent Discussions" list to the right. Still think it might be useful  (runs away!)


I found this to be really helpful and am now thinking I probably should have posted this in the general questions forum.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

browser said:


> This is no basis for which to start a lifelong legal commitment.


Agreed...i don't expect it to go that far


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

If he wants to protect his son, he can always set up a trust for him that cannot be touched by a divorce. It looks like he wants to protect himself but the way he goes about it (and turns it around on you) is shameless.
Not a promising start to a marriage...tread carefully and consult lawyers, when it comes to signing anything.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

This sound really unreasonable to me and I am big time fan of prenup. My understanding is that it can only protect certain accounts and/or premarital assets. Wealth that you acquire during marriage is divisible by the customary 50% split. It sounds like him and his lawyer are trying to get to sign something that wouldn't hold in court anyway.


----------



## chatabox (May 4, 2016)

If he wants "what's mine is mine, and yours in yours" then marriage is not the right thing for him. Why not stay as boyfriend and girlfriend? Then the law would protect what's "his" as you would have no legal hold over it as your not his wife. If not to share his life with you, why else is he marrying you? Sounds like he wants citizenship, then the ability to walk away in 3-5 years with all "his" assets.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*A word of warning to the wise is sufficient: My RSXW was and continues to be a millionairess! Compared to her, "I didn't have a pot to pi$$ in, nor a window to throw it out of!"

During our engagement, she used a prenup on me with my mind set strictly being, "Hey, it's OK, love will conquer all! Blindly, I more than willingly signed it for her!

Long story short, seven short years into our marriage, she started covertly spreading her thighs to the "ghosts of boyfriends past," on her numerous out-of-town "business trips, summarily kicked me out of the house on the ruse of a "trial separation," then insulated herself from being sued for any of her assets, but was still jaded enough to go after mine! 

Thank God that the presiding lady State district judge in the divorce hearing saw through her ruse and dismissed her action, but because I signed my rights away to spousal support, she had it in there that she could sue me for certain reimbursements, but I could not sue her. Ergo, I received "jack" in the final decree settlement instead of the mandated state community property!

Have your attorney go through this prenup with a fine tooth comb before you ever sign off on or simply even initial a document that could irreparably harm you financially!

I am now of the jaded opinion that all that a prenup really does is to help greedy bastards stay attached to what it is that they love the most ~ all of their damned money and wealth!*


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

You've had a number of people tell you:
1. The Prenup is very unfair.
2. Don't sign a thing.
3. Get your own lawyer.

So I'm not going to beat the dead horse here.

Once you've done #3, you need to work with your lawyer to re-write the prenup into something more reasonable.

I'm surprised you did not sit with your fiance to talk about what would go into the prenup. You need to go into this with eyes wide open and be very active in advocating for yourself where it is due.

My husband and I were both previously married and we worked (off and on, not consistently) for over 6 months to work on drafts of our prenup with our respective lawyers. The time taken allowed us to really think about all the things that mattered to us individually. I am very glad that we took a no-pressure, open, and communicative approach. We are both very happy with the outcome and now it's something that's filed away, for us to not worry about. Our approach was very mutual in writing it, which helped immensely. When there is disagreement as to the purpose behind the prenup, then it can create all kinds of complications. 

I suggest that you converse with your fiance. Him taking control of the whole process, without negotiating with you is very presumptuous on his part and disrespectful to you.
Yes, he is older and has more assets. My husband is 16 years older, had many more assets, and came with 3 children he had to look out for. Despite all that, our prenup is by my reckoning more than fair and equitable, as I do not want him to worry that I am going to take away from the resources he feels responsible to provide for his children. Additionally, I do not want to be without some safety net after having invested so many years of my life in a relationship, working, contributing to the household, etc.

So, think about the approach you want this journey to take, then you go to your fiance and you tell him that you would like to either a.) scrap his prenup and work on a new one *together *or b.) take his prenup and hack away at it with your lawyer, making sure you understand EVERY implication to every statement. Edit it with lots of comments and send it back to your fiance's lawyer. My personal feeling is you should do a bit of both a.) and b.), sit down with your husband, tell him you are not OK to sign it as is, and that rather than waste time (= money) on lawyers, that you want to work on the process together, whilst receiving aid from your lawyer in the areas that are unclear to you. This should not be a rushed process under any circumstances.

ETA: If your fiance can't be reasonable about this process (he's emotionally blackmailing you), then I suggest you let him go.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

clove said:


> Reading through all of these responses comforts me that I made the right decision. I told him no and was willing to come to a mutual agreement with some edits. He countered with saying I had the mindset of someone who was using him for money, not marrying for love and wouldn't hear it when I switched it around on him. We're probably going to wait a few years until he's ACTUALLY ready to be married, if it makes it that far.


 @clove, for some reason I didn't see the last page of posts before I'd added my reply.

Don't wait "a few years" for any man. It could turn into a few decades for all you know.
If you love him enough and see enough value in the relationship to not marry him, that's one thing. But if you really want to be married, I suggest you go find a READY man.
Maybe what your fiance is doing feels right to HIM, and he wants to be with a woman that just nods her head and signs. That's obviously NOT you. Don't wait to see if he changes. He's shown you who he is.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

MarriedDude said:


> I dont see anything super out of line...i mean this is just version 1...right? Its like any other contract, you can ask for the moon...that doesnt mean its gonna end that way.
> 
> Get out your red pen and line through the items you dont like....there you go.
> 
> *For maximum fun....counter the no alimony with an offer that he make one time cash payment to you of 50K should the marriage terminate for any reason before 25 years. Hell, throw in a house too.*


*Better yet, put an infidelity clause in there that states that the whole damned prenup is totally invalidated if evidence comes to light that even mildly suggests that he ever cheats on you ~ and that he must willingly forfeit over to you, say $500,000, for every year that you have been married! 

Along with the primary residence and car!

Now that'll get his damned attention!*


----------



## Spicy (Jun 18, 2016)

Although I brought assets into the marriage, my DH had more than me. He was early fourties, and had never been married, worked very hard for all he had. Once it became clear that we were in love and wanted to marry, I remember thinking about him perhaps asking me for a prenup. Had he asked me for one protecting his assists acquired before marriage, I would have been fine signing that. It would have tugged at my heart though, just being totally honest here. When you are in love and planning to spend your life with someone, it seems a letdown to draw up a financial contract that is there to suggest failure before you even embark. DH never even mentioned getting one though. 

I'm glad you are not going to sign it. Also glad you are postponing the wedding. 

*Be very careful to not get pregnant by this man.*


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

He's manipulative.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

clove said:


> When I asked to discuss and clarify this, as well as ask why the terms changed from what I originally understood, *he would get angry and refuse to discuss anything clearly and would only tell me to take it to my lawyer*.
> 
> And now he has been *freezing me out for 2 days* because we got in an argument over the prenup.
> 
> My question is, am I being overdramatic? Are my concerns unwarranted?


No, you're just in an abusive relationship.


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

MarriedDude said:


> I dont see anything super out of line...i mean this is just version 1...right? Its like any other contract, you can ask for the moon...that doesnt mean its gonna end that way.
> 
> Get out your red pen and line through the items you dont like....there you go.
> 
> For maximum fun....counter the no alimony with an offer that he make one time cash payment to you of 50K should the marriage terminate for any reason before 25 years. Hell, throw in a house too. (My dad has Repeatedly).


IF you are still insistent on marrying this jerk, do not do so unless you do the above. You must meet his strength with YOUR strength. Are you seeing a therapist? You should be.


----------



## KJ_Simmons (Jan 12, 2016)

Let's be blunt here....man after man has been taken to the cleaners during nasty divorce proceedings. Women, who like the OP, had no concern about money going into or during the marriage, which changes to a desire to get every last penny she can during a divorce.

The entire divorce system is stacked against the man, and I don't see how that is even up for debate. It's natural then, for some men to want to protect themselves going in.

OP, love him for him and marry him that way, or don't.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

KJ_Simmons said:


> Let's be blunt here....man after man has been taken to the cleaners during nasty divorce proceedings. Women, who like the OP, had no concern about money going into or during the marriage, which changes to a desire to get every last penny she can during a divorce.
> 
> The entire divorce system is stacked against the man, and I don't see how that is even up for debate. It's natural then, for some men to want to protect themselves going in.
> 
> OP, love him for him and marry him that way, or don't.


Yeah, i get that....the problem, as I see it, is that he was/is attempting to emotionally manipulate OP. That is a HUGE indicator of his SOP. He didnt write it up, with her involvement and input creating mutual protection.....he drew up some ridiculous boilerplate and expected her to simply sign....when she refused he got nasty.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

If I were ever to get married again I'd insist on a prenup or there would be no marriage. Especially if I was bringing in a large amount of assets and already had a child to think about. It's a no brainer. 

It's funny hearing women say to dump this guy because she has better options. But from my male perspective, she looks like she might be a gold digger. She's a younger woman with a richer older guy and is upset about him trying to protect his assets. Hmmm, maybe I'm misinterpreting.....


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> She's a younger woman with a richer older guy and is upset about him trying to protect his assets. Hmmm, maybe I'm misinterpreting.....


Older than her, but as I've never seen relative ages, is she 20 and he's 32? Or ... what, no idea.

I don't think she's mad about him trying to protect his assets - she states that she agreed to the concept of a pre-nup however:

- He had this contract written up without her input and now only wants to communicate via lawyers

- He's changed their original terms and now wants -all- money separate

- He's now refusing to talk about it and stonewalling her. 

He has a child and was never married. I'd personally like to know more about that story for someone so concerned about stuff. Where's the mother? Is she a citizen? He didn't have love and emotion with her? 

Yeah, I'd run not walk from this. There's red flags all over this.


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

Bananapeel said:


> If I were ever to get married again I'd insist on a prenup or there would be no marriage. Especially if I was bringing in a large amount of assets and already had a child to think about. It's a no brainer.
> 
> It's funny hearing women say to dump this guy because she has better options. But from my male perspective, she looks like she might be a gold digger. She's a younger woman with a richer older guy and is upset about him trying to protect his assets. Hmmm, maybe I'm misinterpreting.....


I believe you might be misinterpreting. 

OP seemed understanding about prenup in terms of his children. However the doc addressed substantially more than that...plus manipulation = lame

Ive seen plenty of prenups...some of them the size of a stephen king novel....but they typically are assembled together with proper input from all involved......and are fair. If they arent reasonable....they never hold up.....making the exercise pointless


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*I'll never forget the lady State District Judge who presided over my and my RSXW's divorce hearing, when the judge who was looking through the prenup, looked over at my RSXW's plaintiffs table and asked, "Ma'am? What part of this prenuptial agreement specifically benefits your H?"

There was nothing but silence and dumbfoundery from both my RSXW and her lawyer!*


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

Bananapeel said:


> If I were ever to get married again I'd insist on a prenup or there would be no marriage. .


But would you use emotionally abusive tactics to get her to agree to it? 

I think not.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

turnera said:


> But would you use emotionally abusive tactics to get her to agree to it?
> 
> I think not.


Nope, but I absolutely wouldn't marry someone that wouldn't sign one. I've got too much to risk losing and a responsibility to protect assets for my kids. I guess holding that over a spouse's head would be frowned upon by some people on here.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I agree with most of the prenup. Keeping his and your current assets separate is smart, as is the no-alimony clause. Sorry that some disagree on the alimony, but I've known far too many people completely destroyed and abused by it. If you're no longer wanting to be associated with someone intimately, and no longer wish to share finances, what gives you the right to claim a portion of their future labors? In some unusual circumstances there is justification for alimony, such as a life long stay-at-home-mom who has no marketable skills and is suddenly dumped when she's in her 50's by her cheating wealthy surgeon husband. But these days most adults both have careers and can support themselves independently. No-fault divorce paired with no-fault alimony is an abomination.

It is common in a second marriage or when getting married at an older age to share expenses but to otherwise keep your own finances. So you would each pitch in an agreed upon percentage for housing, food, vacations, etc. It is common to be responsible for your own car. If you go into joint ventures such as buying a rental property or starting a business, you would negotiate percentages up front.

(It is interesting how differently people approach a second marriage when it comes to finances, pre-nups, and alimony compared to a first marriage.)

His attitude, though, seems like a red flag warning about the relationship. I'm glad you're postponing the wedding for a few years.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Bananapeel said:


> Nope, but I absolutely wouldn't marry someone that wouldn't sign one. I've got too much to risk losing and a responsibility to protect assets for my kids. I guess holding that over a spouse's head would be frowned upon by some people on here.


I'm in the process of writing a new will, trust, medical will, power of atty, etc etc. My attorney said if I ever consider getting married again the most important thing to remember is "Prenup, Prenup, Prenup".

Divorce is subject to the whims of a judge and laws which change by location and over time. Absent a pre-nup there is no idea what can happen in a divorce.


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

clove said:


> That was my thought, it is so extreme I was questioning if it would hold up. And also breaks my heart that he could view marriage this way.


If you think it breaks your heart now, consider how it will be if you marry this man. Many years ago, I was engaged to a man who handed me a prenup. I took it to a lawyer, who told me I'd be crazy to sign it. It's one thing to protect assets prior to marriage, but an entirely different matter to protect EVERYTHING after the marriage.

Please reconsider. I'm glad I did. Bottom line was, I didn't want to be married to someone who was coming from the perspective that everything he had, and would ever have, needed to be protected from ME.

JMO.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> *A word of warning to the wise is sufficient: My RSXW was and continues to be a millionairess! Compared to her, "I didn't have a pot to pi$$ in, nor a window to throw it out of!"
> 
> During our engagement, she used a prenup on me with my mind set strictly being, "Hey, it's OK, love will conquer all! Blindly, I more than willingly signed it for her!
> 
> ...


While this is probably true in her case prenups do go beyond that. I have children to protect and yes in that one area I do feel they should come first. So a prenup would make sure I could protect the assets I want to them should a wife decide to leave at take whatever she can get her hands on. Family courts are messy and I have seen them used to commit legalized theft. I think anyone who doesn't get a prenup prior to marriage is a fool. I think anyone who has kids from a prior marriage and who chooses to get married again without a prenup is a ****ing idiot.

By the way I laughed till I almost had tears in my eyes "spread her legs for the ghosts of boyfriends past". lol I love you always describe your rich skanky x wife :smile2:


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Bananapeel said:


> Nope, but I absolutely wouldn't marry someone that wouldn't sign one. I've got too much to risk losing and a responsibility to protect assets for my kids. I guess holding that over a spouse's head would be frowned upon by some people on here.


I'm with you. No signing of a prenup is an instant deal breaker for me. I may take a risk on love an marriage again one day buy I won't let my kids pay the price for my mistake if I make another one.

But this is one sided and seemingly no input from the OP. I think she should run or at very least get her own lawyer to negotiate this out if she wants to still marry.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Thor said:


> I'm in the process of writing a new will, trust, medical will, power of atty, etc etc. My attorney said if I ever consider getting married again the most important thing to remember is "Prenup, Prenup, Prenup".
> 
> *Divorce is subject to the whims of a judge and laws which change by location and over time. Absent a pre-nup there is no idea what can happen in a divorce.*


*
*
This 100% yes

I don't know how it is everywhere but here in Colorado the judge basically has guidelines and within those guidelines absent a prenup he can choose to do whatever. Scary stuff in family court.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

@clove

What does your lawyer say about the proposed prenup?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Wolf1974 said:


> While this is probably true in her case prenups do go beyond that. I have children to protect and yes in that one area I do feel they should come first. So a prenup would make sure I could protect the assets I want to them should a wife decide to leave at take whatever she can get her hands on. Family courts are messy and I have seen them used to commit legalized theft. I think anyone who doesn't get a prenup prior to marriage is a fool. I think anyone who has kids from a prior marriage and who chooses to get married again without a prenup is a ****ing idiot.
> 
> By the way I laughed till I almost had tears in my eyes "spread her legs for the ghosts of boyfriends past". lol I love you always describe your rich skanky x wife :smile2:


*Wolfman ~ I totally see your point in the protection of the kids by the execution of the prenup! From that perspective and for the overwhelming majority of cases, it makes total sense!

In my RSXW's case, she has three dropout, all convicted, uneducated, tatted-up, dopehead, joint-puffing, meth-popping, religion-mocking, kids who now in their mid-20's, who cannot even qualify for the least of minimum wage jobs, and when they do get them, none of them will ever keep them or they'll just either get fired or drag up, well before the time that the probationary period on the job runs out! Two of them are already married with kids and mama supports everybody by buying them houses to flop in and clunkers to get around in!

All that these jailhouse refugees are doing is running to mama for funds to satiate their fix, or bail money every time they get picked up for drug possession, borrow her vehicles, or whine and scream for mama to go buy them a new car to drive, or a new pad to flop out in, greatly biding their time until both their millionaire paternal and maternal grandma's, as well as their RSXW mom, kicks off, so they can be set for life in hiring someone to scratch their a$$ for them whenever it itches!

Of course, none of that is any of my business anymore, but as Dragnet's Sgt. Joe Friday always intones, "that's just the facts, Ma'am!" *


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Wolf1974 said:


> [/B]
> This 100% yes
> 
> I don't know how it is everywhere but here in Colorado the judge basically has guidelines and within those guidelines absent a prenup he can choose to do whatever. Scary stuff in family court.


Same here, judges have a lot of leeway. They are also usually very biased towards the mom if there are kids, and towards the woman even there aren't kids. I'm holding my breath waiting for the judge to sign off (any day now) on mine. Even though it is uncontested and all the terms are spelled out in the filings, the court could change it to whatever they want. My judge (randomly assigned) has a controversial record to put it nicely.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Thor said:


> Same here, judges have a lot of leeway. They are also usually very biased towards the mom if there are kids, and towards the woman even there aren't kids. I'm holding my breath waiting for the judge to sign off (any day now) on mine. Even though it is uncontested and all the terms are spelled out in the filings, the court could change it to whatever they want. My judge (randomly assigned) has a controversial record to put it nicely.


Highly unlikely the judge will make any changes to a settlement agreement that is fair to both parties. They don't have the time or the inclination. The controversial stuff happens when it's left up to the court to make all the big decisions.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Is there any mention in this prenup about what happens if he dies.Will the op find herself out on the street or at the very least living in the home at the discretion of her step son.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

MarriedDude said:


> I dont see anything super out of line...i mean this is just version 1...right? Its like any other contract, you can ask for the moon...that doesnt mean its gonna end that way.
> 
> Get out your red pen and line through the items you dont like....there you go.
> 
> For maximum fun....counter the no alimony with an offer that he make one time cash payment to you of 50K should the marriage terminate for any reason before 25 years. Hell, throw in a house too. (My dad has Repeatedly).


_*Technically*_, I agree with you. She can just cross out and counter offer. But "it never hurts to ask..." is *not *always true. You can invite great resentment and mistrust into a relationship when you ask the person you are professing to love and cherish to sign something so one sided, and then try to bully them into signing it with anger and flawed logic when they don't blindly sign.

I have had business dealings with people where their initial offer was so one sided my attorney said please do NOT sign that, and when I raised my concerns they said "it is ONLY BUSINESS" - be that as it may, I am still a human being doing business and once it was clear they were willing to take advantage of me, I no longer trusted them or wanted to work with them. That was just business. This is marriage. Would this man let his daughter marry a man who tried to get her to sign such a prenup? If not, why would he try to get his future wife to sign it.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

clove said:


> Reading through all of these responses comforts me that I made the right decision. I told him no and was willing to come to a mutual agreement with some edits. He countered with saying I had the mindset of someone who was using him for money, not marrying for love and wouldn't hear it when I switched it around on him. We're probably going to wait a few years until he's ACTUALLY ready to be married, if it makes it that far.


Smart girl, and good luck.

I'm curious, now in hindsight do you see other parts of his personality that fall in line with this? Selfishness, lack of self awareness, twisting things around on you where he's accusing you of being exactly what he's being? Being manipulative? Using anger to punish you when he's not getting what he wants, etc? Or does this seem completely out of character for him?

My unsolicited advice for the day: I don't know your age and if you're hoping to have a family, but if you do want marriage eventually, I hope you are not living with him. One thing I have realized (too late for me) is that if your goal is marriage, you are really screwing yourself to live with someone. Because once you're living with them, you are tied to them, but not necessarily making any forward progress toward marriage. And if you get red flags like this that this is not the right person for you, it's not like you can just say "I want to start seeing other people" while you're living with someone else.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

While I understand completely the reasons behind a pre-nup, I would never sign one nor marry a man who asked me to. That's just my feelings on the matter - and I can see both sides, and where they're coming from, but at the end of the day it's not for me.

I understand about protecting your kids, but what about your husband/wife? The way my husband and I have done our wills (I'm his second wife, he's my first and will be my only husband), is that if I die all of my assets go to him, and then to our girl (his daughter, my stepdaughter). If he dies, one of his superannuation funds, including the death benefit payment goes to our girl and everything else goes to me, then to our girl when I die. I will always ALWAYS look after our girl, and would continue to meet his financial responsibilities for her in the event that we lost him. She will always have a home with us/me should she ever need it.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

frusdil said:


> While I understand completely the reasons behind a pre-nup, I would never sign one nor marry a man who asked me to. That's just my feelings on the matter - and I can see both sides, and where they're coming from, but at the end of the day it's not for me.
> 
> I understand about protecting your kids, but what about your husband/wife? The way my husband and I have done our wills (I'm his second wife, he's my first and will be my only husband), is that if I die all of my assets go to him, and then to our girl (his daughter, my stepdaughter). If he dies, one of his superannuation funds, including the death benefit payment goes to our girl and everything else goes to me, then to our girl when I die. I will always ALWAYS look after our girl, and would continue to meet his financial responsibilities for her in the event that we lost him. She will always have a home with us/me should she ever need it.


It could be that Australia has better protections built in place than American family courts which is all over the place. Absent a prenup you basically are handing all your financial accounts to a third party and saying here you decide who gets what. No thanks. Having a prenup doesn't exclude the wife protections. As a matter of fact it can make concrete protections on what she would get should a divorce occur which I also think as a good thing. Prenups here don't cover deaths that is your Will and that is much more iron clad and handeled by a different court. I say that but I have seen cases were those are also contested and changed just a much more difficult process.

I think it's Nobel of you to feel the way you do about your step daughter but I can tell you through experience that not all women feel the same and without protections in place to cover this.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

browser said:


> Highly unlikely the judge will make any changes to a settlement agreement that is fair to both parties. They don't have the time or the inclination. The controversial stuff happens when it's left up to the court to make all the big decisions.


I'm getting more than 50% of the current assets due to several reasons not mentioned in the uncontested paperwork. The judge would have no idea these good reasons exist. So on paper it appears as "unfair" by simple math looking at the bottom line.

Also in my state there is lifetime alimony. My stbxw has not asked for alimony due to the same reasons the assets are not split 50/50. Simply looking at the differences in our incomes it would appear "unfair" for me not to be paying her alimony.

This judge could decide to impose fairness because, you know, all men victimize all women in divorce and so the judge has to be the superhero. That's the reputation this female activist social justice warrior judge has.


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

Where in this prenup is there any provision if you had a child together? 

Because unless someone is getting "fixed" that's a possibility. That right there would be one of the biggest red flags here if only his first illegitimate child was entitled to a trust and his income but there was no provisions for the possibility of possible future children.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Wolf1974 said:


> I think it's Nobel of you to feel the way you do about your step daughter but I can tell you through experience that not all women feel the same and without protections in place to cover this.


In my state a step-parent is nothing legally. If the other biological parent is still alive when the re-married bio parent dies, the step-parent has no legal standing. Everything reverts to the living bio parent. Of course there would likely be costly lawyers involved, but the step-parent has to fight for everything.

One can use trusts, wills, and pre-nups to keep the other bio parent from getting access to assets after the death of the remarried bio parent or the death of a step parent. Custody can't be assigned in a pre-nup to the step-parent. Here it would have to go to court, and generally the surviving bio-parent gets custody.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Thor said:


> In my state a step-parent is nothing legally. If the other biological parent is still alive when the re-married bio parent dies, the step-parent has no legal standing. Everything reverts to the living bio parent. Of course there would likely be costly lawyers involved, but the step-parent has to fight for everything.
> 
> One can use trusts, wills, and pre-nups to keep the other bio parent from getting access to assets after the death of the remarried bio parent or the death of a step parent. Custody can't be assigned in a pre-nup to the step-parent. Here it would have to go to court, and generally the surviving bio-parent gets custody.


Here in Australia, a stepparent doesn't have any legal rights either. I don't think we do anywhere - though it doesn't seem to be as bad here as in the US. In the event of the death of the biological parent, the living bio parent has all the rights - as it should be. Provision can be made in a will, my husband has appointed me guardian of my SD in the event of his death, and his ex wife knows this and is fine with it. 

In our specific case, technically we have 50/50 custody, but my husband and I have her 100% of the time, as she has some special needs that her mother can't cope with. I honestly can't see her wanting her full time if my husband died. If she did though, there wouldn't be anything I could do about it. I wouldn't drag SD through a custody war...I love her too much to put her through that.


----------



## Davidmidwest (Nov 22, 2016)

Hello,
RUN RUN RUN RUN, DANGER, DANGER, DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!, HE IS LYING TO YOU!. HIS PARENTS ARE PUTTING HIM UP TO THIS PRENUP, HE GOT SCREWED ONCE, OR SOME RELATIVE OR WOMAN STOLE HIS BELONGINGS OR TOOK HIM TO THE CLEANERS... If he is stating that amount of money to you, he has ten times that amount somewhere.

WHAT EVER YOU DO RUN, DO NOT MARRY HIM, SEE HIM, OR HAVE SEX WITH HIM, CUT HIM OUT OF YOUR MIND, SOUL, AND HEART, TELL HIM IF HE EVER CONTACTS YOU AGAIN YOU WILL (xxxxx). IT IS THAT DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR LIFE, HEART AND FUTURE-RUN.
WHY.
NEVER enter INTO A PRENUP with anybody--UNLESS YOU ARE MARRYING THE Donald, our president. He will make you a golden parachute, be honest and love you and never leave you wanting when or if you do leave, or gets tired of you. He has done it twice and both exposes like him after they healed from the divorce.

Prenups-breed mistrust and contempt for us regular folks. We are brought up for "In for a penny in for a pound." It is 100% all money, heart, good and bad times, and if it is important to love and stay together in the most hateful and contempt relating times, fight for the marriage to survive deal. Not a pay as you go deal. Yuck, no romance, hope, faith, or love in that

With him being from another country, Kiss your kids good bye if you don't get along. To spurn you he will have yours and his kids visit their paternal grandparents and he and the kids will never return to the u.s. I think this was the deal with Roman Polanski's kids and he could not come back to the U.S. due to some child abuse case. I could be wrong by mixing up the person, but you got the idea. Foreigners beat their U.S. wife's, they cheat on their wives too.

The money he is putting away is really chump change. He has hidden assets in country and out. If he gets pissed off enough he will "Drew Peterson" your hide and put you in a blue barrel and bury you in a swamp near where you were last seen. God forbid he brings his parents over, his grand parents over, or other family. If they move into your house they never leave. Just picture ****roaches. You will never have the house to yourself. Give up getting romantic and having a diner alone together, they never clean up, and they have body odor on their body, that doesn't include the odor from the food they cook. Good God. How could you stand that foreign accent. If it isn't a romance language-run. One final thing that goes for men and women, no matter what-DO NOT MARY OR DATE ANYONE WITH KIDS EVER, EVEN IF YOU HAVE ONE, TWO, OR THREE. iF YOU DATE AND MARRY WITH SOMEONE WITH KIDS WAIT TO EITHER OF YOUR KIDS ARE OUT OF THE HOUSE FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEY WILL NOT RETURN. STEP KIDS RUIN A MARRIAGE 100 % GUARANTEED. 

WHY" THREE REASONS: 1. EMOTIONAL INCEST OF THE PARENT TRANSFERRING THE LOST EMOTIONAL NEED OF THE LOST SPOUSE ON TO THE CHILD TO REPLACE THE LOST SPOUSE. 2. FRUED'S SEXUAL OBSESSION THEORY REGARDING THE CHILD WANTING TO HAVE SEX AND TAKE OVER THE ROLE OF THE OPPOSITE SEXED VACATED SPOUSE. 3. THE CHILD WILL ATTEMPT TO 1 OR 2 IF YOU RE-MARRY AND HE OR SHE WILL SUPPLANT THE MAN YOU LOVE BY INTERJECTING THEMSELVES AS THE ALPHA. WHEN THE HUSBAND QUESTIONS THIS OR COMPLAINS YOU ARE GOING TO FREAK OUT. HE WILL BACK OFF FRIGHTENING YOU BECAUSE HE HAS FEELINGS AND KNOWS WHAT HE SEES. AT THAT POINT THE RELATIONSHIP IS OVER. NOW YOU LOST A HUSBAND AND THE PARENT WITH THE NATURAL BORN DAUGHTER OR SON WON HIS MOTHER OR FATHER BACK AND IF YOU ARE SICK AS THE KID IS, GET A BOX OF CONDOMS BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT IS NEXT. IT IS VERY RARE THAT A BLENDED FAMILY WORKS. YOU ARE BETTER OFF NOT HAVING KIDS AND JUST ADOPTING A SET FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY. KIDS FROM THE U.S. TO ADOPT HAVE NO "UL" TRADEMARK APPROVED OR HAVE A FORM OF FETAL ALCOHOL OR CRACK SYNDROME. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE GO TO CHINA, AFRICA OR RUSSIA.

SORRY TO SCARE YOU, BUT RUN FROM THIS TONIGHT, THIS SECOND. CHANGE YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER. OH, SORRY FOLKS FOR BEING SO HARSH, TOO MANY PEOPLE GOING AGAINST THE GOODNESS STEREOTYPE;THEREFOR IT IS SAFER TO ERROR ON CONFIRMATION BIAS.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Davidmidwest said:


> Prenups-breed mistrust and contempt for us regular folks. We are brought up for "In for a penny in for a pound." It is 100% all money, heart, good and bad times, and if it is important to love and stay together in the most hateful and contempt relating times, fight for the marriage to survive deal. Not a pay as you go deal. Yuck, no romance, hope, faith, or love in that.


I'm not sure why you think prenups build mistrust. My husband and I drafted a prenup together because he and I both married for the second time and we wanted it to be understood that what we each came with was ours (individually) and that marital assets were to be ours (collectively). In no way did this breed mistrust or contempt. If anything, it strengthened our bond and demonstrated our respect for what we each brought to the relationship. 

When a prenup is fair and both sides contribute, discuss, and have their own representation, they can be much less dire than you describe. 

I think we're in agreement that the OPs prenup was outrageously unfair. But I can't agree that they are unfair on principle.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I agree with all the others. You are not over reacting.

With that prenup, what is the point of getting married... expect for any citizen issues for him?

Just two of the issues I have with what you describe.

He wants all property acquired during marriage to be separate property. With this agreement, who buys the house that you live in? Who pays the mortgage? Who pays for repairs/upkeep? Who pays utilities? What has he said is expects to happen with these items?

If he becomes ill, what kind of financial and other support would he expect from you?
If you become ill, what is he willing to do for you?

What happens if he loses all his assets? It happens surprisingly often. What's is plan?

I'd love to hear his solution to these things.

ETA: What happens if he loses all his assets? It happens surprisingly often. What's is plan?

What portion of the monthly bills is he expecting each of you to pay?

What happens when his larger income increases your tax bill?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Thor said:


> In my state a step-parent is nothing legally. If the other biological parent is still alive when the re-married bio parent dies, the step-parent has no legal standing. Everything reverts to the living bio parent. Of course there would likely be costly lawyers involved, but the step-parent has to fight for everything.
> 
> One can use trusts, wills, and pre-nups to keep the other bio parent from getting access to assets after the death of the remarried bio parent or the death of a step parent. Custody can't be assigned in a pre-nup to the step-parent. Here it would have to go to court, and generally the surviving bio-parent gets custody.


When a person dies, their assets do not go to the bio-parent of their child(ren) if they are not married to that person.

The surviving bio-parent will get custody. But not assets.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Also, if you do marry this guy and sign a prenup, make sure that if you give up the right to alimony, he also gives up his right to alimony.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

clove said:


> Edit: just realized this post was in the ladies lounge... saw in on the "Recent Discussions" list to the right. Still think it might be useful  (runs away!)
> 
> 
> I found this to be really helpful and am now thinking I probably should have posted this in the general questions forum.


I've moved it to General Relationship Discussions.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Bananapeel said:


> Nope, but I absolutely wouldn't marry someone that wouldn't sign one. I've got too much to risk losing and a responsibility to protect assets for my kids. I guess holding that over a spouse's head would be frowned upon by some people on here.


The vast majority of those posting on this thread seem to have no problem with him protecting his pre-marital assets and his son. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that he goes way beyond that.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Statues can be toppled.

So can hollow men, with solid threats.

Rap his head, I bet it clangs like a cracked bell.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

clove said:


> My fiancee and I are getting married soon, and as he is older (12 years) and is coming into the marriage with a significant amount of assets and a son we both decided a prenup would be necessary. Neither of us has been previously married. After discussion he explained the prenup would be in place to protect his premarital assets and some finances he has set aside for his son and family.
> 
> I initially agreed to this, however upon reading the finished prenup he and his lawyer wrote together without me there, it states that he wants all of our assets to be completely separate before and during the marriage. He also wants me to waive all of my rights to alimony. The prenup states that all assets acquired by either individual in the marriage will remain separate unless specified otherwise. Also, if we were the have a joint bank account the "commingled" money will still remain the individual's assets in case of divorce. Ex: husband puts $5,000 in bank account and wife puts $2,000. When divorced the husband would get that $5,000 back and vice versa. Even land and homes acquired by each person would remain separate.
> 
> ...


There is no way that I would marry a man who thought this way. I see marriage as all you both own before the marriage becomes 'ours' and not 'his' or 'mine'. When we married I had a house, he had little as he had let his ex have their house. Despite that I would never have wanted a prenup. If he is worried about his son then he can make a will. 
Also what will you do if he is sent back to his country? Are you prepared to go with him? 
Honestly, there are red flags here.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> The vast majority of those posting on this thread seem to have no problem with him protecting his pre-marital assets and his son. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that he goes way beyond that.


 I agree, if that is what he is concerned about he can make a will. He can also have money put in trust now for his son. 

I am 100% against any prenup, and there is no way that I would ever marry a man who demanded one. That not what marriage is about.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Satya said:


> I'm not sure why you think prenups build mistrust. My husband and I drafted a prenup together because he and I both married for the second time and we wanted it to be understood that what we each came with was ours (individually) and that marital assets were to be ours (collectively). In no way did this breed mistrust or contempt. If anything, it strengthened our bond and demonstrated our respect for what we each brought to the relationship.
> 
> When a prenup is fair and both sides contribute, discuss, and have their own representation, they can be much less dire than you describe.
> 
> I think we're in agreement that the OPs prenup was outrageously unfair. But I can't agree that they are unfair on principle.


We are also in a second marriage, but I would not marry a man who even mentioned a prenup. Its not what marriage is about at all. All I had before is now ours, and all he had before is now ours. 
Its as if you are thinking of divorce before you even get married.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Bananapeel said:


> Nope, but I absolutely wouldn't marry someone that wouldn't sign one. I've got too much to risk losing and a responsibility to protect assets for my kids. I guess holding that over a spouse's head would be frowned upon by some people on here.


I wouldn't marry someone who wanted one. We are both in our second marriage and it was never even mentioned. I had a house yet would still never get one. Thats not what marriage is for us, its a coming together and sharing of everything. If you don't trust you potential spouse and they don't have integrity or fairness then don't get married.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

*Deidre* said:


> Is he marrying you to gain citizenship, do you think? I'm thinking this...which explains why the prenup is so specific. I don't see anything wrong with prenups, in general, but in your case, seeing that he's not a citizen, it seems like his way of gaining citizenship and then leaving you without losing anything.
> 
> You should sign the prenup with not your name but ''BYE.'' lol Let him become a citizen first, then think of marrying him. Then, we'll see what happens, and if he still desires marrying you.


Wise advise. Do not marry a man who is a temporary resident in you country. 
This whole thing makes me very uneasy. I think he is using you.
Wait till he becomes a citizen(if he does).


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

I agree that this guy is not marriage material, but that definition and characteristics of a Buyer is suspect.

A Buyer thinks that sacrifice is dangerous. Really? So how does everyone refusing to sacrifice promote marital harmony?

There are other examples I could pull, but this one stood out.



WorkingWife said:


> OMG, NO you are NOT over-reacting. What is the point of getting married? You don't need a piece of paper to "share love and emotions" WTH?
> 
> I think it makes sense for adults with children from previous relationships to have a pre-nup to ensure something is set aside for the children, or adults who marry later in life and bring considerable assets with them, to make sure that in the event of divorce they don't lose everything they've built up over the years.
> 
> ...


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> We are also in a second marriage, but I would not marry a man who even mentioned a prenup. Its not what marriage is about at all. All I had before is now ours, and all he had before is now ours.
> Its as if you are thinking of divorce before you even get married.


I disagree. I think it's necessary when one spouse has assets or there are blended families.

I have a child and had been dating a lady who had two of her own. I wanted to make sure my kid got my house and she wanted to make sure her kids had their college funds protected.

Would it seem unreasonable to get a prenup in that circumstance? Or should everything be pooled together and hopefully it all works out?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

DTO said:


> I disagree. I think it's necessary when one spouse has assets or there are blended families.
> 
> I have a child and had been dating a lady who had two of her own. I wanted to make sure my kid got my house and she wanted to make sure her kids had their college funds protected.
> 
> Would it seem unreasonable to get a prenup in that circumstance? Or should everything be pooled together and hopefully it all works out?


A lot of this depends...

How old is your child?

Whose name is on your child's college fund? Are you still putting money in it?

With your house... do you own it out right? Is it the house that you and your wife would be living in? Will she be making part of the house payments and money towards upkeep of the house? Or will you use pre-marital money for this?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

DTO said:


> I disagree. I think it's necessary when one spouse has assets or there are blended families.
> 
> I have a child and had been dating a lady who had two of her own. I wanted to make sure my kid got my house and she wanted to make sure her kids had their college funds protected.
> 
> Would it seem unreasonable to get a prenup in that circumstance? Or should everything be pooled together and hopefully it all works out?


I had a house and he didn't. I still didn't even think of getting a prenup, I don't believe in them. 
I knew what sort of man he was by the kind way he treated his ex in their divorce. Despite her cheating and ending their marriage, he acted with fairness, generosity, decency and integrity throughout. I wouldn't marry a man who didn't have those qualities. I have no worries about it. 
I have three children and he has two. We have both made wills and if I die first he will be able to live in the house until he dies. Then it will go to my children. His house went to his wife and his sons will share that.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

The OP should avoid this guy. But that is based on him not wanting to share within the marriage, and his dismissal of her concerns.

I think keeping separate assets separate is fine. This guy has a son he wants to protect. Also, he is significantly older than her. She has an extra decade to work and build up assets all for herself.

I also am fine with specifying no alimony in the event of divorce. That is because I have a foundational belief that an adult can care for him or herself. I never asked my ex for alimony or child support, even when I was out of work.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> A lot of this depends...
> 
> How old is your child?
> 
> ...


My child is 14.

The college accounts were hers (for her kids).

The house is not free and clear. But the payment is low (you can't rent a decent apartment for what the mortgage costs). There would have been a sizable income discrepancy; I would pay for all housing expenses.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> We are also in a second marriage, but I would not marry a man who even mentioned a prenup. Its not what marriage is about at all. All I had before is now ours, and all he had before is now ours. *Its as if you are thinking of divorce before you even get married.*


The bold is not at all how I see it, @Diana7. If that's how you see it, that's fine. I won't try to convince you of my reasons, since it seems they may not resound with you. 

Our marriage is more than stable and strong, our prenup is a distant memory, and it is always there if we need it. It's like insurance - better to have and not need than to need and not have. 

To your last point: One fact of life (as I see it) is, our marriage may not always be there. If I've learned anything in my life thus far, it is that nothing, not even the things we love, cherish, and trust most dearly are certain or permanent. Everything has the potential to be transitory. I know and believe this because it's happened to me on more than one occasion. We chose to be prepared and the decision suits us both. It may not suit others.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Satya said:


> The bold is not at all how I see it, @Diana7. If that's how you see it, that's fine. I won't try to convince you of my reasons, since it seems they may not resound with you.
> 
> Our marriage is more than stable and strong, our prenup is a distant memory, and it is always there if we need it. It's like insurance - better to have and not need than to need and not have.
> 
> To your last point: One fact of life (as I see it) is, our marriage may not always be there. If I've learned anything in my life thus far, it is that nothing, not even the things we love, cherish, and trust most dearly are certain or permanent. Everything has the potential to be transitory. I know and believe this because it's happened to me on more than one occasion. We chose to be prepared and the decision suits us both. It may not suit others.


That's why its so vital to only marry someone with integrity and decency and honesty and fairness. Having seen how my husband acted so kindly and generously with his ex, despite her relationship with another man, I have no worries as to how he would act with me in the same situation.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> That's why its so vital to only marry someone with integrity and decency and honesty and fairness. Having seen how my husband acted so kindly and generously with his ex, despite her relationship with another man, I have no worries as to how he would act with me in the same situation.


Then we're both lucky to have men with upstanding qualities.

With that , I end my t/j!


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> That's why its so vital to only marry someone with integrity and decency and honesty and fairness. Having seen how my husband acted so kindly and generously with his ex, despite her relationship with another man, I have no worries as to how he would act with me in the same situation.


Sometimes... you just don't know. Money does things to people.

Real life story: my mother got sick and then passed away about 1.5 years after remarrying. She left everything in her husband's hands and trusted that he would keep his word and pass all her money on to me and my siblings (no will). He wound up keeping 25% of the money (besides the fact she had paid for some stuff for him while married).

It just happens too much to be an isolated incident.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

DTO said:


> My child is 14.
> 
> The college accounts were hers (for her kids).
> 
> The house is not free and clear. But the payment is low (you can't rent a decent apartment for what the mortgage costs). There would have been a sizable income discrepancy; I would pay for all housing expenses.


Coincidentally, I recently started a thread on a similar topic in the General Relationship forum. Briefly, my reasons for protecting myself in this manner is that I feel opening up my home and covering the majority of living expenses is a huge share. Second, I would protect any future partner (a life insurance plan).

But, to subsidize someone who no longer is married to me? No thank you, especially being at that stage in life where I won't be having more kids and don't want a stay-at-home spouse.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

DTO said:


> Sometimes... you just don't know. Money does things to people.
> 
> Real life story: my mother got sick and then passed away about 1.5 years after remarrying. She left everything in her husband's hands and trusted that he would keep his word and pass all her money on to me and my siblings (no will). He wound up keeping 25% of the money (besides the fact she had paid for some stuff for him while married).
> 
> It just happens too much to be an isolated incident.


That's why you make a will. If I die first then the house will be my childrens with the proviso that DH can stay in it until he dies or remarries. He is not legally allowed to move another lady in. Any money left will go to the surviving spouse and when they die it will be divided between our 5 children. 
I wonder why your mum didn't make a will in the time she was ill?

I know that he wouldn't cheat my children(who he is a dad to), I have seen the way he acts with this sort of thing. He is a very moral man.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> That's why you make a will. If I die first then the house will be my childrens with the proviso that DH can stay in it until he dies or remarries. He is not legally allowed to move another lady in. Any money left will go to the surviving spouse and when they die it will be divided between our 5 children.
> I wonder why your mum didn't make a will in the time she was ill?
> 
> I know that he wouldn't cheat my children(who he is a dad to), I have seen the way he acts with this sort of thing. He is a very moral man.


In most states, a spouse gets 50% of all community assets regardless. A will cannot change that.

Upon divorce or death of a person who has assets, things often devolve into a huge fight over what assets are marital assets and which are sole property of each person. A will does not establish this, it can only distribute. One of the reasons that a will cannot establish which property is sole property is because only one spouse signs the will.

A prenup does establish, with agreement/signatures of both spouses which assets are marital assets and which are sole property.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> Wise advise. Do not marry a man who is a temporary resident in you country.
> This whole thing makes me very uneasy. I think he is using you.
> Wait till he becomes a citizen(if he does).


I like this post by Diana7, and the one she quoted. It seems like wise advice. 



Today, marriage is a legal contract, unless the two are married in a Christian ceremony, there is no moral binding. 


Therefore,



> When I asked to discuss and clarify this, as well as ask why the terms changed from what I originally understood, he would get angry and refuse to discuss anything clearly and would only tell me to take it to my lawyer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> If you previously never asked for anything from him money wise, why would it bother you? It's like you feel guilty for something you argue, you will not be interested in, i.e.: any assets he acquires. There really is no good complaint you can make.
> 
> He is honest and open. You must love him and feel loved by him, or you would not be interested in spending the rest of your life with him. That's a long time. Are you prepared for that length of time and the openness and honesty he seems to require?
> 
> ...


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

EleGirl said:


> In most states, a spouse gets 50% of all community assets regardless. A will cannot change that.
> 
> Upon divorce or death of a person who has assets, things often devolve into a huge fight over what assets are marital assets and which are sole property of each person. A will does not establish this, it can only distribute. One of the reasons that a will cannot establish which property is sole property is because only one spouse signs the will.
> 
> A prenup does establish, with agreement/signatures of both spouses which assets are marital assets and which are sole property.


I am in the UK, a will is binding. A partner cant claim anything they arent left unless they pay a fortune and go to court. A prenup can be overruled. 
We have both made wills together, the house is in my name. Its his home as well for as long as he lives.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> I like this post by Diana7, and the one she quoted. It seems like wise advice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Marriage is about all that you each have. My advise to clove would be to tell him that you aren't going to marry him until he gets full citizenship. See his reaction. If he genuinely wants to marry you then he wont mind waiting. If he reacts badly then that will tell you all you need to know abotu why he is wanting the wedding. 
I feel he may well be using you to get his citizenship which is why he wants that prenup for when he ends the marriage shortly afterwards. 
So many people marry others purely to get to stay in that country. I was watching a programme about this the other night, so many people left broken and devastated when this happened to them. 

Sorry but I have a very uneasy feeling about this. 

Personally I think he is treating clove appallingly.I would run a mile.


----------



## FrazzledSadHusband (Jul 3, 2014)

If you marry, he will expect you to pay for everything, thereby saving all of HIS money for himself.

RUN!


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

clove said:


> My fiancee and I are getting married soon, and as he is older (12 years) and is coming into the marriage with a significant amount of assets and a son we both decided a prenup would be necessary. Neither of us has been previously married. After discussion he explained the prenup would be in place to protect his premarital assets and some finances he has set aside for his son and family.
> 
> I initially agreed to this, however upon reading the finished prenup he and his lawyer wrote together without me there, it states that he wants all of our assets to be completely separate before and during the marriage. He also wants me to waive all of my rights to alimony. The prenup states that all assets acquired by either individual in the marriage will remain separate unless specified otherwise. Also, if we were the have a joint bank account the "commingled" money will still remain the individual's assets in case of divorce. Ex: husband puts $5,000 in bank account and wife puts $2,000. When divorced the husband would get that $5,000 back and vice versa. Even land and homes acquired by each person would remain separate.
> 
> ...



All I can say is wow.

This guy is setting up your marriage like a business contract and not a loving trustworthy marriage.

I wouldn't get married if that was going to be my situation.

Find another man. Please.

Really? Run away!!!!


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

First of all, let me say that I didn't quote you to discuss this with you. I should have quoted the post you quoted, but I made a mistake and didn't change it because I was lazy and a little frustrated with myself. 

So, I dealt with what I quoted and just added the part about the post you quoted. I hope that clears things up for you and everyone else. 

Now, let's see what you had to say.




Diana7 said:


> Marriage is about all that you each have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I don't. He has one idea of what marriage should be. unless, and until there is more to this story. So, let's call off the bloodhounds and lynch mob and take sensible actions that will help her. She can report more later, to prove me wrong. Either way, I'm not saying she is compatible...yet. In fact, I posted something about comnpatibility in my last post. I think I spelled that wrong. Oh well.


Have a nice day. :smile2:


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

The OP hasn't been here since the day she started the thread. Carry on.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Blondilocks said:


> The OP hasn't been here since the day she started the thread. Carry on.


Thanks. I wondered, but didn't look. Still, it was educational and worth it to me. You missed the one from 2012 that was resurrected. 










She's kind of hot, in a macabre way. :grin2:


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> First of all, let me say that I didn't quote you to discuss this with you. I should have quoted the post you quoted, but I made a mistake and didn't change it because I was lazy and a little frustrated with myself.
> 
> So, I dealt with what I quoted and just added the part about the post you quoted. I hope that clears things up for you and everyone else.
> 
> ...


 No its not about the assets to me at all, that's why I would never be interested in trying to work out who gets what in a divorce before I had even got married. 
its about what marriage is, and its not making things 'his' or 'hers,' but 'ours'. My husband came into our marriage with far less than me. It never occurred to me to have a prenup. I never would, and I would never marry a man who wanted one. Its selfish and self centered. Its disrespectful and unloving. 
This case has the added factor that he may well be marrying her for citizenship.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> No its not about the assets to me at all, that's why I would never be interested in trying to work out who gets what in a divorce before I had even got married.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I did make a statement about that. We may want to agree to disagree. I don't see the point in furthering this debate. Thanks for clarifying your positions.


----------



## 225985 (Dec 29, 2015)

Blondilocks said:


> The OP hasn't been here since the day she started the thread. Carry on.




We don't post only for the OP. You know that. 

The thread discussion helps others who come to read it later. 

Or we post for our own purposes. 

Like I am now.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

blueinbr said:


> We don't post only for the OP. You know that.
> 
> The thread discussion helps others who come to read it later.
> 
> ...


:sleeping:


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Blondilocks said:


> :sleeping:


I knew a nursing lady in Baja. She had NO Co-Lepsy. A sub category akin to Narcolepsy. A mixture of Sleepyness and Epilepsy. 

Luckily, she showed no signs of Loco-Lepsy. It occurs when you kiss a cow who ate the weed.

The nursing lady had no patients. They would not come to her First Aid Station.

The aid that others received were viewed mainly as Ho-Hum jobs.

I believed she passed on, but I could be wrong. I often am.

I suspect that in Reality, a town just North of the Rio Grande, she only was capable of nursing her own headaches.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

:circle::circle::circle: I must need new glasses.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull shyt.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> I am in the UK, a will is binding. A partner cant claim anything they arent left unless they pay a fortune and go to court. A prenup can be overruled.
> We have both made wills together, the house is in my name. Its his home as well for as long as he lives.


Unlike in the USA, prenuptial agreements in the UK have no definite legal standing. (Though some judges might take cognisance of them during a divorce, but they don't have to.)


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

Diana7 said:


> I wouldn't marry someone who wanted one. We are both in our second marriage and it was never even mentioned. I had a house yet would still never get one. Thats not what marriage is for us, its a coming together and sharing of everything. If you don't trust you potential spouse and they don't have integrity or fairness then don't get married.


You seem to have a very black and white view of relationships and marriage. I'm glad it works for you but many of us are in different situations and think about things differently. A prenup isn't about a lack of trust, integrity, or fairness. It is about facing reality and making the best decisions for your situation. Think about it this way, if someone were to already have kids, get married, and get divorced again it is not just their money that is being put at risk. It is also things like your children's college saving, your children's house, etc. If you feel it's wise to risk that, then go for it. But for me that stuff is not negotiable. If my kids were grown and out of the house, then I wouldn't be so worried about them. But my obligation as a current father supersedes that of a potential husband. Also, if you've done any reading around here you'll find that spouses change and what was once an honorable and trustworthy spouse can turn into a totally unrecognizable person years down the line. So judging someone today and assuming that you'll both be the same in the future is foolish.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Bananapeel said:


> You seem to have a very black and white view of relationships and marriage. I'm glad it works for you but many of us are in different situations and think about things differently. A prenup isn't about a lack of trust, integrity, or fairness. It is about facing reality and making the best decisions for your situation. Think about it this way, if someone were to already have kids, get married, and get divorced again it is not just their money that is being put at risk. It is also things like your children's college saving, your children's house, etc. If you feel it's wise to risk that, then go for it. But for me that stuff is not negotiable. If my kids were grown and out of the house, then I wouldn't be so worried about them. But my obligation as a current father supersedes that of a potential husband. Also, if you've done any reading around here you'll find that spouses change and what was once an honorable and trustworthy spouse can turn into a totally unrecognizable person years down the line. So judging someone today and assuming that you'll both be the same in the future is foolish.


Put the children's college money into their own savings accounts in their names. Simple. 
We both have children of our own, we both had long first marriages, and we both treated our previous spouses with fairness and decency during the divorces despite their betrayals. If you have certain standards and integrity you will act well no matter what happens to you in life. My husband gave his former wife their house, she hadn't paid a penny towards the mortgage, that's the sort of man he is and always has been.
A prenup isn't what marriage is all about.


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

Diana7 said:


> Put the children's college money into their own savings accounts in their names. Simple.
> We both have children of our own, we both had long first marriages, and we both treated our previous spouses with fairness and decency during the divorces despite their betrayals. If you have certain standards and integrity you will act well no matter what happens to you in life. My husband gave his former wife their house, she hadn't paid a penny towards the mortgage, that's the sort of man he is and always has been.
> *A prenup isn't what marriage is all about*.


For you. But you're wrong if you think that is universal.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Bananapeel said:


> For you. But you're wrong if you think that is universal.


I don't know a single couple who have a prenup. It seems pretty rare here. 

My solicitor semi seriously advised that I get a prenup, I laughed. 
Not for me. I believe that all we come into a marriage with becomes ours.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> I don't know a single couple who have a prenup. It seems pretty rare here.
> 
> My solicitor semi seriously advised that I get a prenup, I laughed.
> Not for me. I believe that all we come into a marriage with becomes ours.


I can't bite my tongue. 

I want to, but I have to ask. 

If your current husband gave her the house in the divorce, did he think it was both of theirs or hers? If it was both of theirs, wouldn't they sell it and split the profit after taxes and mortgage? 

I'm not trying to mess with you. I'm trying to get you to see the difference in what you are saying and what was done.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> I can't bite my tongue.
> 
> I want to, but I have to ask.
> 
> ...


It was both of theirs, in joint names. She hadn't paid anything towards it. He didn't want to fight it out in court so he let her have it. That's what he is like, a good and decent man. At the time both of their sons were also living with her(aged 18 and 21). She wouldn't have been able to afford anywhere with half the profit so he let her have it. He rented, and when we met and later married he moved into my home. 
All he got was a small amount of money, she got the same amount herself. I thought he was mad but he felt that was the right thing to do, and I do admire and respect him for what he did.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

You shouldn't marry this guy. If he doesn't want to share with you what he has then the hell with him. Prenups are usually not worth the paper they're written on in court, but besides the point, the guy is a *******. Dump him.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> It was both of theirs, in joint names. She hadn't paid anything towards it. He didn't want to fight it out in court so he let her have it. That's what he is like, a good and decent man. At the time both of their sons were also living with her(aged 18 and 21). She wouldn't have been able to afford anywhere with half the profit so he let her have it. He rented, and when we met and later married he moved into my home.
> All he got was a small amount of money, she got the same amount herself. I thought he was mad but he felt that was the right thing to do, and I do admire and respect him for what he did.





> I believe that all we come into a marriage with becomes ours.


It doesn't seem so.

Listen, I'm not saying he did the wrong thing. I'm saying, if it was as much his as hers, he would have split it with her, kids or not. He could have taken the children after going to court and telling them she had no where for them to live. He could have raised them and she could have visitation rights once she found a place. 

Now, that does seem mean. Doesn't it? Well, it's fair. Only half was hers, not the whole thing. So, how can you say you believe that everything is ours? 

Do you understand this isn't about being mean? It's about the definition of ours and fair. She put nothing into it, by your own words. Wouldn't getting half of it's value then, be more than fair?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> I don't know a single couple who have a prenup. It seems pretty rare here.
> 
> My solicitor semi seriously advised that I get a prenup, I laughed.
> Not for me. *I believe that all we come into a marriage with becomes ours*.


That's your personal belief. But marriage law in the UK does not believe that. Legally in the UK, the assets that each spouse had prior to marriage is their separate property.

There are many different situations that happen with marriage. Some people end up with good spouses. Some people think that when they marry that they are marrying a good person only to find out later that it's not the case at all. Look at all the horror stories on this forum. It's not usual at all for someone who find out after marriage that they married a person who put on a good show to get them. Some people change, even after years/decades of marriage and things go very wrong.

That is why some people who have significant assets get pre-nups.

You suggested putting the kids college funds in accounts in their own names. Well, if its in the kids name the kid can do with it as they choose, like not spend it on college. And the parent would have no say in it. A trust could be used I guess. 

The benefit of a well written pre-nup is that it identifies the pre-marital/sole assets so that if anything does go wrong there is proof during a divorce that BOTH parties agreed before the marriage what the separate property is.

The problem I have with the OP's prenup is that it does not just name pre-marital assets, it seeks to call all marital income and assets separate property. This is just not going to work out well.

It's ok for you to not like the idea of a pre-nup. If you don't want one, don't get one.

But to vilify anyone who gets a pre-nup is just wrong. They serve a real purpose for some people and are a valid way to handle certain situations.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> It doesn't seem so.
> 
> Listen, I'm not saying he did the wrong thing. I'm saying, if it was as much his as hers, he would have split it with her, kids or not. He could have taken the children after going to court and telling them she had no where for them to live. He could have raised them and she could have visitation rights once she found a place.
> 
> ...


 We met when she was divorcing him after she had met another man. I went through all this with him. Half of the profits of their small house would not have bought either of them even a small one bed apartment. No where for the boys to live. 
He is a kind and good man, he CHOOSE to let her have the house rather than fight in court. He CHOOSE to let her have his share. 
I realise that most people don't act well in a divorce and are out to hurt the other person, but he is an exception. That's why I have no worries about the future.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> We met when she was divorcing him after she had met another man. I went through all this with him. Half of the profits of their small house would not have bought either of them even a small one bed apartment. No where for the boys to live.
> He is a kind and good man, he CHOOSE to let her have the house rather than fight in court. He CHOOSE to let her have his share.
> I realise that most people don't act well in a divorce and are out to hurt the other person, but he is an exception. That's why I have no worries about the future.


I see your point. It's not that I don't. I gave my first wife the house. I did not trust that her and her AP would last. I was concerned for my children. Turns out, they not only lasted, but she rented the house to some family. She wrote off her income, including money from a part-time job and turned around and charged me more child support, through the courts, since she had no income, according to what she reported on taxes. 

So, he is lucky it worked out in his favor. And, I understand his concerns. 

You don't see my point, and that's okay.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

2ntnuf said:


> I see your point. It's not that I don't. I gave my first wife the house. I did not trust that her and her AP would last. I was concerned for my children. Turns out, they not only lasted, but she rented the house to some family. She wrote off her income, including money from a part-time job and turned around and charged me more child support, through the courts, since she had no income, according to what she reported on taxes.
> 
> So, he is lucky it worked out in his favor. And, I understand his concerns.
> 
> You don't see my point, and that's okay.


One of my sisters married a guy who gave his ex the house. He was quite generous in eh divorce.

The ex then remarried, and she believed that in marriage everything both bring into the marriage should be marital property, so she put her new husband's name on the deed to the house. A few years later, her new husband divorced her and got the house. Lot of good it did for my now BIL to give her the house. 

It would have been better had my now BIL kept the house in joint ownership with the provision that it be sold once the children were grown and out of the house. That would have prevented the new husband from throwing the kids out on the street and taking their home away from them.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> You suggested putting the kids college funds in accounts in their own names. Well, if its in the kids name the kid can do with it as they choose, like not spend it on college. And the parent would have no say in it. A trust could be used I guess.


Not to mention that both the trust and transferring assets are HUGE taxable events in the US. Who needs that?!


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> One of my sisters married a guy who gave his ex the house. He was quite generous in eh divorce.
> 
> The ex then remarried, and she believed that in marriage everything both bring into the marriage should be marital property, so she put her new husband's name on the deed to the house. A few years later, her new husband divorced her and got the house. Lot of good it did for my now BIL to give her the house.
> 
> It would have been better had my now BIL kept the house in joint ownership with the provision that it be sold once the children were grown and out of the house. That would have prevented the new husband from throwing the kids out on the street and taking their home away from them.


Good example of a man doing something similar. 

My point was not what you quoted. I was just giving an example of how I might be able to understand offering something that isn't fair and yet, similar to what Diana posted. The fact that it backfired on me, I was afraid might be taken as you did. That, women will do this to a man. Truly, I realize that both men and women can and will do things that aren't so nice. 

My point was to try to get her to see that her idea of fair is not really fair. Fair, if the couple believes that everything is ours, as she stated in a previous post, is not what actually is fair. 

Fair, would be to sell the house and split the profits. Whether there was enough to rent another place has nothing to do with being fair in splitting what is ours. I use the word, ours, to help with understanding. 

She stated there wouldn't have been enough for either of them to rent a place. Well, somehow he did, without that little bit that couldn't have helped. So, her point was not made. 

What it actually boils down to is that some think that fair is not actually splitting things equally. For some, it's what they believe they need to make it, since their partner will make it without them. I mean make it in the sense that they will have enough money and things to carry on without a lot of burden. That idea seems more common in divorces than equality in shared assets divided. 

Make sense?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

2ntnuf said:


> I see your point. It's not that I don't. I gave my first wife the house. I did not trust that her and her AP would last. I was concerned for my children. Turns out, they not only lasted, but she rented the house to some family. She wrote off her income, including money from a part-time job and turned around and charged me more child support, through the courts, since she had no income, according to what she reported on taxes.
> 
> So, he is lucky it worked out in his favor. And, I understand his concerns.
> 
> You don't see my point, and that's okay.


His exes affair didn't last, and she is still alone 12 years later. He has no regrets about what he did. I think he should have tried to get more money out of the divorce, but it was his choice in the end. 
I just know that I wouldn't marry a man who wanted a prenup. We are both Christians who believe that you stay in a marriage and keep your promises except where there is adultery or serious abuse. Neither of us were responsible for our marriages ending, and neither of us will end this one whatever happens. Its not an option.


----------



## BeautyBeast (Feb 3, 2015)

I would actually marry a guy with such a pre-nup. Moreover, I have this kind of pre-nup drafted for myself in case I will get married again. But the reason for it - I am not going to have more kids.

Man and women DO NOT have equal opportunities in life because of childbirth. Therefore, women are exposed to a higher risk of underemployment, women have limited freedom of choices due to their obligations to kids.

If you are going to have kids in your marriage, this pre-nup is one sided to the men's benefits. It's a good time to ask questions before you made a huge mistake.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> I realise that most people don't act well in a divorce and are out to hurt the other person, but he is an exception. That's why I have no worries about the future.


You've been reading too many fairy tales.

No one is an automatic exception. And no matter how much you think you may know him and his capabilities, you don't. You can't. He doesn't either.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> I believe that all we come into a marriage with becomes ours.


Let me guess. When you married your second husband he had a lot more money and assets than you did.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

browser said:


> Let me guess. When you married your second husband he had a lot more money and assets than you did.


Quite the opposite, he had practically nothing except a car that was a few years old, whereas and I had my own house. He had let his ex have their house. 
There goes your theory. 
I don't believe in prenups period. I wouldn't be with a man who wanted one. I don't care who has what before, when you marry you share everything. 'With all my worldly goods I thee endow'.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

browser said:


> You've been reading too many fairy tales.
> 
> No one is an automatic exception. And no matter how much you think you may know him and his capabilities, you don't. You can't. He doesn't either.


I can tell by the way he acted in his divorce with his first wife, he gave her their house with all its contents and acted with decency and integrity throughout, unlike her. He didn't have to do that but he didn't want to have to take her to court, that's the sort of man he is. She had never paid a penny towards the mortgage either. 
I can also tell because he is a man of strong morals, honesty, fairness and kindness. What is inside us will come out when we are under pressure.I have seen him under pressure.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> I can tell by the way he acted in his divorce with his first wife, he gave her their house with all its contents and acted with decency and integrity throughout, unlike her. He didn't have to do that but he didn't want to have to take her to court, that's the sort of man he is. She had never paid a penny towards the mortgage either.


Your current (second) husband gave his first wife the house because he didn't want to take her to court. Did you ever consider that he did the math and the equity in the house once the mortgage was factored in was not worth the legal expense involved in trying to keep his half of the equity? You already stated in the post quoted below this that your second husband doesn't have any money, so he probably couldn't afford an attorney. 



Diana7 said:


> Quite the opposite, he had practically nothing except a car that was a few years old, whereas and I had my own house. He had let his ex have their house.
> There goes your theory.


Ok, since you're the one with the money entering the second marriage and you are the one that is leaving yourself completely vulnerable by not protecting yourself with either a prenup or by not getting married in the second place, and your second husband has nothing more to his name than a used car, then my revised theory based on the new information you provided is that you are being foolish by assuming that this marriage will end differently than your first one did and not protecting yourself accordingly because you believe all of your accumulated lifelong savings and assets should immediately be completely shared with a man you've probably only known for a couple of years because (to you) that's what commitment is all about.

As an aside @Diana7

Do you have children? If so how do they feel about you giving your new husband complete ownership and control over all your money and assets?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

browser said:


> Your current (second) husband gave his first wife the house because he didn't want to take her to court. Did you ever consider that he did the math and the equity in the house once the mortgage was factored in was not worth the legal expense involved in trying to keep his half of the equity? You already stated in the post quoted below this that your second husband doesn't have any money, so he probably couldn't afford an attorney.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I have three adult children who really like him. He treats them like his own. We have both made wills so that once we are both dead the house will go to them. They know this. If I die first he can live here until he dies or remarries or cohabits. He can also down size if he needs to, and the children will then have the profit the house makes. Any money we may have at the time we die will be be split between my three and his two children. His children will inherit the home that his ex now has.

We married after 9 months BTW. We didn't live together. 
I wasn't vulnerable, I wouldn't have married a man who wasn't a fair, decent man. Also, I didn't have any money when we met, just the house with a small mortgage(about 1/6th of the value of the house). 
If he had taken her to court and got, say, half the equity of the house, he would have been better off than he was. As I said he is a man of integrity. That's one of the reasons I love him and married him.He also isn't obsessed with money or possessions and isn't materialistic.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> We married after 9 months BTW. We didn't live together. I wasn't vulnerable, i wouldn't have married a man who wasn't a fair decent man. Also I didn't have any money when we met, just the house with a small mortgage(about 1/6th of the value of the house).
> If he had taken her to court and got, say, half the equity of the house, he would have been better off than he was. As I said he is a man of integrity. That's one of the reasons I love him and married him.


 @Diana7

Your second marriage is to a man you only knew for _9 months_ who had nothing to his name but a used car; at the time, you didn't have much either but at the time, you did have a house with approximately 80% equity. From the brief time you had known him, you decided he is a man of integrity who you will unquestionably spend the rest of your life with - because he didn't spend money he didn't have on attorneys fees to take his wife to court for their only asset which appears to be a house with little to no equity- you say if he did take her to court he would be "better off than he is now" which is 'a used car and no money' so that doesn't really mean much. You did not protect yourself or your children financially in the event of a divorce- because well, it's not really commitment if you do all those silly things like prenuptual agreements. 

Do I have that about right?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

browser said:


> @Diana7
> 
> Your second marriage is to a man you only knew for _9 months_ who had nothing to his name but a used car; at the time, you didn't have much either but at the time, you did have a house with approximately 80% equity. From the brief time you had known him, you decided he is a man of integrity who you will unquestionably spend the rest of your life with - because he didn't spend money he didn't have on attorneys fees to take his wife to court for their only asset which appears to be a house with little to no equity- you say if he did take her to court he would be "better off than he is now" which is 'a used car and no money' so that doesn't really mean much. You did not protect yourself or your children financially in the event of a divorce- because well, it's not really commitment if you do all those silly things like prenuptual agreements.
> 
> Do I have that about right?


He was earning a reasonable wage, so he had the money to go to court, and it could have come out of the profits of the house anyway. He just didn't think it was the right thing to do, to fight his then wife. It was far more than that, he always treated her well and with respect all through the divorce and after. 

There will be no divorce, he doesn't believe in it, his wife divorced him against his will after 23 years of marriage after meeting another man. I won't divorce him either, I wouldn't want to ever marry again so there would be no point whatever happened. 

We are Christians so living together isn't an option, and once you know you want to be together for life what is the point of waiting ? We were both in our late 40's then so delaying seemed pointless. 
I knew in a week that he was the man for me, and the longer we knew each other the more sure I was. I have seen and observed the the way he acts in all sorts of situations, I trust him. Married now for 12 years this year, never regretted it for a second. 

As I said a prenup isn't for us. I would rather not marry that have a prenup. 
I am not even sure they are always adhered to in the divorce courts in the UK anyway.
That's not what marriage is all about. Its about what is ours not yours or mine. Its about total commitment and sharing of everything. Of thinking of the other person and not what you want. Of treating them with respect and fairness no matter what. Of acting with integrity no matter how others treat you.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

browser said:


> Do you have children? If so how do they feel about you giving your new husband complete ownership and control over all your money and assets?


That's irrelevant. Diana doesn't have to leave anything to anyone if she so chooses. Her money and assets are just that, HERS.

My dad has passed away, all "his" assets went to mum and are now mums. She can do whatever she wants with them, my brothers and I are not automatically entitled to something because she's our mum.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

frusdil said:


> That's irrelevant. Diana doesn't have to leave anything to anyone if she so chooses. Her money and assets are just that, HERS.
> 
> My dad has passed away, all "his" assets went to mum and are now mums. She can do whatever she wants with them, my brothers and I are not automatically entitled to something because she's our mum.


True, but my kids will inherit the house when we both die, its in the will.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

frusdil said:


> That's irrelevant. Diana doesn't have to leave anything to anyone if she so chooses. Her money and assets are just that, HERS.


I am aware that @Diana7 has no obligation to give her adult biological children anything. I do however question her wisdom in giving it (or at least half of it) to a guy she's only known for 9 months. 



Diana7 said:


> He was earning a reasonable wage, so he had the money to go to court, and it could have come out of the profits of the house anyway. He just didn't think it was the right thing to do, to fight his then wife. It was far more than that, he always treated her well and with respect all through the divorce and after.


Your current second husband didn't think it was "right" to go to court to claim his right to half of the equity in a house that was rightfully and legally his, while he didn't have any other money or assets besides a used car and you think this is because he is a man of integrity. That's not the word that first comes to my mind. 

By the way going to court to settle a disputed financial matter doesn't have to be a "fight". The two parties with their two attorneys each present their case to the judge and allow the court to decide what's fair. Better yet the two reasonable, respectful, and people with integrity both agree to what's fair without adversity and without the use of opposing attorneys, they draft a settlement agreement (possibly with one attorney who represents both of them) and present it to the court for final approval. There doesn't have to be any fighting, name calling or mudslinging, and in fact if they only thing they have to negotiate is splitting up the equity in the house, it won't require much of anything other than an appearance and presenting a few supporting documents. 



Diana7 said:


> We are Christians so living together isn't an option, and once you know you want to be together for life what is the point of waiting ? We were both in our late 40's then so delaying seemed pointless.


 @Diana7 I know that you have decided to follow arbitrary rules by which to live your life which include no sex or living together outside of marriage. Whether its due to an artificial religious construct or the color of the sky makes no difference.



Diana7 said:


> I knew in a week that he was the man for me, and the longer we knew each other the more sure I was.


You knew in a "week" that this was a man you wanted to be with for the rest of your life and you married 9 months after you first met. I'd like to gently suggest that 9 months is too short a period of time to really know a person, let alone a week, but I understand you and I differ on that particular point so there's really not much more to say about that. 



Diana7 said:


> As I said a prenup isn't for us. I would rather not marry that have a prenup. I am not even sure they are always adhered to in the divorce courts in the UK anyway.


As I've maintained, not getting married is much better protection from a legal/financial standpoint than a prenup (which can be challenged and overturned) so in a sort of twisted way you and I have finally found something we agree on. 



Diana7 said:


> That's not what marriage is all about. Its about what is ours not yours or mine. Its about total commitment and sharing of everything. Of thinking of the other person and not what you want. Of treating them with respect and fairness no matter what. Of acting with integrity no matter how others treat you.


Yes, but in reality marriage rarely turns out in that fairytale way that you so eloquently and hopefully and naively describe it, and a smart, cautious person will take steps to protect themselves because about 67% chance that things won't work out the way you expect them to. Unlike yourself, I can and do cite various references to support my claims.

67% OF SECOND MARRIAGES FAIL (CLICK HERE)


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

browser said:


> I am aware that @Diana7 has no obligation to give her adult biological children anything. I do however question her wisdom in giving it (or at least half of it) to a guy she's only known for 9 months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My husband let his ex have the house(that was in joint names) because he knew it was the right thing to do. He still cared about what happened to his ex despite what she had done, that's the sort of man he is. I appreciate that most people in a divorce act badly and are greedy and only out for themselves, but he isn't like that and nor am I. 

We live the way we do because of our faith, and also because time and time again God has shown us that His advise and guidance is always for our own good.So living together isnt an option and quite honestly even if I wasn't a Christian I would want marriage before I moved in with someone. 

For us 9 months was long enough, I would have married sooner, and time(12 years) has shown me that we made the right decision. We both know that divorce isn't an option for us. I don't see marriage as a fairy tale at all, far from it, but as something that you work at and don't give up on and my husband believes that you keep promises you made to someone. 
A prenup was never considered, its thinking about divorce before you have even married. If I thought I had needed a prenup, I wouldn't have got married. If I hadn't know what sort of man he was then I wouldn't have married him.

Yes second marriages fail, but I know many in happy second marriages like ours.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> My husband let his ex have the house(that was in joint names) because he knew it was the right thing to do.


Can I ask you to elaborate on this one point @Diana7?

If the house belonged to both your husband and his exwife, and they have shared equity of which they both are legally entitled, why is him giving her his half of the value of the house the right thing to do?

Why do you think that people who request the courts grant them what is legally and rightfully theirs, are "acting badly and are greedy"?

Especially given that at the time, the only asset he had was a used car.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

browser said:


> Can I ask you to elaborate on this one point @Diana7?
> 
> If the house belonged to both your husband and his exwife, and they have shared equity of which they both are legally entitled, why is him giving her his half of the value of the house the right thing to do?
> 
> ...


People here arent automatically entitled to half of anything. It all depends on what each earns, if there are dependant children, what other assets there are etc. 
His ex made it clear that she was going to fight for the house. She is quite selfish and the sort of person that feels entitled. So it was either go to court and pay a fortune in legal fees, or let her have the home. His 2 sons were also still at home then, albeit they were adults aged 18 and 21, so he felt it was the right thing to let her have it. 
I realise that its something that most cant understand, but it showed me what sort of principled man he is.

Also as Christians the Bible says that we shouldn't take another Christian to a secular court, so that was another reason.


----------



## browser (Oct 26, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> His ex made it clear that she was going to fight for the house. She is quite selfish and the sort of person that feels entitled. *So it was either go to court and pay a fortune in legal fees, or let her have the home*. His 2 sons were also still at home then, albeit they were adults aged 18 and 21, so he felt it was the right thing to let her have it. I realise that its something that most cant understand, but it showed me what sort of principled man he is.


As I suggested earlier in this thread, @Diana7 which you just confirmed, your husband let her half the house because it _"*would have cost him a fortune to fight her in court*"_. It has nothing to do with his integrity or principals or being a nice guy. It's about the money, and your husband is no exception.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons you stated earlier:



Diana7 said:


> He is a kind and good man, he CHOOSE to let her have the house rather than fight in court. He CHOOSE to let her have his share.
> I realise that most people don't act well in a divorce and are out to hurt the other person, but he is an exception. That's why I have no worries about the future.


The other given reason he didn't sue for his half of the equity is because he didn't want to displace his ADULT sons, then aged 18 and 21. 



Diana7 said:


> At the time both of their sons were also living with her(aged 18 and 21). She wouldn't have been able to afford anywhere with half the profit so he let her have it. I thought he was mad but he felt that was the right thing to do, and I do admire and respect him for what he did.


Well @Diana7, that's not a valid reason, as @EleGirl pointed out, there's an easy way to handle the common situation where both parties have equity in the home, while children -usually MINOR children- are still living there. It was possible to protect himself AND his adult sons.



EleGirl said:


> It would have been better had my now BIL kept the house in joint ownership with the provision that it be sold once the children were grown and out of the house. That would have prevented the new husband from throwing the kids out on the street and taking their home away from them.


I hate being right all the time. I wrote this 2 days ago:



browser said:


> Your current (second) husband gave his first wife the house because he didn't want to take her to court. Did you ever consider that he did the math and the equity in the house once the mortgage was factored in was not worth the legal expense involved in trying to keep his half of the equity? You already stated in the post quoted below this that your second husband doesn't have any money, so he probably couldn't afford an attorney.


 @Diana7 it has nothing to do with your husband being a great guy. 

It's ALWAYS about the money.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

browser said:


> As I suggested earlier in this thread, @Diana7 which you just confirmed, your husband let her half the house because it _"*would have cost him a fortune to fight her in court*"_. It has nothing to do with his integrity or principals or being a nice guy. It's about the money, and your husband is no exception.
> 
> It has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons you stated earlier:
> 
> ...


Not at all, it may be in most people but not us. He could have paid the legal fees partly out of what he got from the house, and partly from his earnings, he choose not to. Yes he would have been better off if he had taken her to court, but he didnt feel that was right for the reasons that I have already explained. Somethings are more important than money.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

OP hasn't been back for 2 1/2 months so I'm closing this thread. 

If she wishes to have it reopened she can PM me.


----------

