# Thoughts on a year-of-patience clause in a marriage contract?



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

so a pre-nuptial agreement to not divorce????

My humble opinion is if you think you need a pre-nuptial agreement so your partner doesn't dump you in the first year of marriage - you probably should not be going with that person to begin with.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Machjo said:


> One possible drawback of such a clause might be if my spouse is convicted of mass murder or in some other such extreme case for example. Suddenly my spouse would be in jail or death row and I couldn't divorce without first applying for legal separation and then waiting a year. Even then though, it could still become a blessing in disguise if my spouse should later be acquitted; and even if not, it would still give me a year to just separate and slowly adapt to the new reality.


OK if you are using the words 'my spouse" and "mass murderer" in the same sentence - then you REALLY should not be with this person in the first place!!


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> OK if you are using the words 'my spouse" and "mass murderer" in the same sentence - then you REALLY should not be with this person in the first place!!


I'm not talking about my real wife here, but rather just a hypothetical imaginary spouse for the sake of example if you will. Presumably a person would find out only after the wedding that his spouse has been running around killing people.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

You mean like Ireland?

Many countries already have such a provision.

Personally I don't agree with it. I think the legality of marriage and divorce is about law and money, not love. I think people need to protect their assets quickly.

If you add a proviso so that money can be split immediately and the only part that is stalled is some sort of ability to allow their hearts to go a wandering, then it is okay. But how can you legislate affairs?

Marriage is really only about money.

Although my wife wanted marriage. It was imperative. And we like the institution, the idea.

I do wish it didn't tie people together legally economically so rigidly.


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Machjo said:


> Such a clause would still not prevent either party to legally and sexually separate and then apply for divorce once the year of legal and sexual separation is up. That's why I referred to it as a year-of-patience clause, not a married-forever clause. Sometimes a partner might want to divorce just due to recent stress at work, in the family, etc. that will fix itself if they can just hold on tight for a year. If they need to separate for some time, they could still end the separation and get back together again once it's calmed down. If the person is determined to divorce, then a year is nothing.


We may be from different countries and different cultures here, but let's talk about what marriage is for a moment. 

At it's core, marriage is a contract to not split up. It is a contract that you won't break up and leave the other due to inevitable life events like stress and illness and puking babies. 

Legal marriage is in and of itself a legal contract that makes splitting up a complicated and time consuming process that takes time, effort, methodology and expense. That is the purpose of marriage - so someone doesn't just gather up all the toys and walk away when they don't feel like playing with the other any more. 

To have a provision in a marital contract to not split up is kind of the epitome of redundancy. 

And in almost all jurisdictions, divorces take time and expense just to work through the process. At least in the US, even the simplest and most straightforward divorces can take multiple months just to work their way through the court. 

What you are talking about in terms of a pre-nuptial agreement is simply marriage itself. Marriage itself accomplishes what you are talking about and marriage itself makes walking away difficult, time consuming and expensive.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

It is certainly true, or Mary and I certainly agree, that marriage is treated too lightly.

Something to make people treat it with more respect would be nice.


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> We may be from different countries and different cultures here, but let's talk about what marriage is for a moment.
> 
> At it's core, marriage is a contract to not split up. It is a contract that you won't break up and leave the other due to inevitable life events like stress and illness and puking babies.
> 
> ...


That would depend on the jurisdiction. And again, people can move and laws can change. why not back it up in a contract?

In at least one Canadian province for example, a person does need to separate for at least a year before divorcing but can still apply for divorce at the same time as he applies for separation. The separation takes place right away and the divorce automatically takes place once the year is up. Psychologically though, the simple fact of applying for divorce without even having separated can shock a person's system. Should a person not be allowed to even apply for divorce before a year of legal and sexual separation makes it less mentally shocking. In other words, he could apply to separate and then apply for divorce as soon as the year is up. It may be that since he'd already been separated for a year, he might be able to divorce within a day after applying to do so since most everything would already have been separated for the most part anyway. But mentally and emotionally, with both spouses already having been separated for a year, the divorce process would thus be far less painful.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Responses in bold below. 




Machjo said:


> That would depend on the jurisdiction. And again, people can move and laws can change. why not back it up in a contract?
> 
> 
> *But marriage is a/the contract. In order to break it, one must go through a legal process. That process is lengthy, methodical, time consuming and expensive. *
> ...


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Machjo said:


> Sorry, I wasn't talking about the first year of marriage. I meant a clause that would apply throughout the marriage. So even if you decided to separate 50 years later, that clause would still apply.


My mistake, I misread. I thought you were talking about the first year of marriage in your first post.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Machjo said:


> However, why not then allow a couple to include a year-of-patience clause in a marriage contract that they would willingly sign to compensate?


People can already write up and sign whatever kind of pre-nup they want now. The real question is whether it is enforceable in court or not. Many pre-nups are not actually enforceable and do not hold up. 

I see many issues here. 

For starters, like I said above, the marital contract itself is time consuming, expensive and labor intensive as it is. All of the things you are wanting to occur with this pre-nup are already built into the divorce process already. 

And also, I do not believe that completely frivolous divorces make up a very large percentage of divorces that occur. Most are probably quite valid and even necessary. Especially in cases of abuse, alcohol/drug abuse, recalcitrant adultery, emotional and mental abuse and anguish etc etc. I really do not believe many people actually take divorce lightly and if they are taking it lightly on the day they file, they will quickly change their tune as the process moves forward. IMHO the majority of divorces are perfectly valid and there for there is no reason to delay the outcome simply for the sake of delaying it and prolonging the process.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Machjo said:


> I disagree though that the pain is the same. When a person apply for separation and divorce at the same time, it can seriously and sometimes even dangerously shock the system. To require a person to separate for at least a year before applying for divorce (even if this allows for the divorce to be expedited once a person applies for it) could make the separation more emotionally and mentally palatable for a person by giving him the time he needs to learn to accept the new reality.


While your heart is probably in the right place, I just simply do not believe your plan would achieve what you hope it will. Breaking up sucks and it is hard, nasty work and it comes at an emotional toll and a financial expense. Prolonging that over a year is not going to change that; it will just make it take longer. 

If someone will be emotionally stable and mentally prepared enough to divorce after one year of warning, they would be emotionally stable and mentally sound a year after getting divorce papers as well. 

In other words, at the one-year mark, they will be at the same place emotionally and mentally either way. Only with your plan, now they would still have to go through the court process where as without your one-year plan, they could have already been moving on with their lives by that time. 

It's not that your idea is all that bad or harmful - I just don't think in the long run it will have any beneficial outcome or really be any different than a standard divorce. It will just take longer. 

I know a lot of people that have divorced. They all may be bummed that their original plan for a happy marriage did not turn out as they had hoped. But almost every single one of them upon looking back wished that the divorce process had been easier, less costly and faster ---- not more prolonged, more complicated and more time consuming.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

A clause like that would be irrational. Divorce or even dissolution takes plenty of time by itself. If any one had a change of heart in the interim they would always be free to withdraw their petition to divorce. A year of patience clause would merely prolong the agony of the spouse being divorced and would do nothing to prevent either side from moving on.

I just don't understand how anyone can claim that marriage is all about love that they are some how better protected by some legality such as year of patience clause.

Plus then you open the door for all sorts of legal and financial shenanigans


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

I found out, after 15 years of marriage, that my husband was a prolific and unrepentant serial cheater. I met with an attorney on a Friday. My husband and I hashed out the basics of the custody and financial agreements over the next month and wrote it all up on a legal pad. My attorney produced the formal document, we both signed, and it went to the judge. Thirty one days later, the judge signed and our divorce was official. The entire process took exactly 10 weeks from that initial Friday morning meeting with my attorney. It was an exceptionally quick and astonishingly amicable divorce. 

What would a 1-year waiting period have done for me? It would have dragged an already painful situation out for nearly another year. It would have given my then-husband more time to get his butt-hurt in gear and come up with ways to gum up the works on a divorce he didn't want. It would likely have made the asset division more tedious and antagonistic. It would have put me in the position of having to buy a house and move while also still financially and legally liable for the home we owned together. It would have prolonged the divorce process for our child. It would not have kept him from dating, as he was doing that the entire time we were married. So, tell me the advantage of a waiting period when you're dealing with someone you really, really, want and need (for your own sanity and emotional, physical, and financial health) to be no longer partnered with in any way? 

Sure, we could have waited a year between separation and divorce. But it wouldn't have been of any real benefit, and might very well have been detrimental. I'd already given up quite enough, thanks. I wasn't about to spend any more time than absolutely necessary dragging a divorce out.


----------



## Notself (Aug 25, 2017)

Machjo said:


> Having experienced divorce myself in the past and having read about the emotional damage that divorce can cause the spouses and children, I started wondering about the wisdom of including a year-of-patience clause in a marriage contract whereby either party could sue the other for applying to divorce within one year of legal or sexual separation.


This is a terrible idea. Why are you taking your situation and applying it to ALL marriages? It would entire prevent people from protecting themselves in the case of abuse, infidelity, or just bad behavior.

Besides, it already exists in several states. It's called a "covenant marriage." Guess how many people use this option? Nearly zero.


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

Well, everyone knows my wife is a rather odd gal.

When we were dating she suggested a two tier marriage plan. She wanted to get married right away. I was reluctant, because I felt we needed to be better assured of compatibility.

There were issues with us learning about each other, such as the fact she was constantly being chaperoned because of the church/cult she was a member of.

Anyway, her idea is the couple should not be allowed to finalize the legal bond of marriage until after a year of being married before God.


----------



## Cromer (Nov 25, 2016)

I am very fortunate there is no waiting period in my state.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I do not know a single divorced couple personally in my real life that did not divorce do to either recalcitrant adultery, abuse or alcoholism/drug addiction. 

Any kind of waiting period or delay would have had absolutely no benefit to either party whatsoever.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

Machjo said:


> Having experienced divorce myself in the past and having read about the emotional damage that divorce can cause the spouses and children, I started wondering about the wisdom of including a year-of-patience clause in a marriage contract whereby either party could sue the other for applying to divorce within one year of legal or sexual separation. This could help especially when one spouse might angrily react by suddenly wanting to divorce without taking time to think his decision through first. While it would still allow him to legally separate, it would force him to wait a year before applying to divorce and so would give him time to reflect on the situation and try to reconcile and, in the worst case scenario, give him, his spouse, and any child involved time to prepare emotionally, mentally, and otherwise for the impending divorce.
> 
> In fact, if I'm not mistaken, some jurisdictions already have laws preventing people from applying for divorce within one year of legal separation. Even if a person lives in such a jurisdiction though, including it in a marriage contract would make it applicable in a civil court in any jurisdiction. This could protect an especially mobile couple for example. We should remember too that laws can change, so including it in a marriage contract provides a backup too.
> 
> What would be your thoughts on including a year-of-patience clause in a marriage contract even if such a law already exists in the jurisdiction in which you live?


I can't apply for a divorce until I'm legally separated for 12 months. That's just the way it is here. That hasn't stopped my Ex from having his 22-year-old playmate (which he'd made sure was ripe for the plucking before he ended the marriage, of course) sleeping in our house after only being separated for 3 weeks (me being the one to move out to help us 'work on the marriage', heh).

The 12 months wait is just a formality at this point. So I can't submit the paperwork for another 11 months for something that has already occurred in reality.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Think of the possible long term consequences. My state doesn't recognize legal separation separate from a divorce filing. In other words, the divorce filing is the legal separation. Without legal separation, spouses are responsible for the financial and personal decisions made by each other. Shared debt being the biggie. A STBX could use that year to run up debt the other spouse is responsible to pay a percentage of, which is usually half. If Spouse A gets into a drunk driving accident and gets sued, marital assets can and will be seized to pay the judgement. Things of that nature. Also, my state has lifetime alimony at 19 years and 1 day. Meaning this patience clause could cost someone lifetime alimony payments.


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------



## Notself (Aug 25, 2017)

Machjo said:


> You bring up a good point. Perhaps an exception could be made for a fault divorce.


Or perhaps it is just a completely bad idea and shouldn't be implemented at all.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

@Machjo

I know you are trying to save marriages and ease pain and suffering. 

The part I think you are not seeing is that divorce is often times necessary and that the pain and suffering is greater *IN* the marriage and that divorce is the force that lessens and ultimately eliminates the pain and suffering. 

Divorce may be costly and painful while it is occurring, but people divorce in the fast place because the pain and suffering and dysfunction is greater if they stay. 

People divorce when the pain and suffering from staying outweighs the expense, pain and hassle of divorcing. 

In other words, divorce isn't a bad force in the world. Divorce is good for the people who need it. 

And when they need it - they need it now and they need to git'r done as smoothly, efficiently and cost effectively as possible. 

Yes it will involve tears, heartache and some hardships. But forcing that out over a year will not ease, reduce or eliminate those tears, heartache and hardship.


----------



## Silverbird (Mar 2, 2018)

breeze said:


> I can't apply for a divorce until I'm legally separated for 12 months. That's just the way it is here. That hasn't stopped my Ex from having his 22-year-old playmate (which he'd made sure was ripe for the plucking before he ended the marriage, of course) sleeping in our house after only being separated for 3 weeks (me being the one to move out to help us 'work on the marriage', heh).
> 
> The 12 months wait is just a formality at this point. So I can't submit the paperwork for another 11 months for something that has already occurred in reality.


 @breeze I'm in the exact same situation. That's pretty much what happened with me. Husband left me, (it was only supposed to be a trial separation, he said that we just 'needed time to clear our heads and have a break from each other'), then 2 months later, he admits he's started a relationship with another woman, one he already knew, and I'd even met. Nice enough but a completely naive 20 something. Although I have to consider that if my STBXH played down the separation, there's no doubt in my mind that it's been played down to her also. Deceptive and manipulative man. Can't divorce yet because we have to be separated for 12 months officially. I'm just trying not to let my anger and resentment spill over into everything else. I've got two beautiful girls to think about. The last thing I'd want is to put them in the middle of it. He's a good dad though.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

God no. No. No. No. Many people have not only had a year of patience, but years and even decades of patience before they reach the breaking point and know they must divorce.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

@Silverbird, I'm sorry to hear that. One day at a time for us. I struggle to understand how one person can choose to cause that sort of pain for someone they were supposed to have loved. I thought love meant more than attraction, to me it did, but I have realised that for some people it doesn't.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

The only reason for patience is when a sudden change in personality or behavior occurs, IMO. That change could be due to medical reasons, such as an illness or a subtle medication interaction (we experienced this, and it required extensive detective work to fix). If that is thoroughly explored and dismissed as a cause, then split up if that's the best choice. We'd give each other the benefit of the doubt for a while, but would not put up with problems indefinitely.


----------



## Machjo (Feb 2, 2018)

...


----------

