# Pre Nups are a Must



## thunderchad

If there's any advice I can give to my fellow men, it is pre-nuptial agreements are a must. If you're already married, then a post-nup.

I've seen so many men get raked over the coals in family court. I've seen businesses destroyed. I've seen life savings and retirement accounts lost. I've seen most prized possessions forcibly sold.

Most family law jurisdictions heavily favor the women. Protect yourself, your assets, and your future.

Getting a post-nup a few months before my divorce saved my ass bigtime.


----------



## ConanHub

To bad you generally aren't deep enough to discuss these things outside of what I can find on bitter bachelor videos on YouTube.

Pre nups are an interesting topic but probably not as one dimensional as an agenda driver would portray the subject.

I'm also going to put the kabosh on ruling my views out because I'm older.

I have two sons aged 33 and 26 and I'm a very involved father so I know what they have experienced with women these days.

I'm not bagging on you or trying to steal your "thunder" Chad...😉

You are appearing as an agenda driven person.

I agree with a couple of your observations but you are coming off very one sided and that side appears to be burned men which doesn't include this old man who has been referred to as a 20%er, an alpha, a Chad and a natural. All titles from outside that I couldn't care less about because I'm a lot more and deeper than some kind of 20/80 formula.


----------



## Livvie

Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


----------



## thunderchad

That's exactly the problem. Courts shouldn't just divide things in half, this is how people get screwed. Consideration should be given to what assets each person had prior to the marriage, how much each person contributed to the marriage financially, as well as the length of the marriage.


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


Livvie, let's say you work hard and make good money. You saved up and bought yourself a house, a nice car, and have a good retirement savings. Now you marry a guy, and he seems nice, but in a few years you divorce. Do you think is fair to give his guy half your savings, half your car, and half your house?


----------



## Diana7

I am 100% against prenups or post nups. I wouldn't get married to anyone who wanted a prenup. 
I am in my second marriage, in my divorce I always acted fairly and we didn't need to go to court. 
I believe marriage means that all you had and have is no longer yours and mine but ours. Therefore a prenup is irrelevant. 
Wanting a prenup would say to me that you are not committed to making the marriage work and that you are already planning for a divorce. That would be a massive red flag to me and I would say no.


----------



## thunderchad

I should clarify, it's not just men. Everyone should get a pre-nup, but especially anyone who owns a business, or has children from prior relationships, or has assets, or earns a lot more than their partner.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> Livvie, let's say you work hard and make good money. You saved up and bought yourself a house, a nice car, and have a good retirement savings. Now you marry a guy, and he seems nice, but in a few years you divorce. Do you think is fair to give his guy half your savings, half your car, and half your house?


In the UK it's unlikely that someone in that guys position, especially with no children, would be entitled to anything like half of the assets she had before the marriage. Especially if it was such a short one.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> I am 100% against prenups or post nups. I wouldn't get married to anyone who wanted a prenup.
> I am in my second marriage, in my divorce I always acted fairly and we didn't need to go to court.
> I believe marriage means that all you had and have is no longer yours and mine but ours. Therefore a prenup is irrelevant.
> Wanting a prenup would say to me that you are not committed to making the marriage work and that you are already planning for a divorce. That would be a massive red flag to me and I would say no.


You are obviously a nice person, but most people aren't! If everyone were like you we'd have no need for divorce lawyers.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I should clarify, it's not just men. Everyone should get a pre-nup, but especially anyone who owns a business, or has children from prior relationships, or has assets, or earns a lot more than their partner.


Well you think they should. We both have children from previous marriages. We would never have got a prenup.


----------



## thunderchad

Laws are different everywhere. In America, a lot of states are considered "community property states" which means the moment you get married everything you own goes together and if you get divorced the default is a 50/50 split.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> You are obviously a nice person, but most people aren't! If everyone were like you we'd have no need for divorce lawyers.


That's why you have to be very careful who you marry. Find someone with integrity and a great sense of fairness and you should be ok.


----------



## joannacroc

Had I not signed a prenup, my son and I would have moved back in with family - we would have lost an apartment I bought on my own before meeting my XH. Divorcing spouses can and will drain your joint assets from bank accounts. While the courts are sorting it out, you're left with very little if anything. Good luck if you're a SAHM or SAHD. So yeah, not to be a cynic but experience has taught me that people with any assets of any description - ALWAYS get a prenup.


----------



## Numb26

Not getting involved in this argument other then to say if you are a man there are a few states you should NEVER get married in even if you have a prenup/postnup.


----------



## thunderchad

I'm in the business world and I evaluate law, contracts, risk, etc all the time. In the USA at least, 50% of first marriages and 67% of second marriages end in divorce. If you knew you had a 50% chance of crashing your car would you drive around without insurance?


----------



## thunderchad

joannacroc said:


> Had I not signed a prenup, my son and I would have moved back in with family - we would have lost an apartment I bought on my own before meeting my XH. Divorcing spouses can and will drain your joint assets from bank accounts. While the courts are sorting it out, you're left with very little if anything. Good luck if you're a SAHM or SAHD. So yeah, not to be a cynic but experience has taught me that people with any assets of any description - ALWAYS get a prenup.


I'm glad it worked out for you.


----------



## joannacroc

Diana7 said:


> That's why you have to be very careful who you marry. Find someone with integrity and a great sense of fairness and you should be ok.


Nobody thinks "oh I think I'll marry this person who is unfair and has no integrity." People fool you. Leaving aside his cheating, because that's more about him and me, I NEVER would have thought XH would have gone without paying anything towards his son's care while employed but he did. I NEVER would have thought he'd drain our joint account I had been a SAHM but he did. I have come to terms with who he really is, and we have worked through our s(^* for our son's sake. I don't feel any anger towards him, just ambivalence. But marriage taught me that it is entirely possible to be too trusting, and to see what they want you to see instead of what they actually are. Anybody can be blind-sided.


----------



## ConanHub

I was going to say that prenups make a lot of sense in several circumstances and not just for men of course.

There are business interests to consider, family estates and employees, etc.

I didn't need one because I had nothing but youth and adrenaline when Mrs. C met me. She actually was more financially sound than me when we first started together.

Everything we have has been built together and she should get her portion if we split which would be nearly as miraculous as hell freezing over.

With the courts being as weird, arbitrary and one sided as they often are, I don't fault anyone for wanting a reasonable legal document drawn up for reasonable allocation of assets and child custody should retardation infest the marriage at a future point.


----------



## thunderchad

ConanHub said:


> With the courts being as weird, arbitrary and one sided as they often are, I don't fault anyone for wanting a reasonable legal document drawn up for reasonable allocation of assets and child custody should retardation infest the marriage at a future point.


Agreed, but, the issue of child support and child custody can't be determined via a pre-nup or post-nup. Although most states allow one to set or waive alimony via pre/post nups.


----------



## joannacroc

thunderchad said:


> That's exactly the problem. Courts shouldn't just divide things in half, this is how people get screwed. Consideration should be given to what assets each person had prior to the marriage, how much each person contributed to the marriage financially, as well as the length of the marriage.


I think there is some middle ground too. I was lucky in that I had some assets I was able to use to get the necessities. Most SAHM or SAHDs, if the couple agreed that that person should stop working, don't contribute financially, but if they provide childcare, are essentially saving the other parent a full salary by providing childcare. There has to be a balance. I'm all for someone getting a job to help provide for their kid financially, but if someone has removed themselves from the work force to care for kids at both spouses' agreement, their earning potential isn't gonna be huge when they are suddenly needing a job again. There is the narrative that "oh women take advantage in marriage and divorce" and I've seen that, but I also experienced it from the other end - men are just as capable as leaving you to fend for your children alone, which carries its own financial devastation and sadness for your children. I don't regularly get child support payments but am lucky in that XH has occasionally stepped in to help care for our son on days I am sick or have to work and can't get childcare. Not everyone has that.


----------



## happyhusband0005

When I got married my wife had more than me. She graduated college two years before me, lived at home for a year then her employer sent her to live and work out of their London, UK office, paid her rent food stipend even and alcohol stipend because things are so expensive there. 

Since then I have made 100 times what she has but I considered it all ours, if we get divorced she gets half and I'd be fine with that. 

All that said I don't think it's a terrible idea, and it is not just for men. Especially given it is becoming more common for women in the relationship to make equal or more than their husbands so it can be a sensible thing to simplify and save on legal fees and forensic accountants etc. 

I'm probably a romantic but even on the commercial real estate projects I have developed I always made my wife a member of the LLC's that hold the properties. Also for liability reasons our new house (which I paid cash for) is in a trust and she is the sole trustee. 

If we got divorced and I was getting remarried I would probably get one. But updating my will to make sure my kids were getting most of my assets would be my primary concern.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> Livvie, let's say you work hard and make good money. You saved up and bought yourself a house, a nice car, and have a good retirement savings. Now you marry a guy, and he seems nice, but in a few years you divorce. Do you think is fair to give his guy half your savings, half your car, and half your house?


MARITAL assets, I said. 

There is a difference between pre marital assets and marital assets. Most state statutes are quite clear about it.


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> MARITAL assets, I said.
> 
> There is a difference between pre marital assets and marital assets. Most state statutes are quite clear about it.


Except in Louisiana, Arizona, California, Texas, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> That's exactly the problem. Courts shouldn't just divide things in half, this is how people get screwed. Consideration should be given to what assets each person had prior to the marriage, how much each person contributed to the marriage financially, as well as the length of the marriage.


I have a problem with this in the case of SAHMs or SAHDs. If one person forgoes earning income to stay home with the kids they shouldn't be penalized for that in the event of a divorce.


----------



## Numb26

As skewed and female friendly as most state's divorced courts are I can see the value of protecting your money.


----------



## thunderchad

happyhusband0005 said:


> If we got divorced and I was getting remarried I would probably get one. But updating my will to make sure my kids were getting most of my assets would be my primary concern.


This is certainly a good reason to have one as well. In a lot of places if you have a child from a previous marriage and you die, your spouse gets everything and there's no guarantee that anything would ever go to your children. This can be addressed in pre-nups as well as wills.


----------



## Diana7

joannacroc said:


> Nobody thinks "oh I think I'll marry this person who is unfair and has no integrity." People fool you. Leaving aside his cheating, because that's more about him and me, I NEVER would have thought XH would have gone without paying anything towards his son's care while employed but he did. I NEVER would have thought he'd drain our joint account I had been a SAHM but he did. I have come to terms with who he really is, and we have worked through our s(^* for our son's sake. I don't feel any anger towards him, just ambivalence. But marriage taught me that it is entirely possible to be too trusting, and to see what they want you to see instead of what they actually are. Anybody can be blind-sided.


I knew how Mr D acted in his divorce with his ex so had no worries. Despite being cheated on he was still very generous, over generous.
If I felt I had to have a prenup I just wouldn't get married. 
I say this as a person who came into my second marriage with my own house and three adult children. Never entered my head to get a prenup. Nor his. 
It's just isn't in our idea of marriage.


----------



## thunderchad

happyhusband0005 said:


> I have a problem with this in the case of SAHMs or SAHDs. If one person forgoes earning income to stay home with the kids they shouldn't be penalized for that in the event of a divorce.


In this situation alimony for a temporary amount of time for the spouse to get a job and start earning a living would be appropriate. Also a percentage of the family assets maybe but I disagree with the automatic 50/50. But what's nice about pre and post nups is you can spell this all out beforehand. You can go into a marriage knowing exactly what will happen if you ever get divorced.


----------



## Diana7

happyhusband0005 said:


> When I got married my wife had more than me. She graduated college two years before me, lived at home for a year then her employer sent her to live and work out of their London, UK office, paid her rent food stipend even and alcohol stipend because things are so expensive there.
> 
> Since then I have made 100 times what she has but I considered it all ours, if we get divorced she gets half and I'd be fine with that.
> 
> All that said I don't think it's a terrible idea, and it is not just for men. Especially given it is becoming more common for women in the relationship to make equal or more than their husbands so it can be a sensible thing to simplify and save on legal fees and forensic accountants etc.
> 
> I'm probably a romantic but even on the commercial real estate projects I have developed I always made my wife a member of the LLC's that hold the properties. Also for liability reasons our new house (which I paid cash for) is in a trust and she is the sole trustee.
> 
> If we got divorced and I was getting remarried I would probably get one. But updating my will to make sure my kids were getting most of my assets would be my primary concern.


Wills are important. We both have fairly simple wills. The house will go to my kids after we both die. 
His former house that his ex now has will go to his son's.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> In this situation alimony for a temporary amount of time for the spouse to get a job and start earning a living would be appropriate. Also a percentage of the family assets maybe but I disagree with the automatic 50/50. But what's nice about pre and post nups is you can spell this all out beforehand. You can go into a marriage knowing exactly what will happen if you ever get divorced.


I would hate to start a marriage planning for a divorce.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> This is certainly a good reason to have one as well. In a lot of places if you have a child from a previous marriage and you die, your spouse gets everything and there's no guarantee that anything would ever go to your children. This can be addressed in pre-nups as well as wills.


You can make sure that the will is clear in that if you die the house gets put in trust for the children until the other spouse dies. No need for a prenup.


----------



## Talker67

prenups do not seem to mean much to young people. 
they are coming into the marriage without a who lot of $, so whatever they earn during the marriage should be equally split, in my mind.

but older people....say one person owns a house, like someone said above, and has a big retirement savings. but they marry someone who never saved, or blew it all by being financially unstable. those two can marry, and the more financially savy of them run the finances. but if there is a divorce, there is no way the frivilous one deserves half of everything! no way. get the prenup for that


----------



## thunderchad

It is also worth noting pre-nups always help with debt, not just assets. Let's say husband wants to take a big loan to start a business or wife wants to go back to school and takes out student loans. The other spouse can be shielded from that debt.


----------



## Diana7

Talker67 said:


> prenups do not seem to mean much to young people.
> they are coming into the marriage without a who lot of $, so whatever they earn during the marriage should be equally split, in my mind.
> 
> but older people....say one person owns a house, like someone said above, and has a big retirement savings. but they marry someone who never saved, or blew it all by being financially unstable. those two can marry, and the more financially savy of them run the finances. but if there is a divorce, there is no way the frivilous one deserves half of everything! no way. get the prenup for that


Isn't that why you need to be careful who you marry? If you are a person who wants someone who has assets and money then that's who you need to marry.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Isn't that why you need to be careful who you marry? If you are a person who wants someone who has assets and money then that's who you need to marry.


I married a woman with a Masters degree, BSN in nursing, educated, mother of 3......didn't stop what happened. You can only be so careful and know so much. Luckily for me, even though I was in a state notoriously known for being female friendly I was able to have the presiding judge replaced and the damage was minimum.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> Isn't that why you need to be careful who you marry? If you are a person who wants someone who has assets and money then that's who you need to marry.


I'm a very careful driver but I still have car insurance to mitigate risk.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I'm a very careful driver but I still have car insurance to mitigate risk.


You can't compare the two. 

I will never plan for a divorce while planning to get married. 

I want a guy who is 100% committed to marriage not one who is already worrying about what money he may loose before we have even tied the knot. 
There are some things more important than money.


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> In this situation alimony for a temporary amount of time for the spouse to get a job and start earning a living would be appropriate. Also a percentage of the family assets maybe but I disagree with the automatic 50/50. But what's nice about pre and post nups is you can spell this all out beforehand. You can go into a marriage knowing exactly what will happen if you ever get divorced.


Yah its just like any contract, both sides have representation and it's all negotiated.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

thunderchad said:


> Livvie, let's say you work hard and make good money. You saved up and bought yourself a house, a nice car, and have a good retirement savings. Now you marry a guy, and he seems nice, but in a few years you divorce. Do you think is fair to give his guy half your savings, half your car, and half your house?


You don't seem to realize that many states do allot what you brought into the marriage to the person who brought it in. Then they divide the joint assets. As it should be. I mean, if I bought a house and then got married and decided to put my spouse's name on it, then they'd get half, but hardly anyone is going to do that. I don't know anyone who would do that. 

I think you undervalue what a woman brings to the marriage, especially if she has kids. Put a price on childbirth and then we'll talk.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

thunderchad said:


> Except in Louisiana, Arizona, California, Texas, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.


Wrongo. 

"Texas is one of nine states that is a community property jurisdiction. In general, this means that any *property acquired by a couple during their marriage* (with a few exceptions) is equally owned by both spouses.


----------



## Married but Happy

Some people in some jurisdictions should have a pre- or post-nup, but most don't really really need one IMO unless there are particular circumstances, such as a pre-existing family business or a huge disparity in initial assets.


----------



## thunderchad

DownByTheRiver said:


> Wrongo.
> 
> "Texas is one of nine states that is a community property jurisdiction. In general, this means that any *property acquired by a couple during their marriage* (with a few exceptions) is equally owned by both spouses.


I can't vouch for Texas as I don't practice there but in my state it certainly is the case.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> what's nice about pre and post nups is you can spell this all out beforehand. You can go into a marriage knowing exactly what will happen if you ever get divorced.


I have a postnup, I'm not against them. But...

No, even with a prenup or postnup you don't know exactly what will happen. A judge does not have to follow the prenup, and they won't if they think it's unfair or puts one spouse at a huge disadvantage (such as waiving alimony or walking away empty handed). 

As for SAHM's deserving less than 50/50. That's another nope. They do just as much, if not more work than the working spouse does. They absolutely should get 50% of the _marital _assets. They also often support their husband's while climbing the corporate ladder, and judges absolutely take that into account.


----------



## thunderchad

Married but Happy said:


> Some people in some jurisdictions should have a pre- or post-nup, but most don't really really need one IMO unless there are particular circumstances, such as a pre-existing family business or a huge disparity in initial assets.


100% on owners of businesses. In fact, most businesses partnerships I put together require all owners to have a pre nup. It is extremely common now.


----------



## thunderchad

bobert said:


> I have a postnup, I'm not against them. But...
> 
> No, even with a prenup or postnup you don't know exactly what will happen. A judge does not have to follow the prenup, and they won't if they think it's unfair or puts one spouse at a huge disadvantage (such as waiving alimony or walking away empty handed).
> 
> As for SAHM's deserving less than 50/50. That's another nope. They do just as much, if not more work than the working spouse does. They absolutely should get 50% of the _marital _assets. They also often support their husband's while climbing the corporate ladder, and judges absolutely take that into account.


They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable. 

If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> You can't compare the two.
> 
> I will never plan for a divorce while planning to get married.
> 
> I want a guy who is 100% committed to marriage not one who is already worrying about what money he may loose before we have even tied the knot.
> There are some things more important than money.


I'm worried about a female friend of mine my age getting taken advantage of by her boyfriend, who she's known for decades but been dating a few years now. She owns her house and car. I think he owns his house, but he only owns the car he had in high school (he's like 70) and drives it barely and was frantic to take up with her and has her drive him around in her poor old clunker that breaks down all the time instead of driving his old classic he barely keeps running. He's a cat hoarder who doesn't have them neutered or take them to the vet, too. 

He tried to get her to sell her house a couple years ago. I don't trust him at all because he's such a cheapskate about everything. At his age, it's normal to be barely employed, but he's been barely employed for as long as I remember. She is fully employed still and not doing well physically and really needs to retire, but with him draining on her, she won't be able to. She buys stuff and he makes stuff when a gift is called for. I mean, he just doesn't spend money at all but I feel uses her and would like to totally use her up. The only thing stopping her is she has a grown daughter who I think she would like to have something to leave to when she passes. 

If they were both contributing, or if she just didn't have him leeching on her, even, she could be retired by now. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't feel they needed to marry sometime just because they're both old, for hospital privileges.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

thunderchad said:


> I can't vouch for Texas as I don't practice there but in my state it certainly is the case.


All you have to do is google it.


----------



## Numb26

thunderchad said:


> They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable.
> 
> If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


Absolutely not


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable.
> 
> If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


And while he was doing "100% of the work" to build said business, who was doing probably 100% the work in the home, with the kids, and supporting his career so that he could get to where he is now?


----------



## happyhusband0005

Diana7 said:


> Wills are important. We both have fairly simple wills. The house will go to my kids after we both die.
> His former house that his ex now has will go to his son's.


After my first big payday We didn't have a Will. My wife and I were going on a trip without the kids and my wife got all nervous about it so I texted my lawyer with specific instructions on what should happen, who the kids should live with in order of preference who should be the trustee of the money until the kids got it all when they turned 30, who would be in charge of selling my properties and business etc. He texted back OK. When you get back we need to have a meeting to do an actual will for you guys. By the time the plane took off we had it scheduled for two days after we got home. Felt really good once it was done and all the trusts were setup and all the details. I felt like a real grown up.


----------



## LATERILUS79

Diana7 said:


> You can't compare the two.
> 
> I will never plan for a divorce while planning to get married.
> 
> I want a guy who is 100% committed to marriage not one who is already worrying about what money he may loose before we have even tied the knot.
> There are some things more important than money.


Diana, you make some fine points.

if the state wasnt involved, I would completely agree with you, however, that is not the case. Government in all countries is involved in marriage and as such, a contract is made. If the government wasn’t involved at all in marriage (and in my humble opinion, no government should be), then I would be completely in agreement with you.

Heres another way to think about it:

do YOU personally want government involved in marriage. Secondly, what would be your reasons? If your answer would be “to protect the people from the other in case things go bad.”, then we are right back to where we started. Thinking about divorce before the marriage. I’m not saying you personally believe this. I know many people that have the same viewpoint you do - but they want the government’s protection (in case of). The argument of “I want a spouse 100% committed and a prenup means they aren’t 100% committed” no longer works because asking for the government’s help in case something goes wrong looks like the same thing to me.


----------



## thunderchad

Numb26 said:


> Absolutely not


Well that's how the law works in some places. Just ask Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos 😉


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable.
> 
> If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


I've built a significant real estate development operation, it's not worth billions but it is more money than I could reasonably spend. If I got divorced I would have no problem with her getting half and the very way I have set it all up would mean she would. In fact in reality if I broke it all down now based on who owns what percentage of what separately she probably owns more than 50% of everything. Every financial decision is made with the best interests of my family first not myself.

Editing to add, this is not to say I don't realize if I got divorced I would question my decisions.


----------



## LATERILUS79

bobert said:


> And while he was doing "100% of the work" to build said business, who was doing probably 100% the work in the home, with the kids, and supporting his career so that he could get to where he is now?


Not disagreeing with your assessment. I think you are correct.

I also think there should be some sort of money cap where 50/50 no longer applies. What that amount is, I don’t know. If marriage is looked at like a business, then the SAH spouse should receive some sort of compensation for the work you describe. Let’s not even go to the billion level. Let’s say a spouse has $10 million. I don’t think the SAH spouse should receive $5 million. I think they should receive compensation for the work they did at home (which is actually A LOT of money if you had to pay for it for sure!!!!) but it doesn’t equate to $5 million.

again, I don’t have the answer here, I’m sure someone a lot smarter than I can come up with a better, more fair situation. I just think 50/50 marital assets doesn’t exactly make sense in every situation.


----------



## Numb26

thunderchad said:


> Well that's how the law works in some places. Just ask Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos 😉


I know it is. I was lucky, lost nothing.


----------



## thunderchad

LATERILUS79 said:


> Not disagreeing with your assessment. I think you are correct.
> 
> I also think there should be some sort of money cap where 50/50 no longer applies. What that amount is, I don’t know. If marriage is looked at like a business, then the SAH spouse should receive some sort of compensation for the work you describe. Let’s not even go to the billion level. Let’s say a spouse has $10 million. I don’t think the SAH spouse should receive $5 million. I think they should receive compensation for the work they did at home (which is actually A LOT of money if you had to pay for it for sure!!!!) but it doesn’t equate to $5 million.
> 
> again, I don’t have the answer here, I’m sure someone a lot smarter than I can come up with a better, more fair situation. I just think 50/50 marital assets doesn’t exactly make sense in every situation.



Let's say a couple had a lot of money, like 7 figures. You could just calculate the stay at home spouse's lost wages for the period that didn't work.


----------



## frusdil

thunderchad said:


> They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable.
> 
> If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


That's a very narrow and black and white way of looking at it. He likely wouldn't have been able to achieve that $10b business, and a family, without the support of his wife.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Married but Happy said:


> Some people in some jurisdictions should have a pre- or post-nup, but most don't really really need one IMO unless there are particular circumstances, such as a pre-existing family business or a huge disparity in initial assets.


Yes, like assets that would collapse if divided, that sort of thing. Even then, unless that is the only asset worth anything, things can usually be divided to account for that. But yeah, if there's the one family business and it can't be divided, then you run into having to probably have some oversight and divide the profits rather than the business.


----------



## Numb26

frusdil said:


> That's a very narrow and black and white way of looking at it. He likely wouldn't have been able to achieve that $10b business, and a family, without the support of his wife.


Still doesn't mean she is entitled to half. Some, of course, but not half.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> Well that's how the law works in some places. Just ask Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos 😉


I see a partners support in bringing up the children and keeping the home running while other spouse is barely there with his money making efforts as extremely valuable. 

As for Gates and Besos they are literally swimming in money so aren't going to miss a good chunk of it.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

bobert said:


> I have a postnup, I'm not against them. But...
> 
> No, even with a prenup or postnup you don't know exactly what will happen. A judge does not have to follow the prenup, and they won't if they think it's unfair or puts one spouse at a huge disadvantage (such as waiving alimony or walking away empty handed).
> 
> As for SAHM's deserving less than 50/50. That's another nope. They do just as much, if not more work than the working spouse does. They absolutely should get 50% of the _marital _assets. They also often support their husband's while climbing the corporate ladder, and judges absolutely take that into account.


A lot of the SAHMs work more hours and do more work. So yeah. Plus they bore children, which is no small thing, plus they sacrifice their career and social lives to a big extent and it takes a toll on them. 

Yes, you're right, judges can break a pre-nup. They're not iron-clad. Situations change. Plus the more you need that divorce attorney to do and the more financial experts or auditors you need to sort it out, the attorneys and those people will eat up anything you might have saved. It's a double-edged sword. It doesn't decomplicate things always.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> I'm worried about a female friend of mine my age getting taken advantage of by her boyfriend, who she's known for decades but been dating a few years now. She owns her house and car. I think he owns his house, but he only owns the car he had in high school (he's like 70) and drives it barely and was frantic to take up with her and has her drive him around in her poor old clunker that breaks down all the time instead of driving his old classic he barely keeps running. He's a cat hoarder who doesn't have them neutered or take them to the vet, too.
> 
> He tried to get her to sell her house a couple years ago. I don't trust him at all because he's such a cheapskate about everything. At his age, it's normal to be barely employed, but he's been barely employed for as long as I remember. She is fully employed still and not doing well physically and really needs to retire, but with him draining on her, she won't be able to. She buys stuff and he makes stuff when a gift is called for. I mean, he just doesn't spend money at all but I feel uses her and would like to totally use her up. The only thing stopping her is she has a grown daughter who I think she would like to have something to leave to when she passes.
> 
> If they were both contributing, or if she just didn't have him leeching on her, even, she could be retired by now. It wouldn't surprise me if they didn't feel they needed to marry sometime just because they're both old, for hospital privileges.


It's a shame she can't see the red flags.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> I see a partners support in bringing up the children and keeping the home running while other spouse is barely there with his money making efforts as extremely valuable.
> 
> As for Gates and Besos they are literally swimming in money so aren't going to miss a good chunk of it.


Who are you to decide what someone will miss?


----------



## thunderchad

frusdil said:


> That's a very narrow and black and white way of looking at it. He likely wouldn't have been able to achieve that $10b business, and a family, without the support of his wife.


I can understand your point but I don't agree with it at all and don't believe it makes someone entitled to something.


----------



## Numb26

DownByTheRiver said:


> A lot of the SAHMs work more hours and do more work. So yeah. Plus they bore children, which is no small thing, plus they sacrifice their career and social lives to a big extent and it takes a toll on them.
> 
> Yes, you're right, judges can break a pre-nup. They're not iron-clad. Situations change. Plus the more you need that divorce attorney to do and the more financial experts or auditors you need to sort it out, the attorneys and those people will eat up anything you might have saved. It's a double-edged sword. It doesn't decomplicate things always.


Helps to have a lawyer on retainer! 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Who are you to decide what someone will miss?


Who is anyone to decide that the wife in a marriage where there are billions should get less? Even if they have half each they will still be living in total riches their while life.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> I see a partners support in bringing up the children and keeping the home running while other spouse is barely there with his money making efforts as extremely valuable.
> 
> As for Gates and Besos they are literally swimming in money so aren't going to miss a good chunk of it.


If they have no kids would you still say she deserves a part of his business? 

What about if they do have kids but they both work and split the child rearing responsibilities.


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> Let's say a couple had a lot of money, like 7 figures. You could just calculate the stay at home spouse's lost wages for the period that didn't work.


How would you do this practically. How can you say if she continued her career she wouldn't have advanced beyond where the husband got to, so that calculation could mean she should get 70%.


----------



## Diana7

LATERILUS79 said:


> Diana, you make some fine points.
> 
> if the state wasnt involved, I would completely agree with you, however, that is not the case. Government in all countries is involved in marriage and as such, a contract is made. If the government wasn’t involved at all in marriage (and in my humble opinion, no government should be), then I would be completely in agreement with you.
> 
> Heres another way to think about it:
> 
> do YOU personally want government involved in marriage. Secondly, what would be your reasons? If your answer would be “to protect the people from the other in case things go bad.”, then we are right back to where we started. Thinking about divorce before the marriage. I’m not saying you personally believe this. I know many people that have the same viewpoint you do - but they want the government’s protection (in case of). The argument of “I want a spouse 100% committed and a prenup means they aren’t 100% committed” no longer works because asking for the government’s help in case something goes wrong looks like the same thing to me.


I dont want or need the govts protection though.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> It's a shame she can't see the red flags.


Well, I think she did to a certain degree. Because she didn't do it. I, of course, butted in and told her she shouldn't do it when she told me he wanted to sell it. Also, she's attached to her home. She bought and paid for it all by herself and raised her daughter there. She also did set a boundary before that when he didn't want to give her any time to herself when she could be home alone without him and he would pull crap to come over. Like if she said she was exhausted on a Friday after a workweek and didn't want to get together, he would bring bean burritos over unannounced like he was doing her a big favor to make her less tired. She has a hard time saying no, but she finally did talk to him and limit when she would see him. Not sure how much she's backslid on it. I do rarely get to see her anymore. 

One time we went to eat on either her BD or mine and he was sitting on her curb when we got home, like a stalker. But she wasn't mad. She makes excuses for him. That time she said he probably had been to a garage sale and wanted to show her something. Sigh. Each to her own. He tried his best to get her to conform to his odd diet (no meat, but all the sugary treats he wants, and it's mostly cheap stuff like bean burritos). I think one reason she doesn't want to be together with him every day is him pushing that on her. 

Her biggest influence is her sister, but I don't know where her sister would stand on the subject, because she says the sister likes him. But if she did tell my friend don't do it, my friend wouldn't do it. That's the only person she really trusts.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> If they have no kids would you still say she deserves a part of his business?
> 
> What about if they do have kids but they both work and split the child rearing responsibilities.


In a marriage with a business both have often contributed to it in different ways children or not.
If I had millions or billions I would have no problems with sharing it. There is only so much money you need.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> Helps to have a lawyer on retainer! 🤣🤣🤣🤣


Wouldn't that be wonderful? 

Me: Call Little Caesar's headquarters and make them refund that $3.49 they charged for a liter of Sierra Mist they were out of and wouldn't refund.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well, I think she did to a certain degree. Because she didn't do it. I, of course, butted in and told her she shouldn't do it when she told me he wanted to sell it. Also, she's attached to her home. She bought and paid for it all by herself and raised her daughter there. She also did set a boundary before that when he didn't want to give her any time to herself when she could be home alone without him and he would pull crap to come over. Like if she said she was exhausted on a Friday after a workweek and didn't want to get together, he would bring bean burritos over unannounced like he was doing her a big favor to make her less tired. She has a hard time saying no, but she finally did talk to him and limit when she would see him. Not sure how much she's backslid on it. I do rarely get to see her anymore.
> 
> One time we went to eat on either her BD or mine and he was sitting on her curb when we got home, like a stalker. But she wasn't mad. She makes excuses for him. That time she said he probably had been to a garage sale and wanted to show her something. Sigh. Each to her own. He tried his best to get her to conform to his odd diet (no meat, but all the sugary treats he wants, and it's mostly cheap stuff like bean burritos). I think one reason she doesn't want to be together with him every day is him pushing that on her.
> 
> Her biggest influence is her sister, but I don't know where her sister would stand on the subject, because she says the sister likes him. But if she did tell my friend don't do it, my friend wouldn't do it. That's the only person she really trusts.


I hope that she stays sensible. Could she be lonely and that's why she stays with him? He doesn't sound like much of a catch and pretty needy too.


----------



## Numb26

DownByTheRiver said:


> Wouldn't that be wonderful?
> 
> Me: Call Little Caesar's headquarters and make them refund that $3.49 they charged for a liter of Sierra Mist they were out of and wouldn't refund.


Being a business owner I have found it's advantageous the have one. Has helped out in numerous circumstances.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> In a marriage with a business both have often contributed to it in different ways children or not.
> If I had millions or billions I would have no problems with sharing it. There is only so much money you need.


Marital property goes both ways. Let's say the husband isn't that great of a businessman and his business is worthless and he has $1 million in debt.

Should the wife be responsible for $500k of that?


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Who is anyone to decide that the wife in a marriage where there are billions should get less? Even if they have half each they will still be living in total riches their while life.


I can tell you that the original judge in my divorce said almost that same exact thing at our hearing to my lawyer and it got her removed from the case. So there is that.


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> Marital property goes both ways. Let's say the husband isn't that great of a businessman and his business is worthless and he has $1 million in debt.
> 
> Should the wife be responsible for $500k of that?


She would be.


----------



## D0nnivain

I think pre-nups get a bad rap but they aren't for everyone. They only have value if you have assets to protect coming into the marriage. If you are both young with nothing, they are a waste of money. 

Pre-nups are not allowed to agree on child custody or support in advance. The longer the marriage lasts, the less weight a pre-nup has in connection with the divorce if a judge has to decide. Changed circumstances will be considered by the Court if the marriage is long (more than 10+ years usually)

DH & I have a pre-nup. I think the exercise of getting the financial info together & going over it with each other was a beneficial exercise. It built trust & rapport. It was hard & emotional. We had to work together to negotiate key aspects of the agreement, although I admit I was intractable on one point. I had my dog before meeting DH. The agreement specifies that the dog was mine, no matter what. The dog has since died so it's not an on-going consideration. The rest we talked about. I think creating this document made it easier for us to talk about various issues that have come up over the years. We got through the taboo money subject early. Also it's better to work out the issues when you are in love & want to work together rather than trying to work it out in the highly volatile emotional situation of a divorce. 

Be careful with Pre-Nups. If one side tries to shove it down the other side's throat on the eve of the wedding, a reviewing Court won't look favorably on it. It can't be one sided. Everybody has to have their own lawyer & it has to be a fair negotiation to be valid.


----------



## DownButNotOut

D0nnivain said:


> I think creating this document made it easier for us to talk about various issues that have come up over the years. We got through the taboo money subject early. *Also it's better to work out the issues when you are in love & want to work together rather than trying to work it out in the highly volatile emotional situation of a divorce. *
> 
> Be careful with Pre-Nups. If one side tries to shove it down the other side's throat on the eve of the wedding, a reviewing Court won't look favorably on it. It can't be one sided. Everybody has to have their own lawyer & it has to be a fair negotiation to be valid.


Bolded ... Bingo!

The best time to do a prenup is when you are least likely to ever think you will need the prenup. If nothing else, the conversation around the prenup will tell you whether you're on the same page or not money-wise.


----------



## thunderchad

D0nnivain said:


> I think pre-nups get a bad rap but they aren't for everyone. They only have value if you have assets to protect coming into the marriage. If you are both young with nothing, they are a waste of money.
> 
> Pre-nups are not allowed to agree on child custody or support in advance. The longer the marriage lasts, the less weight a pre-nup has in connection with the divorce if a judge has to decide. Changed circumstances will be considered by the Court if the marriage is long (more than 10+ years usually)
> 
> DH & I have a pre-nup. I think the exercise of getting the financial info together & going over it with each other was a beneficial exercise. It built trust & rapport. It was hard & emotional. We had to work together to negotiate key aspects of the agreement, although I admit I was intractable on one point. I had my dog before meeting DH. The agreement specifies that the dog was mine, no matter what. The dog has since died so it's not an on-going consideration. The rest we talked about. I think creating this document made it easier for us to talk about various issues that have come up over the years. We got through the taboo money subject early. Also it's better to work out the issues when you are in love & want to work together rather than trying to work it out in the highly volatile emotional situation of a divorce.
> 
> Be careful with Pre-Nups. If one side tries to shove it down the other side's throat on the eve of the wedding, a reviewing Court won't look favorably on it. It can't be one sided. Everybody has to have their own lawyer & it has to be a fair negotiation to be valid.


It is good to update your prenup with a post-nup every 5 or so years.


----------



## Kaliber

Livvie said:


> Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


I have a prenup, it's a must for every man!
Of course women hate it!


----------



## thunderchad

Kaliber said:


> I have a prenup, it's a must for every man!
> Of course women hate it!


It is a huge red flag if a woman refuses.

No pre-nup, no marriage.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable.
> 
> If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


Yes. Marital assets.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> It is a huge red flag if a woman refuses.
> 
> No pre-nup, no marriage.


If the parties are really young with not many assets, there's nothing to prenup.

States already recognize pre marital assets in divorces.


----------



## oldshirt

I haven't read all 5 pages of posts. Pre-ups can have their place and can be useful in certain circumstances but they are not going to provide a get-out-of-jail-free card for asset dvision or child support or the prevention of spousal support if one spouse makes substantially more income or if the other was a SAHM/SAHD for many years. There is no pre-nup that will afford you to walk away from a marriage with everything and your spouse with the clothes on their back. Divorce laws were designed from Day One for the specific reason of NOT having someone be left destitute because they were not the primary income earning spouse. 

In a nutshell, people can not agree in advance to not be in accordance with the law and the law specifies that marital assets be divided reasonably equitably. Now where much arguement comes in during divorces is what assets will be considered marital and which won't, but that's another topic. 

Where pre-nups can have some value is if one or more of the partners are coming into the marriage with prior children and which of their assets/inheritance will be earmarked for their children vs the spouse upon their death or if there is some form of family heirloom or something coming into the marriage etc 

But a pre-nup will not absolve a couple of having marital assets divided or of paying child support or even spousal support under many circumstances. 

Cont.....


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

LATERILUS79 said:


> Diana7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't compare the two.
> 
> I will never plan for a divorce while planning to get married.
> 
> I want a guy who is 100% committed to marriage not one who is already worrying about what money he may loose before we have even tied the knot.
> There are some things more important than money.
> 
> 
> 
> Diana, you make some fine points.
> 
> if the state wasnt involved, I would completely agree with you, however, that is not the case. Government in all countries is involved in marriage and as such, a contract is made. If the government wasn’t involved at all in marriage (and in my humble opinion, no government should be), then I would be completely in agreement with you.
> 
> Heres another way to think about it:
> 
> do YOU personally want government involved in marriage. Secondly, what would be your reasons? If your answer would be “to protect the people from the other in case things go bad.”, then we are right back to where we started. Thinking about divorce before the marriage. I’m not saying you personally believe this. I know many people that have the same viewpoint you do - but they want the government’s protection (in case of). The argument of “I want a spouse 100% committed and a prenup means they aren’t 100% committed” no longer works because asking for the government’s help in case something goes wrong looks like the same thing to me.
Click to expand...

Every marriage is a legal contract, so it already has an invisible prenup with the government involved. If you don't get your own prenup, a divorce goes by the laws of whatever area you get divorced in, and there are a lot of grey areas that take a judge to untangle. It's unwise, no matter how in love you are, to enter into a contract where you DON'T KNOW THE TERMS in advance.

I think prenups should be standard in a marriage. Then there is no awkwardness of asking for one or insisting on one. You can be as in love and trusting and think you have the right and best partner ever and won't ever split up, but ask any of us divorced folks who caught our ex cheating if we ever saw that one coming when we got engaged.


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> States already recognize pre marital assets in divorces.


This is not true in all states, including the one I live in. But also, pre-nups help with debt and liability too...not just assets.


----------



## oldshirt

Cont.....

Now that being said, even though pre-nups only provide some limited protection for some limited and specific circumstances, I do believe that couples today need to view and approach marriage completely differently than generations past. 

Couples today need to go into marriage with full knowledge and awareness that a divorce is just a trip to courthouse by either party to file the paperwork and pay the fees and that statistically they are a mere coin toss from divorcing vs remaining married. 

Things that will have more effectiveness in preventing being taken to the cleaners are things like coming from similar socio-economic backgrounds, each having education/job training in self-supporting careers, Neither being completely out of the job market or a 100% SAHM or SAHD for more that a handful of years until kids are off to school, and maintaining separate finances, accounts and lines of credit for the duration of the marriage. 

Having a spouse of similar education and income/income potential and their own assets and financial accounts and lines of credit will do more to keep from losing a disproportional amount in a divorce than will a pre-nup.


----------



## thunderchad

oldshirt said:


> I haven't read all 5 pages of posts. Pre-ups can have their place and can be useful in certain circumstances but they are not going to provide a get-out-of-jail-free card for asset dvision or child support or the prevention of spousal support if one spouse makes substantially more income or if the other was a SAHM/SAHD for many years. There is no pre-nup that will afford you to walk away from a marriage with everything and your spouse with the clothes on their back. Divorce laws were designed from Day One for the specific reason of NOT having someone be left destitute because they were not the primary income earning spouse.
> 
> In a nutshell, people can not agree in advance to not be in accordance with the law and the law specifies that marital assets be divided reasonably equitably. Now where much arguement comes in during divorces is what assets will be considered marital and which won't, but that's another topic.
> 
> Where pre-nups can have some value is if one or more of the partners are coming into the marriage with prior children and which of their assets/inheritance will be earmarked for their children vs the spouse upon their death or if there is some form of family heirloom or something coming into the marriage etc
> 
> But a pre-nup will not absolve a couple of having marital assets divided or of paying child support or even spousal support under many circumstances.
> 
> Cont.....


Child custody or child support cannot be determined through a pre-nup. Alimony or spousal support can be set or waived in many jurisdictions. 

They can't be completely one sided but they do t have to be equal or even remotely equal.

A common pre-nup might say everything each spouse had before marriage is still their separate property and during the marriage their money and everything they buy is their separate property. If they chose to buy something together, that is marital property.


----------



## oldshirt

thunderchad said:


> Child custody or child support cannot be determined through a pre-nup. Alimony or spousal support can be set or waived in many jurisdictions.
> 
> They can't be completely one sided but they do t have to be equal or even remotely equal.
> 
> A common pre-nup might say everything each spouse had before marriage is still their separate property and during the marriage their money and everything they buy is their separate property. If they chose to buy something together, that is marital property.



Maybe to some degree,,,, but only to a point. 

A prenup will never allow someone to walk away with all the assets and a high income and their partner walks away with the clothes on their back and no means to support themselves. 

A pre-nup cannot circumvent or usurp the laws of the land. 

The court has a number of obligations that a private stipulation between two individuals cannot undermine. 

The court's primary obligation is to administer the law and a private agreement between individuals cannot circumvent that. 

The court is also obligated to not send someone out into the street to where they will require public assistance if there are assets and incomes within the marriage to prevent that. In other words a pre-nup cannot preserve the income and assets of one party to where the other party will require public assistance. 

And also, the court is obligated to make full-faith effort reach a settlement that will not have either parties filing further claims or returning back in court within a matter of months or years. In other words, the court cannot make a ruling that has a reasonable assumption that the other party will be back tying up the system fighting a fundamentally unfair and inequitable distribution from the get go. 

Prenups have their place and can be useful in certain circumstances for certain things. But they are not a silver bullet against lawful marital asset distribution and spousal support if warranted.


----------



## hamadryad

There is a lot I can say about this topic, but I am tired....So I leave you with this..

"I am going to take* her* to the cleaners"

Said no man ever....... 😂


----------



## ConanHub

thunderchad said:


> It is a huge red flag if a woman refuses.
> 
> No pre-nup, no marriage.


I will say, I know where you are coming from and I can empathize.

I have only one friend who isn't divorced due to female infidelity. All my friends except one and myself are divorced because of very bad behavior by their wives.

One of my friends offed himself because of just how hopeless his situation seemed.

Despite it all, I am not convinced any kind of formula is going to be bullseye accurate in real life and a lot of the would be "alpha" mentors out there are just puss1es who are full of ****.

It doesn't sound like you are doing bad for yourself and you aren't too poorly informed on some issues.

You don't have a universal grip on men and women though.

Maybe having a more questing attitude with a willingness to share your experiences and gain information from others would serve?

Just letting you know I've seen some really bad outcomes and I know it still isn't all black and white.

Real life is more wonderful and ugly, often at the same time, than any "expert" can discuss rationally.

Jordan Peterson comes close but reality is often blood and ashes with an occasional breath of fresh oxygen until it's over.


----------



## ConanHub

P.S. I know of a lot of men, not friends but acquaintances, that cheat their asses off.


----------



## oldshirt

Kaliber said:


> I have a prenup, it's a must for every man!
> Of course women hate it!


It's not really about what someone has between their legs that determine whether a prenup is a good idea or something they will hate. It's more about what they have in their financial portfolio. 

If someone is coming into the marriage with substantial assets and the other isn't, it's in the better interest of the one that has the substantially higher assets and the substantially higher income potential. 

Men may have the higher asset amount and higher income potential, but that is not always the case and not always a safe assumption. If the woman is coming in with significantly more assets and has a significantly higher income potential, she may be the one that should be seeking the prenup and he may be the one getting all aghast.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> I can tell you that the original judge in my divorce said almost that same exact thing at our hearing to my lawyer and it got her removed from the case. So there is that.


I am saying that's how I feel. I am not greedy and am passionate about fairness. 
How much does one person need to pay the bills?


----------



## Diana7

oldshirt said:


> It's not really about what someone has between their legs that determine whether a prenup is a good idea or something they will hate. It's more about what they have in their financial portfolio.
> 
> If someone is coming into the marriage with substantial assets and the other isn't, it's in the better interest of the one that has the substantially higher assets and the substantially higher income potential.
> 
> Men may have the higher asset amount and higher income potential, but that is not always the case and not always a safe assumption. If the woman is coming in with significantly more assets and has a significantly higher income potential, she may be the one that should be seeking the prenup and he may be the one getting all aghast.


I am sure many would agree with you. 
In our case I had a house. He had let his ex have their house. Still wasn't going to get a prenup because I don't believe in them. 
I remember a person assuming that I had come into the marriage with much less when I said I wouldn't get a prenup. Nope.


----------



## Diana7

Kaliber said:


> I have a prenup, it's a must for every man!
> Of course women hate it!


That's seems a little sexist!
Neither of us would consider it. In our case I had far more than him when we married because I had a house. It's not always men who have more.


----------



## Diana7

DownButNotOut said:


> Bolded ... Bingo!
> 
> The best time to do a prenup is when you are least likely to ever think you will need the prenup. If nothing else, the conversation around the prenup will tell you whether you're on the same page or not money-wise.


Finding out about attitudes to money before marriage is a good idea anyway. That's how we knew we were in the same page. IE everything in our marriage is shared.
I almost laughed when the solicitor who I used for my divorce (who I lived near to and met a lot when walking our dogs) suggested one a bit tongue in cheek. I think he knew I would say no.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> It is a huge red flag if a woman refuses.
> 
> No pre-nup, no marriage.


It's a huge red flag to me if a partner wants one. Wants prenup= no marriage. It shows to me that his attitude towards marriage isn't the same as mine. It's like saying that I care so little about you I will make sure that if we divorce you aren't going to get much. I will be fine but you won't. Pretty selfish.


----------



## Diana7

hamadryad said:


> There is a lot I can say about this topic, but I am tired....So I leave you with this..
> 
> "I am going to take* her* to the cleaners"
> 
> Said no man ever....... 😂


Actually my first husband's solicitor more or less said that to him. IE take her for what you can. I had a far better wiser solicitor. His was pushing for him to take more than his share even though I had the three children with me full time. If he had known what he had done he may have thought differently. 
Thankfully we managed to work things out fairly ourselves. We didn't have that much anyway.


----------



## Diana7

ConanHub said:


> I will say, I know where you are coming from and I can empathize.
> 
> I have only one friend who isn't divorced due to female infidelity. All my friends except one and myself are divorced because of very bad behavior by their wives.
> 
> One of my friends offed himself because of just how hopeless his situation seemed.
> 
> Despite it all, I am not convinced any kind of formula is going to be bullseye accurate in real life and a lot of the would be "alpha" mentors out there are just puss1es who are full of ****.
> 
> It doesn't sound like you are doing bad for yourself and you aren't too poorly informed on some issues.
> 
> You don't have a universal grip on men and women though.
> 
> Maybe having a more questing attitude with a willingness to share your experiences and gain information from others would serve?
> 
> Just letting you know I've seen some really bad outcomes and I know it still isn't all black and white.
> 
> Real life is more wonderful and ugly, often at the same time, than any "expert" can discuss rationally.
> 
> Jordan Peterson comes close but reality is often blood and ashes with an occasional breath of fresh oxygen until it's over.


Sadly my mum knew a lady who killed herself because of a horrible divorce. It goes both ways sadly. 

Most the divorces I know of we're due to the man cheating or otherwise acting badly. It's just sad either way. ☹

Would you get a prenup?


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Actually my first husband's solicitor more or less said that to him. IE take her for what you can. I had a far better wiser solicitor. His was pushing for him to take more than his share even though I had the three children with me full time. If he had known what he had done he may have thought differently.
> Thankfully we managed to work things out fairly ourselves. We didn't have that much anyway.


That was pretty selfish of you to not give him the money he wanted! I mean, how much do you need to pay your bills???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> That was pretty selfish of you to not give him the money he wanted! I mean, how much do you need to pay your bills???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣


More than we had believe me. 😉


----------



## EleGirl

thunderchad said:


> That's exactly the problem. Courts shouldn't just divide things in half, this is how people get screwed. Consideration should be given to what assets each person had prior to the marriage, how much each person contributed to the marriage financially, as well as the length of the marriage.


Assets that were owned prior to marriage are sole property of the holder. They are not marital property.

Now some people mix sole property with marital property and then it gets confusing. It's often hard to prove what part of an asset is sole property when mixed.

Today, 50% of women earn as much or more than their husbands. Division of assets is an issue of concern for both men and women in there is a divorce.


----------



## EleGirl

thunderchad said:


> Livvie, let's say you work hard and make good money. You saved up and bought yourself a house, a nice car, and have a good retirement savings. Now you marry a guy, and he seems nice, but in a few years you divorce. Do you think is fair to give his guy half your savings, half your car, and half your house?


In this case, 

The nice car is now not worth anything near as much and he has a car as well. We each keep our car.

The good retirement savings is sole and separate property. Just keep very good records at all times taht shows the value of the retirement savings at the date of the marriage. The spouse is only entitled to half the increase in retirement from the date of marriage. She is also entitled to half of his retirement savings that was earned during the marriage.

The amount of home equity that she held prior to the date of marriage can be recorded with good record keeping. Pre-marriage equity is her sole property. All equity from after the date of marriage is community property as it should be.


----------



## joannacroc

My XBF tried to tell me he could try and claimsome of my house because we lived in it for 2 years together but said he was too nice to try. I said he was welcome to try. Local law doesn't allow for common law marriage unless we had lived together as a married couple in everything but technicalities for many more years than that. I guess some people find loopholes if they really wanna get stuff from you. Anyone heard of common law marriage splits where one partner gets another's assets?


----------



## In Absentia

There is a very good solution to all of this...


----------



## Kaliber

In Absentia said:


> There is a very good solution to all of this...


Never get married (Or co-habitat if your state/country sees it as marriage) 
There are many good women out there, but yes it's a risk!


----------



## Numb26

joannacroc said:


> My XBF tried to tell me he could try and claimsome of my house because we lived in it for 2 years together but said he was too nice to try. I said he was welcome to try. Local law doesn't allow for common law marriage unless we had lived together as a married couple in everything but technicalities for many more years than that. I guess some people find loopholes if they really wanna get stuff from you. Anyone heard of common law marriage splits where one partner gets another's assets?


Yes, that is very common


----------



## frusdil

thunderchad said:


> I can understand your point but I don't agree with it at all and don't believe it makes someone entitled to something.


Why is he entitled to it all then?


----------



## frusdil

Yep.


----------



## In Absentia

Kaliber said:


> Never get married (Or co-habitat if your state/country sees it as marriage)
> There are many good women out there, but yes it's a risk!


Yep... especially if you are the materialistic type...


----------



## ConanHub

Diana7 said:


> Sadly my mum knew a lady who killed herself because of a horrible divorce. It goes both ways sadly.
> 
> Most the divorces I know of we're due to the man cheating or otherwise acting badly. It's just sad either way. ☹
> 
> Would you get a prenup?


Mrs. C and I don't need one and I really don't believe I will have another marriage, so not for me.


----------



## Numb26

ConanHub said:


> Mrs. C and I don't need one and I really don't believe I will have another marriage, so not for me.


I am the same way. I will never get married again so its a moot point for me. Everything goes to the kids.


----------



## thunderchad

EleGirl said:


> The good retirement savings is sole and separate property. Just keep very good records at all times taht shows the value of the retirement savings at the date of the marriage. The spouse is only entitled to half the increase in retirement from the date of marriage. She is also entitled to half of his retirement savings that was earned during the marriage.
> 
> The amount of home equity that she held prior to the date of marriage can be recorded with good record keeping. Pre-marriage equity is her sole property. All equity from after the date of marriage is community property as it should be.


This is not the case everywhere. In the state I live in the moment you get married all of your property becomes marital property unless you have a pre nup that says otherwise. There's about 7 states where this is the case.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> It's a huge red flag to me if a partner wants one. Wants prenup= no marriage. It shows to me that his attitude towards marriage isn't the same as mine. It's like saying that I care so little about you I will make sure that if we divorce you aren't going to get much. I will be fine but you won't. Pretty selfish.


I think a lot of men in the situation just wouldn't get married then. Marriage doesn't have much benefit to the man anyways which is one reason marriage rates are going down.


----------



## thunderchad

frusdil said:


> Why is he entitled to it all then?


Because he is the sole person who earned it.


----------



## Diana7

Kaliber said:


> Never get married (Or co-habitat if your state/country sees it as marriage)
> There are many good women out there, but yes it's a risk!


Or dont marry till you find a person who you can trust fully. Too many people ignore red flags and wonder why things go wrong.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I think a lot of men in the situation just wouldn't get married then. Marriage doesn't have much benefit to the man anyways which is one reason marriage rates are going down.


That's their decision but there are countless men who marry without pre-nups. I actually don't know any couples who have a prenup. I think they are far less common in the UK.
Btw marriage greatly benefits men in countless ways. That's why married men are healthier and live longer.


----------



## thunderchad

I have a buddy who recently got divorced. He had a great job, a house, and a sizable retirement before marriage. He married a very religious girl who worked in retail and never had sex with him. They went to counseling and ultimately divorced after 5 years. He had to pay her half the house and half his retirement and he's left with all the debt and very little cash.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> Child custody or child support cannot be determined through a pre-nup. Alimony or spousal support can be set or waived in many jurisdictions.
> 
> They can't be completely one sided but they do t have to be equal or even remotely equal.
> 
> A common pre-nup might say everything each spouse had before marriage is still their separate property and during the marriage their money and everything they buy is their separate property. If they chose to buy something together, that is marital property.


Their money and everything they buy during the marriage is their separate property? Way to have to keep everything separate and nickel and dime a spouse. "Well I'm buying a boat, we've been married for 20 years, but it's not really yours, it's just mine".

Why even get married if throughout the marriage _you keep close track of what is yours only._

What a ****ty way to live. Just stay single.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> This is not the case everywhere. In the state I live in the moment you get married all of your property becomes marital property unless you have a pre nup that says otherwise. There's about 7 states where this is the case.


That's how I see marriage. 'With all my wordly goods I thee endow'. Sharing everything.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> Or dont marry till you find a person who you can trust fully. Too many people ignore red flags and wonder why things go wrong.


I dont know if you can every trust someone fully. I read yesterday that 40% of all marriages are affected by infidelity. That's crazy. But I'm sure most of those people were 100% certain they could trust their spouse.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> I have a buddy who recently got divorced. He had a great job, a house, and a sizable retirement before marriage. He married a very religious girl who worked in retail and never had sex with him. They went to counseling and ultimately divorced after 5 years. He had to pay her half the house and half his retirement and he's left with all the debt and very little cash.


Sounds fishy to me. After a 5 year marriage the court gave her half of his premarital assets? Show me the case, I'm in disbelief. 

He's very dumb if he didn't appeal that.


----------



## Diana7

ConanHub said:


> Mrs. C and I don't need one and I really don't believe I will have another marriage, so not for me.


We dont need one either. Second Marriage. Wills done. Neither of us wants to marry again should something happen to one of us. We are already in our mid 60's.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I dont know if you can every trust someone fully. I read yesterday that 40% of all marriages are affected by infidelity. That's crazy. But I'm sure most of those people were 100% certain they could trust their spouse.


So 60% don't cheat. That's a majority. 
I saw how Mr D acted in his divorce. He was a real gentleman. I have no worries whatsoever about us. I trust him fully.


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> Sounds fishy to me. After a 5 year marriage the court gave her half of his premarital asset


I am well versed in the law of the state I work in, I work with them every day. But I found you something from a local divorce lawyers website.

All property in a divorce case in STATE, whether acquired before the marriage or during the marriage is considered marital, and therefore subject to division at the time of the final divorce. The only property that is exempt from equal property division, is property that was acquired from a third party as a result of a gift or inheritance. This means that pre-marital assets are subject to presumed equal property division. You don’t get to keep it, just because you owned it prior to marriage.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> So 60% don't cheat. That's a majority.


I wouldn't gamble my life savings if I had a 40% chance of losing.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I have a buddy who recently got divorced. He had a great job, a house, and a sizable retirement before marriage. He married a very religious girl who worked in retail and never had sex with him. They went to counseling and ultimately divorced after 5 years. He had to pay her half the house and half his retirement and he's left with all the debt and very little cash.


He should have been able to get an annulment if they never had sex.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I wouldn't gamble my life savings if I had a 40% chance of losing.


I don't see marriage as a gamble at all. I see it as very positive. 
Are you married?


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> "Well I'm buying a boat, we've been married for 20 years, but it's not really yours, it's just mine".


Yes if he bought the boat with his money it should be owned by him and if you divorce he should get to keep it.

More and more people are keeping money and assets separate during marriage now, especially with people in their 20s and 30s. With that said, I know of a couple in their 60s that keeps everything separate too.

TheBalance.com has tons of articles on how people are splitting bills and whatnot in marriage. 3 Ways To Handle Your Finances When You Get Married


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> He should have been able to get an annulment if they never had sex.


Where we live it is a 'no fault' divorce state. Also, lack of sex is not grounds for annulment here and here you can only get an annulment within 12 months generally.


----------



## D0nnivain

Kaliber said:


> I have a prenup, it's a must for every man!
> Of course women hate it!


The blatant sexism here is DISGUSTING. Pre-nups protect assets not genders. 




thunderchad said:


> It is a huge red flag if a woman refuses.
> 
> No pre-nup, no marriage.


Not it is not. To present something to somebody on a take it or leave it basis when it comes to running the partnership that must be a marriage is bullying, not love. A fairly negotiated pre-nup that protects pre-marital assets but talks about other issues is fine. Think about this. If one spouse comes in "owning" a house but barely has equity because it was purchased only a few years before the marriage but the couple sells the house, buys something bigger & the other partner takes care of the house while the one works it's not fair that the partner who contributed sweat equity to maintain curb appeal & preserve the asset gets nothing for the effort. 




hamadryad said:


> "I am going to take* her* to the cleaners"
> 
> Said no man ever....... 😂


I know several women who had to pay their deadbeat husbands alimony & who got financially screwed when the louses left. 




Diana7 said:


> It's a huge red flag to me if a partner wants one. Wants prenup= no marriage. It shows to me that his attitude towards marriage isn't the same as mine. It's like saying that I care so little about you I will make sure that if we divorce you aren't going to get much. I will be fine but you won't. Pretty selfish.


It's not selfish at all, especially for later in life second marriages. Marriage is about love. Divorce is about money. Somebody who worked their whole life to amass a solid financial foundation should not be expected to risk loosing 1/2 of it to a few year long 2nd marriage. Remember 2nd marriages have a higher rate of failure. 

That said, preparing the agreement is an exercise in sharing & trust. To me it was a karma thing. Because we did this, it was less likely that we would not need it because not we had a model for talking about sensative difficult subjects & we grew closer. Honestly it was the best pre-marital thing we did. It was far more revealing then even our pre-marital cousneling that was required by our church. 



thunderchad said:


> I think a lot of men in the situation just wouldn't get married then. Marriage doesn't have much benefit to the man anyways which is one reason marriage rates are going down.


More sexism. It's also wrong. Married men live longer, are overall healthier & happier. Listen to a song called _A Woman Like You_ by Lee Brice. 

The man was rarely the sole person who earned the money. He was able to work longer hours because somebody was at home keeping the house, making him meals, picking up the dry-cleaning. The wife often has the boss & over for dinner or attends company functions. She makes sure he remembers secretary's day & gets the staff holiday gifts, remembers birthdays & overall makes him look good. No man is an island. A marriage is a team


----------



## thunderchad

D0nnivain said:


> Married men live longer, are overall healthier & happier. Listen to a song called _A Woman Like You_ by Lee Brice.


I've seen this statistic but the study doesn't consider the alternatives.

Does a married man live longer than a man in the same kind of long-term, monogamous relationship? 

I'm guessing it's the long term monogamous relationship that makes people live longer, not the contract of marriage.


----------



## thunderchad

D0nnivain said:


> The man was rarely the sole person who earned the money. He was able to work longer hours because somebody was at home keeping the house, making him meals, picking up the dry-cleaning. The wife often has the boss & over for dinner or attends company functions. She makes sure he remembers secretary's day & gets the staff holiday gifts, remembers birthdays & overall makes him look good. No man is an island. A marriage is a team


All these benefits can be derived from a long term committed relationship. So what is the advantage of marriage over that?


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

hamadryad said:


> _*There is a lot I can say about this topic, but I am tired....So I leave you with this..
> 
> "I am going to take her to the cleaners"
> 
> Said no man ever....... 😂*_


Actually, I see posts here and on Reddit and various other message boards pretty regularly from women posters who are out-earning their husbands by 4x or more, and he either cheated or is an alcoholic or whatever, and she's hesitant to divorce him because she's afraid she'll be stuck paying him alimony or having to lose half her assets or the house she'd bought, etc. etc.

I guess you're unaware of the fact that more women get college degrees than men, and there are many households where the woman earns as much - if not more - than her husband.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> Child custody or child support cannot be determined through a pre-nup. Alimony or spousal support can be set or waived in many jurisdictions.
> 
> They can't be completely one sided but they do t have to be equal or even remotely equal.


You seem to ignore the fact that judges do not have to follow pre/postnups.

In most normal circumstances, "not even remotely equal" will result in the prenup being tossed out. As for waiving alimony, even "almost equal" can be declined. I know people personally who have tried to waive it when they have an income difference of $10-$25k, and the judge says no. Regardless of the genitalia of the higher earner. I have also seen cases where it was waived, so its not reliable.

I had four lawyers tell my wife and I that no judge would ever let her waive alimony, even though the postnup was in her favor and she would be walking away with millions (and we're equitable distribution).


----------



## thunderchad

The laws everywhere are different. Where I live alimony isn't even considered unless the marriage is 10-15 year long and it is temporary. What they'll do is conduct a work study and find out gow much the spouse can make working full time based on their skills and then give them a little to get going.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Someone is riding this dog pretty hard. I wonder why.


----------



## Diana7

Was asking Mr D about this earlier. He says he can understand why people get them with so many people acting badly and not being able to trust them.
However he would never have one. For him it's not compatible with marriage as he sees it.
As I see it it goes against the whole essence of marriage.


----------



## Diana7

Thunderclad, are you married? Living with someone? Dating?


----------



## hamadryad

D0nnivain said:


> I know several women who had to pay their deadbeat husbands alimony & who got financially screwed when the louses left.



I know some guy that hit a scratch off lottery ticket.......twice...Can you believe that??


----------



## hamadryad

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Actually, I see posts here and on Reddit and various other message boards pretty regularly from women posters who are out-earning their husbands by 4x or more, and he either cheated or is an alcoholic or whatever, and she's hesitant to divorce him because she's afraid she'll be stuck paying him alimony or having to lose half her assets or the house she'd bought, etc. etc.
> 
> I guess you're unaware of the fact that more women get college degrees than men, and there are many households where the woman earns as much - if not more - than her husband.



"It's cheaper to keep *him*".....

Said no woman ever....


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> That's exactly the problem. Courts shouldn't just divide things in half, this is how people get screwed. Consideration should be given to what assets each person had prior to the marriage, how much each person contributed to the marriage financially, as well as the length of the marriage.


Haven't read past the first page yet, but I'll throw in my two cents. I'm coming from the point of view that we really had nothing prior to getting married. We both owned our own POS cars, that was it. We were only 18 & 21. My wife followed me everywhere I was assigned in the Army. It made it hard for her to stay employed, but she always found some job to contribute. She worked at the PX for the year I was in training. She got a seasonal job at the post office while we were in Korea and she volunteered at the Red Cross. She got a steady job once we settled into one place for more than a year, but she quit after 5 years or so to be a stay at home mom and took care of all of us for about 10 years. Once the kids were old enough, she started working again. As a result of all that it allowed me to focus on my career, buy our house and have a sizable retirement fund. She is lucky if she makes 1/8 what I do. That last part is irrelevant to me. After 32 years I don't ever see us getting divorced, but if we did she has more than earned her half of the family wealth. Over course I would be upset about the split and I would be totally pissed if it involved infidelity, but regardless, everything we have accumulated is OURS. I can't imagine going to her now for a post-nup to split things more closely along income lines.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable.
> 
> If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


Actually, yes I do think she is entitled to that. Obviously there could be situations that call for an exception, but as far as I'm concerned one spouse's success is marital success. She isn't just being compensated for raising the kids. She enabled him to make that money AND have a family. Maybe he could have done it without her in the picture, but then he would not have a family. I may have gotten to where I'm at without my wife, but I seriously doubt it, lol. She and my kids were in large part my motivation for wanting to succeed. I doubt I'm alone in that regard.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> Thunderclad, are you married? Living with someone? Dating?


I am married.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Well that's how the law works in some places. Just ask Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos 😉


I don't know about Bezos, but Melinda Gates deserves every dime she gets. She has been dating him since the inception of Microsoft, where she worked. They were married during almost all of the ascension of Microsoft and he cheated on her, which even forced him to step down from the board.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> Actually, yes I do think she is entitled to that. Obviously there could be situations that call for an exception, but as far as I'm concerned one spouse's success is marital success. She isn't just being compensated for raising the kids. She enabled him to make that money AND have a family. Maybe he could have done it without her in the picture, but then he would not have a family. I may have gotten to where I'm at without my wife, but I seriously doubt it, lol. She and my kids were in large part my motivation for wanting to succeed. I doubt I'm alone in that regard.


What if the guy was not a very good businessman and at the time of divorce his business wasn't worth anything and he had $1,000,000 in debt. Should that wife be responsible for that $500k in debt? Because marital property goes both ways.


----------



## ThatDarnGuy!

I think the idea of alimony or spousal support is ridiculous. If you are splitting, why should either person be entitled to continued financial support? You are no longer a couple. 

Now if the divorce is from physical abuse that can be proven, that is different. But I have heard cases of a ex whether the guy or woman paying alimony 15-20 years after the divorce. Then they are entitled to part of their social security retirement!


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Marital property goes both ways. Let's say the husband isn't that great of a businessman and his business is worthless and he has $1 million in debt.
> 
> Should the wife be responsible for $500k of that?


Yes, marriage is an equal partnership.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> I have a buddy who recently got divorced. He had a great job, a house, and a sizable retirement before marriage. He married a very religious girl who worked in retail and never had sex with him. They went to counseling and ultimately divorced after 5 years. He had to pay her half the house and half his retirement and he's left with all the debt and very little cash.


Your buddy was stupid for living sexless for 5 years.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

BigDaddyNY said:


> Your buddy was stupid for living sexless for 5 years.


And the unspoken is brought into the light!

Well done!!


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> I am well versed in the law of the state I work in, I work with them every day. But I found you something from a local divorce lawyers website.
> 
> All property in a divorce case in STATE, whether acquired before the marriage or during the marriage is considered marital, and therefore subject to division at the time of the final divorce. The only property that is exempt from equal property division, is property that was acquired from a third party as a result of a gift or inheritance. This means that pre-marital assets are subject to presumed equal property division. You don’t get to keep it, just because you owned it prior to marriage.


What state?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

ThatDarnGuy! said:


> I think the idea of alimony or spousal support is ridiculous. If you are splitting, why should either person be entitled to continued financial support? You are no longer a couple.
> 
> Now if the divorce is from physical abuse that can be proven, that is different. But I have heard cases of a ex whether the guy or woman paying alimony 15-20 years after the divorce. Then they are entitled to part of their social security retirement!


How do you account for the SAHM/D that hasn't worked for 10+ years while taking care of the household while the other spouse advances their career and income?


----------



## thunderchad

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> And the unspoken is brought into the light!
> 
> Well done!!


Agreed!


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> What if the guy was not a very good businessman and at the time of divorce his business wasn't worth anything and he had $1,000,000 in debt. Should that wife be responsible for that $500k in debt? Because marital property goes both ways.


It's called bankruptcy. No one is going to actually pay back a million dollar _business debt_ out of their personal money. Geez.

It's business debt.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> How do you account for the SAHM/D that hasn't worked for 10+ years while taking care of the household while the other spouse advances their career and income?


Well it is generally a choice to be a stay at home parent. In todays world, both parents can work and in fact most do.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> Well it is generally a choice to be a stay at home parent. In todays world, both parents can work and in fact most do.


AND it is the choice of the working spouse to stay married to a stay-at-home mother/father. They don't get to reap the benefits of that, then say screw them in the divorce.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

BigDaddyNY said:


> How do you account for the SAHM/D that hasn't worked for 10+ years while taking care of the household while the other spouse advances their career and income?


And this is the reality.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> Well it is generally a choice to be a stay at home parent. In todays world, both parents can work and in fact most do.


Of course it's a choice. Doesn't mean there aren't financial repercussions as a result, in the event of a divorce.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Well it is generally a choice to be a stay at home parent. In todays world, both parents can work and in fact most do.


It is a family choice, one spouse doesn't unilaterally decide this kind of thing. Yes they both can work, but I as much as my wife didn't want to leave our kids with daycare, especially when they were infants.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Livvie said:


> What state?


This is what I'm wondering. I looked up all the property laws in the states listed earlier and all say that property solely owned prior to marriage remains theirs. The spouse could be entitled to a portion of the increase in value, but not and even split of the whole thing.


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> It's called bankruptcy. No one is going to actually pay back a million dollar _business debt_ out of their personal money. Geez.
> 
> It's business debt.


Most small business debt requires a personal guarantee. SBA loans even require your house as collateral. I know many a businessperson who is still on the hook for business debt after going out of business.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> Well it is generally a choice to be a stay at home parent. In todays world, both parents can work and in fact most do.


Also, even with my wife being a RN, if she were working right now her entire paycheck would be going to daycare costs. Why would we put our children in daycare, to be raised by god knows who and doing god knows what, when we don't need her working, just for her to work to pay childcare?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

bobert said:


> Also, even with my wife being a RN, if she were working right now her entire paycheck would be going to daycare costs. Why would we put our children in daycare, to be raised by god knows who and doing god knows what, when we don't need her working, just for her to work to pay childcare?


That was exactly our conclusion. She would have been working to pay childcare. She might have brought home $100 a month. Why do all that work just to let someone else raise your kids. It made no sense financially or from a family/child rearing standpoint.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> That was exactly our conclusion. She would have been working to pay childcare. She might have brought home $100 a month. Why do all that work just to let someone else raise your kids. It made no sense financially or from a family/child rearing standpoint.


Day care providers are a rip-off. My brother's daycare provider for his kids still charges them on days off or when they are shut down for covid.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

thunderchad said:


> All these benefits can be derived from a long term committed relationship. So what is the advantage of marriage over that?


So your kids don't have to say, "He's the baby daddy"?


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> Day care providers are a rip-off. My brother's daycare provider for his kids still charges them on days off or when they are shut down for covid.


If they are in a daycare center, the center still has bills and employees to pay. It doesn't matter if they are closed or not. It is also stated in the contract that unused days and closures are still paid. Almost all centers, and most home daycare, have the same rule.


----------



## thunderchad

thunderchad said:


> Day care providers are a rip-off. My brother's daycare provider for his kids still charges them on days off or when they are shut down for covid.


LOL. But what about people without kids or blended families?


----------



## thunderchad

bobert said:


> If they are in a daycare center, the center still has bills and employees to pay. It doesn't matter if they are closed or not. It is also stated in the contract that unused days and closures are still paid.


I understand their logic, but I don't agree with it. I run several businesses too. If I can't provide a service, I still need to pay my bills, but it wouldn't be ethical to charge my clients for a service I didn't deliver. It's just another way for daycare centers to rip people off.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Day care providers are a rip-off. My brother's daycare provider for his kids still charges them on days off or when they are shut down for covid.


Ok, then if they are such a rip off I assume you think the SAHM option is a better choice, no?


----------



## thunderchad

Maybe for the first 3-4 years before the child goes into 3K or 4K. But the parent could have a part time job too or even a full time remote job. I don't agree with stay at home parents while kids are in school.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> Maybe for the first 3-4 years before the child goes into 3K or 4K. But the parent could have a part time time too or even a full time remote job. I don't agree with stay at home parents while kids are in school.


Are you serious? It would be impossible for someone to have a full-time remote job while taking care of children at the same time.


----------



## bobert

So, who should have to go pick up the kids from school when they are sick? Who stays home with them for days or weeks while they are sick? Who takes time off for every appointment? Who takes time off for the weekend hockey tournament?

Who also misses out on promotions and new jobs because of it? And who keeps growing their businesses or getting promotions, then throws a hissy fit when he has to pay up?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Maybe for the first 3-4 years before the child goes into 3K or 4K. But the parent could have a part time job too or even a full time remote job. I don't agree with stay at home parents while kids are in school.


I have to assume you do not have kids.


----------



## Cletus

How about this. Stay with me, it might blow your mind, but the journey will be worth the reward.

If you want a pre-nup, get one. If you don't, don't. Take some time, swish it around in your mouth for a while, let it linger on your palette. They're only a must for someone who must have one. Most of the rest of us get along just fine without one.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> I have to assume you do not have kids.


I have 2 kids. Why would you think I don't?


----------



## thunderchad

bobert said:


> So, who should have to go pick up the kids from school when they are sick? Who stays home with them for days or weeks while they are sick? Who takes time off for every appointment? Who takes time off for the weekend hockey tournament?
> 
> Who also misses out on promotions and new jobs because of it? And who keeps growing their businesses or getting promotions, then throws a hissy fit when he has to pay up?


The parents take turns. That's what we did.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> I have 2 kids. Why would you think I don't?


I dunno, because you think someone can be the sole caregiver for babies and toddlers, while simultaneously holding down a full time job?


----------



## thunderchad

bobert said:


> Are you serious? It would be impossible for someone to have a full-time remote job while taking care of children at the same time.


One of my employees has a stay at home wife and 5 kids. She homeschools the kids and also has a full time remote job.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> I have 2 kids. Why would you think I don't?


Because you seem to underappreciate the responsibility and work load to raise children.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> One of my employees has a stay at home wife and 5 kids. She homeschools the kids and also has a full time remote job.


Uh huh, and what job is that? Working what hours?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> One of my employees has a stay at home wife and 5 kids. She homeschools the kids and also has a full time remote job.


Unless she is some rare breed she is probably spent at the end of the day with no love left for her husband. 

So she is working 16 hours a day?


----------



## thunderchad

bobert said:


> I dunno, because you think someone can be the sole caregiver for babies and toddlers, while simultaneously holding down a full time job?


What we did the first couple years is I worked 1st shift and she worked 2nd shift and some weekends, with less hours, maybe 30 a week.


----------



## thunderchad

I was also going to college full time, while working full time, while raising a child.

In today's world people are just generally lazy, a lot lazier than they used to be. The American work ethic is no longer.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> I was also going to college full time, while working full time, while raising a child.


I did the same thing, with two kids. My wife did the same thing, while pregnant and with two then three kids. We were both doing graduate programs. It's nothing special but hey, here's your trophy 🏆



thunderchad said:


> In today's world people are just generally lazy, a lot lazier than they used to be. The American work ethic is no longer.


You mean the work ethic that had men working and women as SAHM's?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

I have very strong work ethic, but I also want family time and wife time. How can you expect the marriage to be even close to happy if you only cross paths at shift change and maybe weekends?

I too worked full time and went to college in the evening, all because she took care of the kids so I could focus. 

BTW, you were wrong about all those states you listed. ALL of them state that any property acquired prior to marriage are separate property.

You can look them all up here. 




__





Wisconsin Marital Property Division Laws







www.maritallaws.com


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> One of my employees has a stay at home wife and 5 kids. She homeschools the kids and also has a full time remote job.


I feel ****ing sorry for her employer.


----------



## Mybabysgotit

thunderchad said:


> If there's any advice I can give to my fellow men, it is pre-nuptial agreements are a must. If you're already married, then a post-nup.
> 
> I've seen so many men get raked over the coals in family court. I've seen businesses destroyed. I've seen life savings and retirement accounts lost. I've seen most prized possessions forcibly sold.
> 
> Most family law jurisdictions heavily favor the women. Protect yourself, your assets, and your future.
> 
> Getting a post-nup a few months before my divorce saved my ass bigtime.


"Hey sweetie, I've been thinking and decided we should get a post-nup in place" ...

that should go over well


----------



## Cletus

thunderchad said:


> In today's world people are just generally lazy, a lot lazier than they used to be.





thunderchad said:


> Well, it is a hard pill to swallow but most high value men will avoid single mothers because of the baggage. Now you might find a nice beta provider but not the alpha you want.





thunderchad said:


> Very true. It is easy but most people these days don't want to do the work. Especially so for people in their 20s and 30s.





thunderchad said:


> Women want a man who has his **** together, is a leader, can make decent money, has a backbone, has ambition, is mentally strong, etc. These qualities are lacking in most men these days. Guys who have these qualities, women flock to.





thunderchad said:


> But most single mothers are single mothers due to a series of bad choices.


You keep forgetting "Get off my lawn!"


----------



## Angie?or…

Mybabysgotit said:


> "Hey sweetie, I've been thinking and decided we should get a post-nup in place" ...
> 
> that should go over well


Yeah, after 38 years of being a team, lovers, family, one flesh and best friends, I would be so hurt and angry, I don’t think I would ever feel the same about him again. I believe we both always tried to put whatever we had into our marriage, and keeping track of, and assigning greater or lesser value to each person’s contribution would be completely antithetical to everything we have built and accomplished together.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

@thunderchad I've never seen a post where you say it, do you have a pre-nup or post-nup in place?


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> I feel ****ing sorry for her employer.


From what I know she's a very good mother and employee.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> @thunderchad I've never seen a post where you say it, do you have a pre-nup or post-nup in place?


Yes


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> What we did the first couple years is I worked 1st shift and she worked 2nd shift and some weekends, with less hours, maybe 30 a week.


My wife and I have worked different shifts as well, and she has worked part-time. Sometimes people have to do that to make ends meet, but it can be very hard on a marriage. I do not miss it at all.

And as soon as a parent is working, they are no longer a SAHP. They are a working parent.

There is a huge difference between working while your husband cares for the kids, and being expected to work 40 hours a week WHILE taking care of children. I have 5 kids, and there is no way anyone could look after them _properly_ and work at the same time. Not gonna happen.


----------



## Rus47

Just an aside. There used to be a practicing attorney who posted on TAM, when prenups / postnups were mentioned on a 'red pill' thread, he said any attorney worth the title could easily circumvent either. Also said not marrying was no protection against losing everything, whether "common law" or not. Even dating wasn't without exposure to large financial losses. Maybe he is still around and can comment on this thread. In my experience, most contracts are only as good as the attorney who wrote them and the attorney defending them. None are foolproof.


----------



## thunderchad

Rus47 said:


> Just an aside. There used to be a practicing attorney who posted on TAM, when prenups / postnups were mentioned on a 'red pill' thread, he said any attorney worth the title could easily circumvent either. Also said not marrying was no protection against losing everything, whether "common law" or not. Even dating wasn't without exposure to large financial losses. Maybe he is still around and can comment on this thread. In my experience, most contracts are only as good as the attorney who wrote them and the attorney defending them. None are foolproof.


That is definitely true. People can litigate anything. Generally whoever has the most money wins.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Yes


Not trying to get too personal, but what is the general gist of your pre-nup?


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> Not trying to get too personal, but what is the general gist of your pre-nup?


All my assets (money, businesses, commercial real estate, our home) I had prior to the marriage remains mine as well as any increase in value.

All her assets she had prior to the marriage remains hers as well as any increase in value.

All my debt before and during the marriage is mine(i have business debt and mortgages).

All her debt before and during the marriage is hers (she took out some school loans recently.)

Whatever I buy with my money during the marriage is mine. Ie, boat, motorcycle, etc

If I start a new business, it is mine. If she starts a new business, it is hers.

Whatever she buys with her money during the marriage is hers, vehicle, UTV, horse, tack, etc.

If we decide to buy something together equally and pay for it equally, we will split it equally if we divorce.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Part of my thinking on this stuff is if I got a divorce my biggest consideration would be my kids. If I have to provide additional support to their mother to keep things normal and comfortable for them why would that bother me? As a byproduct I am allowing her to live better with my money but I don't want my kids being miserable with their living situation 50% of the time. Maybe it would be good for them, a nice dose of reality but I see it as supporting them by supporting their mom. I wouldn't be happy knowing they were not happy.


----------



## gold5932

My daughter is getting married soon and she will have a prenup because she has money and part of a business. Just plain stupid not to lay it out on paper. I don't care how nice, supportive, etc your soon to be spouse is, people turn into crazies when money is involved.


----------



## Ursula

thunderchad said:


> If there's any advice I can give to my fellow men, it is pre-nuptial agreements are a must. If you're already married, then a post-nup.
> 
> I've seen so many men get raked over the coals in family court. I've seen businesses destroyed. I've seen life savings and retirement accounts lost. I've seen most prized possessions forcibly sold.
> 
> Most family law jurisdictions heavily favor the women. Protect yourself, your assets, and your future.
> 
> Getting a post-nup a few months before my divorce saved my ass bigtime.


Not just for the men, I'm afraid, prenups are a great idea for anyone who is married. I'm a woman, had a prenup (we were given the option to throw out the prenup and go from there, or follow the prenup during our divorce). Thank God for the prenup though. If it wasn't in place, I'd have lost my home, my dogs, and my XH tried to get about $20,000 out of me as well.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> Part of my thinking on this stuff is if I got a divorce my biggest consideration would be my kids. If I have to provide additional support to their mother to keep things normal and comfortable for them why would that bother me? As a byproduct I am allowing her to live better with my money but I don't want my kids being miserable with their living situation 50% of the time. Maybe it would be good for them, a nice dose of reality but I see it as supporting them by supporting their mom. I wouldn't be happy knowing they were not happy.


Just make sure you get a total accounting of where the money is going. A lawyer would be able to help you with that.


----------



## thunderchad

gold5932 said:


> My daughter is getting married soon and she will have a prenup because she has money and part of a business. Just plain stupid not to lay it out on paper. I don't care how nice, supportive, etc your soon to be spouse is,


But under the logic read here, your daughters business wouldn't be as successful without her husband supporting her so shouldn't he get a cut? 😉


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> Just make sure you get a total accounting of where the money is going. A lawyer would be able to help you with that.


Thats the thing, for me I wouldn't care what she is doing with the money. Of course I say this now, if we were getting a divorce my feelings towards her wouldn't be so positive I assume. But I think I would still look at it as what is best for the kids would be not having to watch their mom struggling.


----------



## thunderchad

happyhusband0005 said:


> Thats the thing, for me I wouldn't care what she is doing with the money. Of course I say this now, if we were getting a divorce my feelings towards her wouldn't be so positive I assume. But I think I would still look at it as what is best for the kids would be not having to watch their mom struggling.



What if she cheats on you and shacks up with a rich dude?


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> What if she cheats on you and shacks up with a rich dude?


Well if we got divorced she would get half, she would still be rich on her own.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> Thats the thing, for me I wouldn't care what she is doing with the money. Of course I say this now, if we were getting a divorce my feelings towards her wouldn't be so positive I assume. But I think I would still look at it as what is best for the kids would be not having to watch their mom struggling.


Never fall on your sword for someone who doesn't care


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I am married.


Do you have a prenup?


----------



## gold5932

thunderchad said:


> But under the logic read here, your daughters business wouldn't be as successful without her husband supporting her so shouldn't he get a cut? 😉


She inherited most of the money and the business is family owned. He has stipulations on his side also.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Do you have a prenup?


I didn't but now wish I would have. If it wasn't for a great lawyer and the original judge being excused my cheating, convicted felon would have gotten a lot more then she should have.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> Maybe for the first 3-4 years before the child goes into 3K or 4K. But the parent could have a part time job too or even a full time remote job. I don't agree with stay at home parents while kids are in school.


The trouble is that children have long school holidays and are often ill. If you both work full time who looks after them? Not everyone has willing family members nearby.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> What if she cheats on you and shacks up with a rich dude?


Alimony often ends when the receiving person remarries OR lives habitually with a partner in a spouse-like relationship or while representing that person as a spouse. 

Some receivers do get around giving up their alimony by just never re-marrying, so it is important to get that in writing. It's in my postnup, even though it's the norm where I live.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

BigDaddyNY said:


> I have to assume you do not have kids.


Yeah. Try working at home with a toddler.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I was also going to college full time, while working full time, while raising a child.
> 
> In today's world people are just generally lazy, a lot lazier than they used to be. The American work ethic is no longer.


Wrong, you were both raising a child.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yeah. Try working at home with a toddler.


Its impossible.


----------



## Diana7

gold5932 said:


> My daughter is getting married soon and she will have a prenup because she has money and part of a business. Just plain stupid not to lay it out on paper. I don't care how nice, supportive, etc your soon to be spouse is, people turn into crazies when money is involved.


Lots of people actually don't turn into crazies. A lot of people can be trusted to act decently. I know quite a few who did just that in their divorce. 
You may think it's plain stupid, I think it's crazy to get married while arranging for a divorce.
Why is she marrying him if she doesn't trust him?


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> I didn't but now wish I would have. If it wasn't for a great lawyer and the original judge being excused my cheating, convicted felon would have gotten a lot more then she should have.


I have never regretted not having one for either of my marriages.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> Its impossible.


My neighbors have a girl in school who is probably seven but she is so used to having constant adult entertaining her that they had to hire a nanny for when she isn't in school because both parents work at home since covid. She's the one that was trying to spy on me for a while. She is literally never outside without a parent or nanny in a fenced-in backyard. She is high maintenance and now she has a little brother.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> What if she cheats on you and shacks up with a rich dude?


So what? He may meet someone rich as well.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> My neighbors have a girl in school who is probably seven but she is so used to having constant adult entertaining her that they had to hire a nanny for when she isn't in school because both parents work at home since covid. She's the one that was trying to spy on me for a while. She is literally never outside without a parent or nanny in a fenced-in backyard. She is high maintenance and now she has a little brother.


That's sad. Mind you I wouldnt expect a 7 year old to have to be alone for 8 hours 5 days a week while both parents work.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> One of my employees has a stay at home wife and 5 kids. She homeschools the kids and also has a full time remote job.


Hard to know how she spends all day caring for the children, home schooling them and working 8 hours. Unless she works all night and never sleeps.🤨


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> But under the logic read here, your daughters business wouldn't be as successful without her husband supporting her so shouldn't he get a cut? 😉


Yes why not.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> Hard to know how she spends all day caring for the children, home schooling them and working 8 hours. Unless she works all night and never sleeps.🤨


Likely makes one of the oldest kids babysit the other ones. I met a 12-year-old boy who had to do that when I lived in my rent house. Deadbeat dad, mother with twin infants and then also a sister a couple of years younger than him. 

He and the sister came over begging for a job to clean up leaves. Who found out I had a old Atari machine and kept coming over. 

The mother relied on him heavily. He even cooked. Eventually CPS got involved and made the deadbeat dad take the two older kids. I think that was a mistake. I saw the living conditions. The little boy was still going to have to do everything. But the mom was desperate and trying to go to work at McDonald's leaving him in charge of the infants and that's how I guess they got reported to CPS. 

People can get themselves in some awful situations.


----------



## gaius

thunderchad said:


> What if she cheats on you and shacks up with a rich dude?


Is that what you're worried about Chad? Your wife is always potentially one step away from running off with some other guy who's better looking, smarter or richer than you are? So you better protect yourself?

I guess that's one way to look at it. But I don't find keeping a ledger with all our joint purchases, so I know how much I'm owed at all times, all that sexy. Guess I'll stick with the idea I picked someone who's not rotten enough to hose me if we ever split up, and just pay my dummy tax if I end up being wrong. It seems like more fun than the alternative insecure Ebeneezer Scrooge like mindset.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> I have never regretted not having one for either of my marriages.


You must not have had much to lose then


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> I'm not certain if they really can't trust her out there for 5 minutes or if they're just slightly overprotective. But since she was sneaking around a little and get
> 
> Likely makes one of the oldest kids babysit the other ones.


That often happens and that's just wrong.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> That often happens and that's just wrong.


That's certainly how it worked in my mom's country family of 13 kids. All the women sisters resented the youngest sister because she never had to babysit and do all that and the rest of them did.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> You must not have had much to lose then


Its nothing to do with that. I don't agree with pre-nups period, and would never have one even if I was a multimillionaire.

As it happens I came into my second marriage with more than him because I had a house. Makes no difference to me who has what.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> That's certainly how it worked in my mom's country family of 13 kids. All the women sisters resented the youngest sister because she never had to babysit and do all that and the rest of them did.


I always feel that if you want children then you look after them.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Its nothing to do with that. I don't agree with pre-nups period, and would never have one even if I was a multimillionaire.
> 
> As it happens I came into my second marriage with more than him because I had a house. Makes no difference to me who has what.


I used to think like you but I am a bit more pragmatic now.


----------



## m.t.t

Livvie said:


> Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


This is not true here. Also if you are walking into a relationship as a women with 1m + in assets and you are partnering someone with a lot less, you would be crazy not to get one. It's what you bring into a partnership at the start that matters to the courts. Make it official and then grow what you build together.


----------



## m.t.t

Diana7 said:


> I would hate to start a marriage planning for a divorce.


they happen. You must treat your assets as a business. It's not cynical to always want a roof over your head no matter what. Far Too many homeless women in their 50s that have been far too dewy eyed.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> Never fall on your sword for someone who doesn't care


Yah, this is all a big hypothetical, who knows what I would think or feel if I was going through a divorce, I would probably feel differently. But having been through a lot of lawsuits I also know the only people who really make out in the end are the lawyers even when you win most of time you lose a lot.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> Do you have a prenup?


Absolutely.


----------



## thunderchad

happyhusband0005 said:


> Yah, this is all a big hypothetical, who knows what I would think or feel if I was going through a divorce, I would probably feel differently. But having been through a lot of lawsuits I also know the only people who really make out in the end are the lawyers even when you win most of time you lose a lot.


That goes along with the logic some men have when their wives cheat on them. "Ohh, I don't blame her, it was my fault."


----------



## m.t.t

Diana7 said:


> Its nothing to do with that. I don't agree with pre-nups period, and would never have one even if I was a multimillionaire.
> 
> As it happens I came into my second marriage with more than him because I had a house. Makes no difference to me who has what.


It will if you seperate. I hope you have much more than a house now. If not you are risking moving into a much cheaper area or into an apartment.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> Yah, this is all a big hypothetical, who knows what I would think or feel if I was going through a divorce, I would probably feel differently. But having been through a lot of lawsuits I also know the only people who really make out in the end are the lawyers even when you win most of time you lose a lot.


So true.. The only people truly getting richer are the damm lawyers!


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> I used to think like you but I am a bit more pragmatic now.


I have always hated the idea of pre-nups despite all I have been through. Despite my first marriage suddenly ending after 23 years, it changes nothing for me because I go into marriage as a committment for life. Not going to plan for a divorce before we have even said the vows.


----------



## Diana7

m.t.t said:


> It will if you seperate. I hope you have much more than a house now. If not you are risking moving into a much cheaper area or into an apartment.


We are not getting divorced.🙂 Plus I have a decent fair husband who was more than kind to his ex in their divorce. 
We have already downsized and moved to cheaper areas for various reasons, it's not a problem for me. If I had to live in a flat I would, millions do, but it's not going to happen.


----------



## Diana7

happyhusband0005 said:


> Yah, this is all a big hypothetical, who knows what I would think or feel if I was going through a divorce, I would probably feel differently. But having been through a lot of lawsuits I also know the only people who really make out in the end are the lawyers even when you win most of time you lose a lot.


You seem like a decent fair man to me. Decent fair people will act decently in hard situations as well. I always say that when you go through something stressful like a divorce what is inside you will come out. I have seen people act with great integrity in a divorce and others who acted very badly. It's quite telling actually.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> I have always hated the idea of pre-nups despite all I have been through. Despite my first marriage suddenly ending after 23 years, it changes nothing for me because I go into marriage as a committment for life. Not going to plan for a divorce before we have even said the vows.


It's more important for me to protect myself and the kids


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> You seem like a decent fair man to me. Decent fair people will act decently in hard situations as well. I always say that when you go through something stressful like a divorce what is inside you will come out. I have seen people act with great integrity in a divorce and others who acted very badly. It's quite telling actually.


One person may be decent but can you guarantee that the other person will be? Is it worth the risk?


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> I always say that when you go through something stressful like a divorce what is inside you will come out. I have seen people act with great integrity in a divorce and others who acted very badly. It's quite telling actually.


Let me ask you a question so I can get a sense of who you are as a person. 
Do you think that my XW, who was a:

Cheated
Drug User
Convicted Felon
and did prison time
deserved to have the ability and access to half of my businesses and half of my money?


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> So true.. The only people truly getting richer are the damm lawyers!


Man I had a BS lawsuit that involved a property I was selling for 2.8 million. It was a small retail strip I developed from the ground up and was subdivided off a bigger piece of land I purchased. We negotiated the P&S for 2 months (should have been a red flag) and when it was finally ready to sign I was traveling sitting on a plane getting ready to take off when my lawyer sent me the final execution version to sign just saying this is all set you can sign it. Well the buyers scumbag lawyer had made a last minute change to the property description (and didn't flag the change he made) that could be read that I was selling the building on 2.8 acres and the rest of the 30 acres of land. They waited until the due dilligence was almost out to claim they were buying the whole thing to which I said no your not, heres the listing stating 2.8 acres and all that. Well after some back and forth they tried to get me to drop the price on the building by 400k or they would sue for specific performance on the whole 30. They did file suit his lawyer quit he hired a new lawyer, I brought in a big firm from Boston to represent me. I won the case but my legal bills were 750k by the time it was all done. My original lawyer gave me 150k because he missed the change in the contract, and the buyers original lawyer gave me 100k because I was threatening to sue him for unethically making a material change and slipping it by. But I still lost 500k. I won but I lost, the other guy lost and lost. Turns out his whole business model is getting into a business deal and then threatening legal action for a price drop or other concession. I guess most people just give him the concession which I probably should have done but F that guy, so no. 

I will also point out from my experience big firm lawyers give you advice based on what will generate the most billable hours for them.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> It's more important for me to protect myself and the kids


My kids are well into adulthood but we all got through the first divorce just fine. For children it's not about money or a big house, it's about love and relationship. Having a parent or parents who care and are committed.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> I always feel that if you want children then you look after them.


Yes, me too, but things were different before birth control.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Let me ask you a question so I can get a sense of who you are as a person.
> Do you think that my XW, who was a:
> 
> Cheated
> Drug User
> Convicted Felon
> and did prison time
> deserved to have the ability and access to half of my businesses and half of my money?


That's not for me to say but my ex was also in trouble with the police when we separated but he still needed to live and pay the bills. He still needed a car and a place to call home.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yes, me too, but things were different before birth control.


Yes true. My dad was one of 9.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> Yes true. My dad was one of 9.


I can't imagine how my mom's family even survived.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

I think there certainly are situations where a prenup makes sense, like when very significant assets are held prior to the marriage. That in no way means it makes sense for everyone, probably not even close to the majority of people. In my case there were no pre-existing assets to speak of and since the day we got married we've only had joint accounts. There has never been any separation of her money and my money, so a prenup would have been pointless. 

As for a postnup, even that makes no sense for us. By the time I was making significantly more money than her she became a SAHM. A great one at that. I couldn't imagine the dagger in the back feeling she would have had if I suggested a prenup at a time when she gave up her career to care for our children and our home. Every single couple in our social circle has a very similar situation, so I don't think it is uncommon. Some couples are closer to income parity than others, but in general the parent that did the bulk of the childcare took the hit in their career. 

Now, 32 years in it makes even less sense, even though I make way more than she does. I've got enough of a track record in our relationship to be very confident it isn't going to end in divorce. I frequently tell my wife that it is our money, not mine or hers. She sometimes feels guilty that she doesn't contribute to our finances as much as I do, but as I've said before, my personal point of view is that she gets credit for helping me get to where I am. It has been a partnership since day one.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Diana7 said:


> You seem like a decent fair man to me. Decent fair people will act decently in hard situations as well. I always say that when you go through something stressful like a divorce what is inside you will come out. I have seen people act with great integrity in a divorce and others who acted very badly. It's quite telling actually.


Who knows what anyone would do given all situations are unique. For me I grew up with no money really wasn't poor but lower middle class. Now having money I realize that the things in life that bring me happiness have nothing to do with money. Money removes some day to day stresses but if someone thinks if they just had an extra X dollars they would be happy, they are never going to be happy. So getting nasty and fighting over money and raking the mother of your kids over the coals over money is probably going to make you bitter and angry it will not bring happiness especially if you lose, it will make you miserable. Though some of the stories I have read on here it might make someone feel better temporarily.


----------



## One Eighty

Livvie said:


> Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


Yes, and there is a reason for the formula that courts have. It may not always result in what both parties agree is a fair settlement. It may almost never result in that. In mediation of disputes by a third party mediator, if both contesting parties are unhappy with a compromise then the mediator probably did a good job at negotiating that. 

The law being the way it is, tends to protect the low wage earner, male or female. This is to benefit society as a whole as the low wage earner is more likely to become destitute. It also protects children as they are often more dependent upon the care and attention of the low wage earner, more than the high earner. 

These are just two assumptions that go into creating the legal formula for division of assets and provision of spousal support. These assumptions are not always true which results in decidedly unfair results, in some cases. IMHO cheating should be part of this formula and the absence of cheating being a factor leads to unfair results but the law does not agree with me. 

If your prenup/postnup attempts to create a more equitable result for the particular facts of your marriage, then it may be enforceable. However, most pre/postnups attempt to skew things in a way that the law was designed to prevent. Trying to take advantage of your partner, trying to get them to give up their share by way of sweet talking them, strong arming them or tricking them into a pre/postnup will be seen as against public interests and private equity. These agreements are routinely thrown out. A good attorney will tell you what you can and can not get away with in a pre/postnnup but if you think you are going to get away with something vastly different that what the law provides for already, you are probably wrong.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> My kids are well into adulthood but we all got through the first divorce just fine. For children it's not about money or a big house, it's about love and relationship. Having a parent or parents who care and are committed.


And mine have both security and a parent who cares and is committed to their well being.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> Man I had a BS lawsuit that involved a property I was selling for 2.8 million. It was a small retail strip I developed from the ground up and was subdivided off a bigger piece of land I purchased. We negotiated the P&S for 2 months (should have been a red flag) and when it was finally ready to sign I was traveling sitting on a plane getting ready to take off when my lawyer sent me the final execution version to sign just saying this is all set you can sign it. Well the buyers scumbag lawyer had made a last minute change to the property description (and didn't flag the change he made) that could be read that I was selling the building on 2.8 acres and the rest of the 30 acres of land. They waited until the due dilligence was almost out to claim they were buying the whole thing to which I said no your not, heres the listing stating 2.8 acres and all that. Well after some back and forth they tried to get me to drop the price on the building by 400k or they would sue for specific performance on the whole 30. They did file suit his lawyer quit he hired a new lawyer, I brought in a big firm from Boston to represent me. I won the case but my legal bills were 750k by the time it was all done. My original lawyer gave me 150k because he missed the change in the contract, and the buyers original lawyer gave me 100k because I was threatening to sue him for unethically making a material change and slipping it by. But I still lost 500k. I won but I lost, the other guy lost and lost. Turns out his whole business model is getting into a business deal and then threatening legal action for a price drop or other concession. I guess most people just give him the concession which I probably should have done but F that guy, so no.
> 
> I will also point out from my experience big firm lawyers give you advice based on what will generate the most billable hours for them.


That's some shady sh*t


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> That's not for me to say but my ex was also in trouble with the police when we separated but he still needed to live and pay the bills. He still needed a car and a place to call home.


And that should have been his concern, not yours


----------



## Red Sonja

hamadryad said:


> There is a lot I can say about this topic, but I am tired....So I leave you with this..
> 
> "I am going to take* her* to the cleaners"
> 
> Said no man ever....... 😂


Sorry to ruin your joke however my EX said *exactly* *that* during our divorce.

Of course it didn't happen, he got *exactly* *half*, as the law allows and, no support or alimony on either side.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> That's some shady sh*t


Yah I have had 4 lawsuits that were just some scumbag assuming I would just hand over a big chunk of change to avoid the head ache.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> I can't imagine how my mom's family even survived.


My dad's mum had 2 children with her first husband who sadly died. Then she had 6 with her second husband before a divorce (I think he cheated) then one more child with her third husband. One child died in her teens, another in his 30's. Lots more tragedy back then. Mum had a baby brother who died at a few weeks. She was the next to be born and was one of 5 girls.
Life was hard.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> And that should have been his concern, not yours


I wanted the divorce to be fair. Why should I have more? I kept the small house with the mortgage because the children lived with me, and he kept his quite good pension he had paid into for about 25 years by then. Both valued at the same amount. 
I had a really good solicitor who said to me that the divorce isn't about who did what, but about what we do now sorting everything out.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Diana7 said:


> My dad's mum had 2 children with her first husband who sadly died. Then she had 6 with her second husband before a divorce (I think he cheated) then one more child with her third husband. One child died in her teens, another in his 30's. Lots more tragedy back then. Mum had a baby brother who died at a few weeks. She was the next to be born and was one of 5 girls.
> Life was hard.


Mom never said there were losses, but I've always wondered.


----------



## Diana7

DownByTheRiver said:


> Mom never said there were losses, but I've always wondered.


They were sadly not uncommon back then.


----------



## OnTheRocks

I found the division of assets in my divorce to be pretty straightforward and fair, but child custody and child support to be extremely one-sided for the wife and non-negotiable. Prenups don't help you at all in the one area you need it most.


----------



## hamadryad

Red Sonja said:


> Sorry to ruin your joke however my EX said *exactly* *that* during our divorce.
> 
> Of course it didn't happen, he got *exactly* *half*, as the law allows and, no support or alimony on either side.


I went fishing in this tiny pond one time....and I caught a 15 lb Largemouth...can you believe that shyt??

Look, all jokes aside....And to be honest, I never heard a guy ever say that, but i have heard countless women say it...

If anyone is going to tell me that more women (or even a remotely equivalent amount) face the same situations in these divorces that men do, then i am raising the biggest BS flag that ever existed...

I can tell you stories, endless stories, of guys who got absolutely crushed in mega buck divorces(talking millions of dollars) from women that had absolutely nothing to do with what their husbands built...Nothing.....In fact, it could easily be argued that they held the guy back from even more success by questioning and vetoing critical business decisions..that he actually ignored....to her eventual benefit,,,,And you can be sure, that she didn't mention that she was against whatever he was doing when she wanted her share...pft..

One guy in particular, was actually tricked by a woman who was 100% a lesbian....She wanted kids and found this rich guy(a buddy of mine) to give her 3 kids and a lifestyle, while she visited her "friend" on a daily basis, took trips, with her, etc.....How would it make you feel if a gay guy did that to you, and you had to pay him millions in a divorce settlement, and pay child support until he's in his 70's??

And admittedly, I believe now that some women are making more money, there will be some equity, but I don't even know there....There is an undercurrent where when it comes to money, no matter what one or the other makes,_ his money is* their *money, while her money is *her* money_....Seen it a million times...And it's why guys that have money normally don't complain much about the women they are with making less than them, when women make money, they still want the guy to make more, so she isn't having to reach into her pocket for him....


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> I wanted the divorce to be fair. Why should I have more? I kept the small house with the mortgage because the children lived with me, and he kept his quite good pension he had paid into for about 25 years by then. Both valued at the same amount.
> I had a really good solicitor who said to me that the divorce isn't about who did what, but about what we do now sorting everything out.


Again I ask you if your idea of "fairness" extends to any and all divorces.


----------



## Livvie

m.t.t said:


> This is not true here. Also if you are walking into a relationship as a women with 1m + in assets and you are partnering someone with a lot less, you would be crazy not to get one. It's what you bring into a partnership at the start that matters to the courts. Make it official and then grow what you build together.


Are you in the US? 

In the US premarital assets are recognized as such.

I doubt your average Joe and Jane have a million in assets at the time of marriage.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Again I ask you if your idea of "fairness" extends to any and all divorces.


Barring an extreme situation where say one spouse has a life sentence in jail or is highly dangerous or seriously mentally ill and in hospital long term say. 
Those cases may need careful handling.


----------



## frusdil

thunderchad said:


> Because he is the sole person who earned it.


Nope. His wife's contribution is equal in value to his, and he wouldn't have achieved all of what he has without her support.



BigDaddyNY said:


> How do you account for the SAHM/D that hasn't worked for 10+ years while taking care of the household while the other spouse advances their career and income?


He doesn't.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Barring an extreme situation where say one spouse has a life sentence in jail or is highly dangerous or seriously mentally ill and in hospital long term say.
> Those cases may need careful handling.


I can tell you in my case, what I ended up paying to end the marriage wasn't much comparatively, but it was still more then I would have offered or what she deserves. And on top of that, I will never see any child support. So, no, not all divorces should be "fair" or "equal". The problem is nowadays people no longer have to deal with the consequences of their actions, everyone does.


----------



## Red Sonja

All I can say is that we live in different ponds.

The vast majority of married/partnered people I know are both working, I can count stay-at-home parents (with no outside work gig) on one hand. We have all heard of mega-buck divorces (Kardasians, Bezo, etc.) however those are crazy and rare. I don't base "normal" on what celebrities and billionaires do in their lives.

My divorce involved millions however, around my pond that is not considered mega-bucks, a million bucks can be one small house in my pond. That's why there are so few stay-at-homes in my pond ... no one can afford it.

Don't take my word for it ... hop on over to the US Department of Labor and look at the data ...75% of adult married women are in the work force, 65% of adult married women with children under 3 years old are in the work force. Comparison note: 90% of adult men are in the work force. (As of the year 2020)



hamadryad said:


> I went fishing in this tiny pond one time....and I caught a 15 lb Largemouth...can you believe that shyt??
> 
> Look, all jokes aside....And to be honest, I never heard a guy ever say that, but i have heard countless women say it...
> 
> If anyone is going to tell me that more women (or even a remotely equivalent amount) face the same situations in these divorces that men do, then i am raising the biggest BS flag that ever existed...
> 
> I can tell you stories, endless stories, of guys who got absolutely crushed in mega buck divorces(talking millions of dollars) from women that had absolutely nothing to do with what their husbands built...Nothing.....In fact, it could easily be argued that they held the guy back from even more success by questioning and vetoing critical business decisions..that he actually ignored....to her eventual benefit,,,,And you can be sure, that she didn't mention that she was against whatever he was doing when she wanted her share...pft..
> 
> One guy in particular, was actually tricked by a woman who was 100% a lesbian....She wanted kids and found this rich guy(a buddy of mine) to give her 3 kids and a lifestyle, while she visited her "friend" on a daily basis, took trips, with her, etc.....How would it make you feel if a gay guy did that to you, and you had to pay him millions in a divorce settlement, and pay child support until he's in his 70's??
> 
> And admittedly, I believe now that some women are making more money, there will be some equity, but I don't even know there....There is an undercurrent where when it comes to money, no matter what one or the other makes,_ his money is* their *money, while her money is *her* money_....Seen it a million times...And it's why guys that have money normally don't complain much about the women they are with making less than them, when women make money, they still want the guy to make more, so she isn't having to reach into her pocket for him....


----------



## Rus47

Maybe avoiding the accumulation of any assets (in a marriage or otherwise) is the best strategy. Then you don't need any kind of "nup". When the wife decides she has had enough, all she can do is leave. I have to carry big insurance policies to protect against losing what we have. Rather pointless really because we won't be taking anything with us when we leave this planet.

If you have nothing, there isn't anything for the wife and her attorney to take. Even the IRS will leave you alone, no use in picking empty pockets. A man who can say "so sue me" with no assets is pretty much in control of the situation. He isn't going to have to pay any of the freight.

Apologies, couldn't resist. end t/j


----------



## OnTheRocks

It's too bad 'marriage insurance' isn't a sustainable business model.


----------



## Rus47

OnTheRocks said:


> It's too bad 'marriage insurance' isn't a sustainable business model.


The premiums would need to be astronomical


----------



## thunderchad

frusdil said:


> Nope. His wife's contribution is equal in value to his, and he wouldn't have achieved all of what he has without her support.


This is laughable.


----------



## Numb26

thunderchad said:


> This is laughable.


Very laughable


----------



## happyhusband0005

hamadryad said:


> And it's why guys that have money normally don't complain much about the women they are with making less than them, when women make money, they still want the guy to make more, so she isn't having to reach into her pocket for him...


I think there is truth to this but the why is important. I think if you talk to a bunch of high earning single women you will hear most guys they meet that make less than them are uncomfortable and insecure about the fact. I would say that is true more often than not.


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> In the US premarital assets are recognized as such.


We've already discussed this is not true. Just ask Bill Gates. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Bill got married in 1994...19 years later. He still had to pay his wife billions even though Microsoft was his pre-marital asset for 19 years! 

This is how the system works.

A judge once told me divorce is the ****ing you get for the ****ing you got.


----------



## harperlee

Numb26 said:


> Very laughable


I'm surprised you're divorced.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> We've already discussed this is not true. Just ask Bill Gates. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Bill got married in 1994...19 years later. He still had to pay his wife billions even though Microsoft was his pre-marital asset for 19 years!
> 
> This is how the system works.
> 
> A judge once told me divorce is the ****ing you get for the ****ing you got.


I'm sure he had to pay what the value increase was during the marriage. 

You realize that most people aren't Bill Gates, right?

And yeah, premarital property IS recognized as such.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> We've already discussed this is not true. Just ask Bill Gates. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Bill got married in 1994...19 years later. He still had to pay his wife billions even though Microsoft was his pre-marital asset for 19 years!
> 
> This is how the system works.
> 
> A judge once told me divorce is the ****ing you get for the ****ing you got.


Microsoft's stock value increased 1000% from 1994 to 2021. The company was worth $50 billion in 1995, today it is over $2 trillion. So, she doesn't deserve any of that? He chose to end the marriage by having an affair with an employee. She deserves what she is getting.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Livvie said:


> I'm sure he had to pay what the value increase was during the marriage.
> 
> You realize that most people aren't Bill Gates, right?
> 
> And yeah, premarital property IS recognized as such.


His net worth was $9B in 1994 when they got married. Now he is worth $145B She should get half of the $136B. Nothing unusual with this other than the extreme scale of their net worth. It sounds like she is taking him to the cleaners, but he will still have a mere $70B left, lol. Sorry, don't feel sorry for him. He should have thought of all those billions before cheating.


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> We've already discussed this is not true. Just ask Bill Gates. Microsoft was founded in 1975. Bill got married in 1994...19 years later. He still had to pay his wife billions even though Microsoft was his pre-marital asset for 19 years!
> 
> This is how the system works.
> 
> A judge once told me divorce is the ****ing you get for the ****ing you got.


Well Bill was worth around 10 Billion when they got married and about 120 Billion when they divorced.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Every state recognizes premarital assets, period. There are various rules around them that differ from state to state, but all recognize premarital assets in some way. Even these big settlements take that into consideration.


----------



## Numb26

harperlee said:


> I'm surprised you're divorced.


Yeah well, I wasn't interested in having a wife in federal prison so I divorced her. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 GTFOH


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> This is laughable.


Its true. Her contribution is just as valuable.


----------



## thunderchad

Livvie said:


> And yeah, premarital property IS recognized as such.


Not in every state or country and especially in mine. Also marital property can pierced very easily. I would know, it's my career.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> Its true. Her contribution is just as valuable.


You must believe in communism or something because no person is entitled to the fruits of another person's labor.


----------



## thunderchad

This is why so many men are raked over the coals compared to women. When a man builds or earns something it's theirs but when a woman earns or builds something it's hers. The system is very sexist. The women on her who belive they are owed a piece of their husband's success are entitled. 

If my wife finds sudden success and gets $1,000,000 I'm not going to take claim to it. That's just wrong and unethical and unmoral. Maybe I had some part in it by supporting her but she earned it. There are way too many leeches on this planet.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> You must believe in communism or something because no person is entitled to the fruits of another person's labor.


In marriage all that is done is contributing to that marriage whether paid work or unpaid work. Bringing up children and running the home is a very valuable job. Hard work and a 24/7 job.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> This is why so many men are raked over the coals compared to women. When a man builds or earns something it's theirs but when a woman earns or builds something it's hers. The system is very sexist. The women on her who belive they are owed a piece of their husband's success are entitled.
> 
> If my wife finds sudden success and gets $1,000,000 I'm not going to take claim to it. That's just wrong and unethical and unmoral. Maybe I had some part in it by supporting her but she earned it. There are way too many leeches on this planet.


If I suddenly came into money I would automatically consider it joint money because I am married. Because when we married we became one. Everything shared. Everything in common. Any money coming in is ours, not mine or his.


----------



## harperlee

Numb26 said "Yeah well, I wasn't interested in having a wife in federal prison, so I divorced her. Lot's of laughing emoji's GTFOH"

Dude, you picked her.


----------



## Numb26

harperlee said:


> Numb26 said "Yeah well, I wasn't interested in having a wife in federal prison, so I divorced her. Lot's of laughing emoji's GTFOH"
> 
> Dude, you picked her.


True but I dumped her quick and left her to rot in prison. And I took the kids, the money and the business. You tell me who won.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> This is why so many men are raked over the coals compared to women. When a man builds or earns something it's theirs but when a woman earns or builds something it's hers. The system is very sexist. The women on her who belive they are owed a piece of their husband's success are entitled.
> 
> If my wife finds sudden success and gets $1,000,000 I'm not going to take claim to it. That's just wrong and unethical and unmoral. Maybe I had some part in it by supporting her but she earned it. There are way too many leeches on this planet.


So when I get a huge bonus from work it should be all mine? That seems like an awfully adversarial marriage. My windfall is her windfall and vice versa. My first thought when that happens is what are WE going to do with the money. Are you really saying that if you bought a lotto ticket that happened to win you would just keep it all for yourself? That makes you sound like a selfish jackass. That doesn't sound like a marriage, you're more like a FWB. 

And I think you may have just classified your wife as a potential leach, or maybe yourself


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> That goes along with the logic some men have when their wives cheat on them. "Ohh, I don't blame her, it was my fault."


How so.


----------



## harperlee

I hope the kids won Numb if it's about winning.


----------



## thunderchad

Diana7 said:


> In marriage all that is done is contributing to that marriage whether paid work or unpaid work. Bringing up children and running the home is a very valuable job. Hard work and a 24/7 job.


What if both spouses split this work?


----------



## Numb26

harperlee said:


> I hope the kids won Numb if it's about winning.


The kids won. Losing and ending up with their mother wasn't an option for them and they told the judge as much. 
It's always about winning,


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> What if both spouses split this work?


Great, both parents should be helping raise the kids as much as they can. 

Communism is a ridiculous comparison. This is a marriage. A romantic relationship between two people. Two people that often are raising kids together. You sound like you see them as just two business partners that can't really be trusted. Why are you even married, given this attitude?

Maybe in your marriage your wife did absolutely nothing to help you get to where you are and she deserves nothing, but I don't believe that is the norm.


----------



## DTO

Livvie said:


> Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


Here is the U.S., that's not always the case. Most states are equitable distribution, which roughly translates to what did each partner contribute.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> Communism is a ridiculous comparison. This is a marriage. A romantic relationship between two people. Two people that often are raising kids together. You sound like you see them as just two business partners that can't really be trusted. Why are you even married, given this attitude?


In the eyes of the government, marriage is essentially a business contract. 

But aside from that, I believe people should individually keep what they earn. I believe in self reliance and individualism. What I earn us mine and what my wife earns is hers. That's the fairest deal anyone can possibly have.


----------



## DTO

thunderchad said:


> Livvie, let's say you work hard and make good money. You saved up and bought yourself a house, a nice car, and have a good retirement savings. Now you marry a guy, and he seems nice, but in a few years you divorce. Do you think is fair to give his guy half your savings, half your car, and half your house?


If you buy the house and car, and have the savings before you marry, then that property (at least the market value of it at marriage) is yours separately and not subject to splitting it unless you turn it into martial property (by, say, selling your house and buying another in both your names).


----------



## DTO

Diana7 said:


> That's why you have to be very careful who you marry. Find someone with integrity and a great sense of fairness and you should be ok.


Ideally that would be so. But realistically, when you're looking at divorce and a lifestyle cut, money makes people do funny things. You're now an individual and not a family; there is a ton of incentive to secure your future at the expense of your STBX. Divorce is not a zero-sum game - both lose financially; it's logical to at least be tempted to minimize your personal loss.


----------



## Red Sonja

thunderchad said:


> You must believe in communism or something because no person is entitled to the fruits of another person's labor.


Okay, now you're being ridiculous. Communism is a political system, marriage is a *legal* *contract* between two people. If you don't like the form of the contract then don't sign it, don't get married and make your own contractual arrangement with your partner of choice.

And please don't call your children communists because they *are* entitled (morally and legally) to the fruits of your labor.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Red Sonja said:


> Okay, now you're being ridiculous. Communism is a political system, marriage is a *legal* *contract* between two people. If you don't like the form of the contract then don't sign it, don't get married and make your own contractual arrangement with your partner of choice.
> 
> And please don't call your children communists because they *are* entitled (morally and legally) to the fruits of your labor.


Part of what it means to be a man is providing for your family. I see this mine is mine and hers is her mentality to be a boyish mentality. I always get the not quite a man vibe from some red pill dudes.


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> So when I get a huge bonus from work it should be all mine? That seems like an awfully adversarial marriage. My windfall is her windfall and vice versa. My first thought when that happens is what are WE going to do with the money. Are you really saying that if you bought a lotto ticket that happened to win you would just keep it all for yourself? That makes you sound like a selfish jackass. That doesn't sound like a marriage, you're more like a FWB.
> 
> And I think you may have just classified your wife as a potential leach, or maybe yourself


Agreed. We have both had smallish inheritances since we married 16 years ago. Like you we both saw them as ours and the money was used for joint things, such as work that needed doing on the house. It was never once thought of as mine or his. That's just not in our heads. Why bother getting married if you are still going to have the mindset of keeping things seperate, keeping money separate, of things being his/hers or mine. 
I have come to the conclusion that how we see marriage determines what we feel about money, earnings, inheritances etc. Also whether we get a prenup. 
If we see marriage as two people being one, sharing everything and both being equally important then they will never be a yours or mine. It's all ours.


----------



## thunderchad

DTO said:


> If you buy the house and car, and have the savings before you marry, then that property (at least the market value of it at marriage) is yours separately and not subject to splitting it unless you turn it into martial property (by, say, selling your house and buying another in both your names).


There are some states and countries where the moment you get married everything becomes marital property


----------



## Diana7

DTO said:


> Ideally that would be so. But realistically, when you're looking at divorce and a lifestyle cut, money makes people do funny things. You're now an individual and not a family; there is a ton of incentive to secure your future at the expense of your STBX. Divorce is not a zero-sum game - both lose financially; it's logical to at least be tempted to minimize your personal loss.


Yes it's a temptation. I guess I was bought up by parents who treated my brother and I with absolute fairness and that got instilled into us so much so that it's not in me to not be fair and reasonable in situations. 

Maybe it's fear that often drives people into acting like idiots. Fear of loosing money, prestige, social standing, possessions etc. 

These are things that don't worry me so maybe I am lucky.


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> There are some states and countries where the moment you get married everything becomes marital property


Thats how I see marriage. Whatever each has becomes ours.


----------



## DTO

Livvie said:


> Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


I agree in principal on splitting marital assets, but I don't think it's that simple in practice. How the law works vs what we consider fair may not line up. See the examples below.

Ex 1: I am divorced now and own a nice home; I don't intend to move. If I remarry it's likely she'll move in with me and help with utilities and food. So, let's say she Venmos her share. Then, we divorce and she claims a share of the house. "No, that wasn't money for expenses - I bought groceries and other stuff so we're even on that. That money was to help with the new roof because you were strapped." So now I have to litigate or pay up because she exploited a loophole.

Ex 2: I am lucky to have a job that provides a generous pension; I plan to put in 20 years and retire. After retirement, my wife of 10 years files for divorce and gets 25% of my pension. In CA, the law says that since we were married 10 years of the 20 years I worked at this job, 1/2 the pension is community property. Her share is 1/2 of that 1/2. That would be $2k per month for literally nothing. I already have the job and 80% of the contribution come straight from my employer, so it's not like we're sacrificing joint assets to generate that income.

While I'm confident I could build another career and take care of myself later in life (I've done it twice already), I'm simply too old to do it and have a good quality life without working until my 70s. So, I'm going to make sure I don't encounter the above scenarios if I remarry and get a prenup. The right woman will have her own so that separate assets are not an issue, or she will appreciate the opportunity to save for herself (you can save good money with just an average job if you don't have to run your own household).


----------



## DTO

Diana7 said:


> Maybe it's fear that often drives people into acting like idiots. Fear of loosing money, prestige, social standing, possessions etc.


I think that's exactly what it is. I'm not cynical enough to think tons of people are out to screw over their partners. But facing being single again can be daunting, particularly as support isn't perpetual and at some point you'll have to do it all alone.


----------



## DTO

thunderchad said:


> Except in Louisiana, Arizona, California, Texas, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.


That's not true. All states pretty much treat assets acquired prior to marriage in the same manner.


----------



## DTO

thunderchad said:


> They should definitely get something but I don't think it should be 50/50 and it should be reasonable.
> 
> If a guy builds a $10 billion business doing 100% of the work should his wife be entitled to $5 billion for raising the kids?


Like Mackenzie Scott getting 25% of Bezo's Amazon stock?


----------



## DTO

Married but Happy said:


> Some people in some jurisdictions should have a pre- or post-nup, but most don't really really need one IMO unless there are particular circumstances, such as a pre-existing family business or a huge disparity in initial assets.


I'm not sure what makes up a huge disparity in assets. But what if I have a good job and don't want to pay spousal support or cough up a huge chunk of my retirement? I'll note that I do not need nor want a stay at home wife, so there's no reason for her to be dependent on me.


----------



## DTO

Diana7 said:


> If I had millions or billions I would have no problems with sharing it. There is only so much money you need.


What about managing a non-public business? If you have 50% and your spouse has 50%, how do you run a business with that type of relationship. You probably don't have enough cash for one to buy out the other. Do you sell and start over? Do you have the business borrow the money to buy back one spouse's interest and then potentially hobble it? Sell a stake to outsiders and create another headache?


----------



## DTO

Kaliber said:


> I have a prenup, it's a must for every man!
> Of course women hate it!


I don't look at it that way. It's about being comfortable living with what I can provide for myself. If I remarry and she makes / has less, I'm happy to share what I have while we're married - I just don't want to be compelled to pay from what I already had (be it assets or earning power from my career) after the marriage ends. But at the same time, if I remarry someone substantially better off than me, I'll expect her to share with me while we're together, but I don't want anything if we don't last. I'll go back to doing things the way I used to and be content.


----------



## DTO

Diana7 said:


> It's like saying that I care so little about you I will make sure that if we divorce you aren't going to get much. I will be fine but you won't. Pretty selfish.


I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm sure I'm not the only guy who would say "I'll take care of everything but the extra expenses of you being here; save your earnings and build up a nest egg for yourself".


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> Assets that were owned prior to marriage are sole property of the holder. They are not marital property.
> 
> Now some people mix sole property with marital property and then it gets confusing. It's often hard to prove what part of an asset is sole property when mixed.
> 
> Today, 50% of women earn as much or more than their husbands. Division of assets is an issue of concern for both men and women if there is a divorce.


Very true. I really don't know why some guys come up here and say the men always get screwed.


----------



## DTO

Diana7 said:


> That's how I see marriage. 'With all my wordly goods I thee endow'. Sharing everything.


Sorry, but honestly I'm more interested in making sure my kids are taken care of. I'm confident that most people who already have kids feel the same. 

To clarify, I am perfectly willing to share what we make during the relationship. I'm NOT inclined to share what I had before getting with a lady, and I'm not interested in anything she had before we got together either.


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> The good retirement savings is sole and separate property. Just keep very good records at all times taht shows the value of the retirement savings at the date of the marriage. The spouse is only entitled to half the increase in retirement from the date of marriage. She is also entitled to half of his retirement savings that was earned during the marriage.
> 
> The amount of home equity that she held prior to the date of marriage can be recorded with good record keeping. Pre-marriage equity is her sole property. All equity from after the date of marriage is community property as it should be.


On this I think you'll face significant push-back. Why should I give a future spouse half of the equity my home accumulates when I had it long before we married.

Why should a second wife get half of the 401(k) and pension from a job I already had and career I already built prior to us meeting? She wasn't there during the lean years when I was getting my degrees, didn't help me pay the tuition.


----------



## DTO

Livvie said:


> Their money and everything they buy during the marriage is their separate property? Way to have to keep everything separate and nickel and dime a spouse. "Well I'm buying a boat, we've been married for 20 years, but it's not really yours, it's just mine".


For me, it's split what we accumulate together during the marriage is split. If we buy a home together, that gets split. We build a joint investment account, that gets split. This is regardless of income.

It's digging into the assets and job I had before we got together that irks me.


----------



## DTO

BigDaddyNY said:


> Haven't read past the first page yet, but I'll throw in my two cents. I'm coming from the point of view that we really had nothing prior to getting married. We both owned our own POS cars, that was it. We were only 18 & 21. My wife followed me everywhere I was assigned in the Army. It made it hard for her to stay employed, but she always found some job to contribute. She worked at the PX for the year I was in training. She got a seasonal job at the post office while we were in Korea and she volunteered at the Red Cross. She got a steady job once we settled into one place for more than a year, but she quit after 5 years or so to be a stay at home mom and took care of all of us for about 10 years. Once the kids were old enough, she started working again. As a result of all that it allowed me to focus on my career, buy our house and have a sizable retirement fund. She is lucky if she makes 1/8 what I do. That last part is irrelevant to me. After 32 years I don't ever see us getting divorced, but if we did she has more than earned her half of the family wealth. Over course I would be upset about the split and I would be totally pissed if it involved infidelity, but regardless, everything we have accumulated is OURS. I can't imagine going to her now for a post-nup to split things more closely along income lines.


Given the circumstances I agree with you 100%. I think where some people get annoyed are situations like mine. My ex had a full-time job but never really developed her career so her earnings plateaued fairly early. And because there was a big earnings gap, I wound up paying the bills and maintaining myself, while she just worried about herself. But nonetheless, because she did work full time she wasn't home all day to keep home. In fact I worked more hours than her and still did more than 50% for home / family.

So, I had all the responsibilities of being the sole provider with none of the benefits. I'm over it because I've done very well at rebuilding my life. But some people in this situation don't recover and I don't blame them for being pissed off.


----------



## DTO

DownByTheRiver said:


> So your kids don't have to say, "He's the baby daddy"?


LOL!! Right! Seriously though providing stability for raising a family is a terrific reason to get married.


----------



## EleGirl

DTO said:


> On this I think you'll face significant push-back. Why should I give a future spouse half of the equity my home accumulates when I had it long before we married.


Let's say I have a house that's worth $200,000 with $100,000 equity. I marry then 15 years down the road we divorce. The house is now worth $500,000 and equity is $350,000. In the divorce I get to keep the $100,000 pre-marriage equity as my sole/separate property. We then split the $250,000 additional equity 50/50. Why? Because through the 15 years of marriage we used the house as our home. We both used community income to pay for the mortgage, insurance, property taxes, improvements, and maintenance.

Now on the other hand if we lived in another home and we both bought, maintained, etc. that home. And then the home I owned pre-marriage was kept as sole property.... maybe rented out and all payments, maintenance, etc. was done using income and/or other separate resources, then that home is sole property. This is a different situation.


----------



## EleGirl

DTO said:


> Why should a second wife get half of the 401(k) and pension from a job I already had and career I already built prior to us meeting? She wasn't there during the lean years when I was getting my degrees, didn't help me pay the tuition.


Ugh, I guess I did not make this clear. 

A spouse only gets 50% of the 401K that was accured during the marriage.

You have 200,000 in your 401K.
You marry and divorce after 15 years.
In the 15 years you have grown your 401K by 100,000. In the divorce you and your wife split the $100,000 50/50 as it's a marital asset. Your wife has not right to any of the $200,000 that was in the 401K before you married. 

You also have 50% claim to anything she accrued in her 401K during the marriage.


----------



## DTO

Livvie said:


> Are you in the US?
> 
> In the US premarital assets are recognized as such. I doubt your average Joe and Jane have a million in assets at the time of marriage.


You're probably right, but some of us do. That's precisely why I'll have a prenup if I ever do get married again.


----------



## EleGirl

DTO said:


> For me, it's split what we accumulate together during the marriage is split. If we buy a home together, that gets split. We build a joint investment account, that gets split. This is regardless of income.
> 
> It's digging into the assets and job I had before we got together that irks me.


In community property states, the assets you had before marriage is yours as long as you don't mingle them with community assets. 

For example, if you inherit $500,000 keep it in a separate account in your name only. Never, ever put your spouse's name on the account and never deposit any community income into that account.


----------



## EleGirl

DTO said:


> You're probably right, but some of us do. That's precisely why I'll have a prenup if I ever do get married again.


There are a few situations that I think it's wise to have a prenup. One is if you do have separate property from prior to the marriage a pre-nup will make their status very clear. 

The other is if a person has children from before the marriage and wants to make sure that the children inherit them is they were to pass away.


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> Let's say I have a house that's worth $200,000 with $100,000 equity. I marry then 15 years down the road we divorce. The house is now worth $500,000 and equity is $350,000. In the divorce I get to keep the $100,000 pre-marriage equity as my sole/separate property. We then split the $250,000 additional equity 50/50. Why? Because through the 15 years of marriage we used the house as our home. We both used community income to pay for the mortgage, insurance, property taxes, improvements, and maintenance.


Okay, I see where you're going with this. But let's try this. My house is worth $725k and I owe $225k so that's $500k in equity; I've been here 20+ years. My mortgage is very low; 50% of the mortgage (including taxes and interest) and maintenance wouldn't even rent a studio 1/4 the size at market rates. She's saving cash just by being here. Now 15 years go by and the house is worth $1 million. The home is paid off so equity has doubled.

If the same laws applied here, I'd be on the hook for $250k - that's simply unfair. If she took the money saved from reduced living expenses and invested it at a modest 5%, she'd have $65k saved up. If I had to cash her out I'd owe $1,500 per month for the rest of my life when she was better off all along.

If that's not convincing, what about if I paid all the household expenses because there was a income discrepancy? Would you still feel I should cut someone in for half?


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> There are a few situations that I think it's wise to have a prenup. One is if you do have separate property from prior to the marriage a pre-nup will make their status very clear.
> 
> The other is if a person has children from before the marriage and wants to make sure that the children inherit them is they were to pass away.


This is exactly what I'm facing. And just to be clear, I don't plan on leaving any future spouse high and dry. I'd gladly make her the recipient of my death benefits and the successor on my pension. I wanted to make that clear so I'm not dismissed as a selfish turd.

I want to be sure (1) I can live well while I'm alive and (2) my kid gets the family home and the separate assets I have left. Ultimately, the goal is to generate wealth for future generations. I'll leave a nice chunk. Hopefully, my daughter's stewardship would mean her progeny get a head start in life and she'd keep it going. Or if she has difficulties in her life then the money would ensure her family's well-being. Etc.

Not to be pessimistic, but we're increasingly a world of haves and have-nots. Unless you start making good money and buying assets early-on, you're falling behind economically. I don't make the rules - just trying to stack the odds in my kid's and potential grandkids' favor as best I can.


----------



## EleGirl

DTO said:


> Okay, I see where you're going with this. But let's try this. My house is worth $725k and I owe $225k so that's $500k in equity; I've been here 20+ years. My mortgage is very low; 50% of the mortgage (including taxes and interest) and maintenance wouldn't even rent a studio 1/4 the size at market rates. She's saving cash just by being here. Now 15 years go by and the house is worth $1 million. The home is paid off so equity has doubled.
> 
> If the same laws applied here, I'd be on the hook for $250k - that's simply unfair. If she took the savings and invested it at a modest 5%, she'd have $65k saved up. If I had to cash her out I'd owe $1,500 per month for the rest of my life when she was better off all along.
> 
> If that's not convincing enough, what about if I paid all the household expenses because there was a income discrepancy? Would you still feel I should cut someone in for half?


I'd say work out a prenup. You would probably have to pay all the payments, tax, maintenance, etc. She can live there free. 

Or find a woman who is in the same economic strata you are in if this all bothers you.


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> Ugh, I guess I did not make this clear.
> 
> A spouse only gets 50% of the 401K that was accured during the marriage.
> 
> You have 200,000 in your 401K.
> You marry and divorce after 15 years.
> In the 15 years you have grown your 401K by 100,000. In the divorce you and your wife split the $100,000 50/50 as it's a marital asset. Your wife has not right to any of the $200,000 that was in the 401K before you married.
> 
> You also have 50% claim to anything she accrued in her 401K during the marriage.


No, I do get where you're going with this. Like I said, I'm not opposed to sharing what I make during a marriage. But I'm at the point where the increase in my 401(k) is likely to be much more from growth of what I already have invested and less on what I put in from this point forward. If I have to treat it all as one lump sum, I'm giving up much more than if I could theoretically start a new 401(k) account at marriage and split only that balance. So in your example, lets say I have $200k in my 401(k) when I get married and account for the money I contribute to my 401(k) after the wedding separately. If I have $300k total in 15 years, it's likely that the original account has $250k (just from sitting untouched) and the new account has $50k. If I give her $50k then I've basically given her the whole 401(k) balance attributable to the time I worked while we were together.

I'm not sure I'm explaining it as clearly as possible, but hopefully that helps a little. Again, it's not being cheap / stingy. It's recognizing that I'm not at an age where I can make that up easily if at all.


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> I'd say work out a prenup. You would probably have to pay all the payments, tax, maintenance, etc. She can live there free.
> 
> Or find a woman who is in the same economic strata you are in if this all bothers you.


Yes. Obviously the second option would be ideal LOL. I'm not a baller by any means, but the demographic data paints a picture of where most people are simply because so many struggle just to be comfortable.

The first option is my ex-GF and I did while we cohabbed. I took care of the house 100%; she did met personal needs and put away money. We had other problems but this part was fine; she felt fortunate to have someone step up and take care of her. I'm confident she's not alone in that sentiment and if someone isn't good with that, then I'll keep moving along.


----------



## EleGirl

DTO said:


> No, I do get where you're going with this. Like I said, I'm not opposed to sharing what I make during a marriage. But I'm at the point where the increase in my 401(k) is likely to be much more from growth of what I already have invested and less on what I put in from this point forward. If I have to treat it all as one lump sum, I'm giving up much more than if I could theoretically start a new 401(k) account at marriage and split only that balance. So in your example, lets say I have $200k in my 401(k) when I get married and account for the money I contribute to my 401(k) after the wedding separately. If I have $300k total in 15 years, it's likely that the original account has $250k (just from sitting untouched) and the new account has $50k. If I give her $50k then I've basically given her the whole 401(k) balance attributable to the time I worked while we were together.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm explaining it as clearly as possible, but hopefully that helps a little. Again, it's not being cheap / stingy. It's recognizing that I'm not at an age where I can make that up easily if at all.


The idea of starting a new 401K if you can is a good one.

I do think there's a difference in how to handle all this for a young couple starting out with very little and an older couple more complex separate assets.


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> I do think there's a difference in how to handle all this for a young couple starting out with very little and an older couple more complex separate assets.


Absolutely on point.


----------



## Diana7

DTO said:


> Sorry, but honestly I'm more interested in making sure my kids are taken care of. I'm confident that most people who already have kids feel the same.
> 
> To clarify, I am perfectly willing to share what we make during the relationship. I'm NOT inclined to share what I had before getting with a lady, and I'm not interested in anything she had before we got together either.


Thats why we have wills.


----------



## Diana7

EleGirl said:


> There are a few situations that I think it's wise to have a prenup. One is if you do have separate property from prior to the marriage a pre-nup will make their status very clear.
> 
> The other is if a person has children from before the marriage and wants to make sure that the children inherit them is they were to pass away.


That's why you need a will.


----------



## MarmiteC

hamadryad said:


> And admittedly, I believe now that some women are making more money, there will be some equity, but I don't even know there....There is an undercurrent where when it comes to money, no matter what one or the other makes,_ his money is* their *money, while her money is *her* money_....Seen it a million times...And it's why guys that have money normally don't complain much about the women they are with making less than them, when women make money, they still want the guy to make more, so she isn't having to reach into her pocket for him....


I think the world is changing here. I am female and was the main earner and yet my XH had a good job. I had significantly more disposable income and in addition he had less to contribute towards the marital budget as he was paying child maintenance for his son from his former marriage. As a result I paid significantly more of the marital bills. I also bore all the costs of our separation, maintaining my contribution to the marital bills and covering the cost of rent for me.
We were married 6 years. He remained in the marital home and bought me out for what he could afford whilst still being able to live, no where near it's worth. We gained alot of equity in that time due to my overpayments in the mortgage and improvements made with inheritance I received during the marriage. Settlement of the financials was paid from a sizeable financial gift received from his parents before our divorce. So in my case I feel "_her money is* their *money, while his money is *his* money"._

We didn't have children of our own, but I do pay monthly cat maintenance. (Another story for another day.)

And I just realised I'm still paying the window cleaner bills on that home I haven't owned for months 🙈


----------



## m.t.t

Livvie said:


> Are you in the US?
> 
> In the US premarital assets are recognized as such.
> 
> I doubt your average Joe and Jane have a million in assets at the time of marriage.


No Australia. I have over I million in assets. My partner has very little compared to me. No property, they rent.They have a very well paying job. I do not.


----------



## hamadryad

MarmiteC said:


> I think the world is changing here. I am female and was the main earner and yet my XH had a good job. I had significantly more disposable income and in addition he had less to contribute towards the marital budget as he was paying child maintenance for his son from his former marriage. As a result I paid significantly more of the marital bills. I also bore all the costs of our separation, maintaining my contribution to the marital bills and covering the cost of rent for me.
> We were married 6 years. He remained in the marital home and bought me out for what he could afford whilst still being able to live, no where near it's worth. We gained alot of equity in that time due to my overpayments in the mortgage and improvements made with inheritance I received during the marriage. Settlement of the financials was paid from a sizeable financial gift received from his parents before our divorce. So in my case I feel "_her money is* their *money, while his money is *his* money"._
> 
> We didn't have children of our own, but I do pay monthly cat maintenance. (Another story for another day.)
> 
> And I just realised I'm still paying the window cleaner bills on that home I haven't owned for months 🙈


No disrespect but anyone can provide some anecdotal experiences and that's all well and good. But it doesn't change the fact that historically and particularly the guys from my generation have taken in the shorts from ridiculous alimony judgments. Heck the law in this state only changed recently to limit the age where you no longer have to pay it. No one should be taking care of another person for life unless the circumstances were very unique. 

Bottom line is on second or subsequent marriages it should be "whatever is your is yours and whatever is mine is mine" In those later couplings its highly unlikely you would be building any kind of legacy or anything anyway.


----------



## DownButNotOut

MarmiteC said:


> So in my case I feel "_her money is* their *money, while his money is *his* money"._
> 
> We didn't have children of our own, but I do pay monthly cat maintenance. (Another story for another day.)
> 
> And I just realised I'm still paying the window cleaner bills on that home I haven't owned for months 🙈


Welcome to the male experience.

But really, it sounded like his money still wasn't his money, it was his first wife's money.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Diana7 said:


> That's why you need a will.


You can only will what is yours. The prenup helps clarify what actually is yours.


----------



## Rus47

DTO said:


> I think that's exactly what it is. I'm not cynical enough to think tons of people are out to screw over their partners.


The STBXW may not be out to screw over the BH at the beginning, but by listening to their AP and their Attorney (who have a vested interest in facilitating a screwing of the BH), their attitude quickly hardens as they are told it isn't their fault because the husband wasn't emotionally there for them, didn't treat them right, was no good in bed, whatever. Read lot of threads about infidelity, and also experience of half-dozen friends and relatives. Guess I am cynical, most people have no problem screwing if money is involved.


----------



## Diana7

hamadryad said:


> No disrespect but anyone can provide some anecdotal experiences and that's all well and good. But it doesn't change the fact that historically and particularly the guys from my generation have taken in the shorts from ridiculous alimony judgments. Heck the law in this state only changed recently to limit the age where you no longer have to pay it. No one should be taking care of another person for life unless the circumstances were very unique.
> 
> Bottom line is on second or subsequent marriages it should be "whatever is your is yours and whatever is mine is mine" In those later couplings its highly unlikely you would be building any kind of legacy or anything anyway.


Well many disagree. For us that isn't marriage.


----------



## Diana7

DownButNotOut said:


> You can only will what is yours. The prenup helps clarify what actually is yours.


If a house or business is in one spouses name then you can will it to who you like. It can be a home for both if you but still be kept in one person's name.


----------



## LisaDiane

DTO said:


> You're probably right, but some of us do. That's precisely why I'll have a prenup if I ever do get married again.


Why even marry again, though, if it's that complicated and possibly financially devastating?
Plus, pre-nups aren't ironclad protection...the best protection for your assets is to not marry, apparently.


----------



## Rus47

Except an attorney who used to post on this forum said not marrying was no protection against. He stated that just dating had in one case he knew of resulted in asset loss


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> Why even marry again, though, if it's that complicated and possibly financially devastating?
> Plus, pre-nups aren't ironclad protection...the best protection for your assets is to not marry, apparently.


I won't marry again


----------



## DownButNotOut

Diana7 said:


> If a house or business is in one spouses name then you can will it to who you like. It can be a home for both if you but still be kept in one person's name.


Seems like that's saying if a house or business is in one spouses name then they can keep it in divorce. I don't think it works that way. The surviving spouse has at least as much right to their share of the estate as they would in divorce.


----------



## Numb26

DownButNotOut said:


> Seems like that's saying if a house or business is in one spouses name then they can keep it in divorce. I don't think it works that way. The surviving spouse has at least as much right to their share of the estate as they would in divorce.


If the house was bought before the marriage then the other spouse cannot lay claim to it. At least that is how the law states where I got the divorce.


----------



## DTO

LisaDiane said:


> Why even marry again, though, if it's that complicated and possibly financially devastating?
> Plus, pre-nups aren't ironclad protection...the best protection for your assets is to not marry, apparently.


It's mainly the emotional aspect. But it would be nice to provide the financial benefits unavailable to non-spouses.

Overall yes being unmarried doesn't mean a less committed or less loving relationship. I may indeed never marry again. Time will tell.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Numb26 said:


> If the house was bought before the marriage then the other spouse cannot lay claim to it. At least that is how the law states where I got the divorce.


Sure. Unless there was a mortgage, or home improvement loan, or other events that would co-mingle marital and pre-marital assets. Likewise with a business. And it is certainly not enough to just have only one spouse on the title. A lot of the co-mingling issues can be settled with the prenup.


----------



## DownButNotOut

What I'm saying is if a spouse is entitled to a portion of the marital estate in a divorce, you can't just sidestep that in a will.


----------



## MarmiteC

hamadryad said:


> But it doesn't change the fact that historically and particularly the guys from my generation have taken in the shorts from ridiculous alimony judgments.


Maybe, it's why I opened my post with "the world is changing".

Regardless, I won't let this experience stop me from entering whole heartedly and financially again if that's what my future holds for me. I have no children and I can't take it with me.


----------



## Diana7

LisaDiane said:


> Why even marry again, though, if it's that complicated and possibly financially devastating?
> Plus, pre-nups aren't ironclad protection...the best protection for your assets is to not marry, apparently.


Must admit if I was that concerned about loosing money and assets I would just stay single.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> There are some states and countries where the moment you get married everything becomes marital property


You keep saying this, but it isn't true. I don't know about other countries, but every state in the US has provisions for recognizing premarital assets. The list of states you provided earlier are community property states. That only means that everything acquired DURING the marriage is marital property. You just can't play your mine is mine, hers is hers game. That is all. If you owned a house or business or whatever, prior to marriage AND your spouse doesn't not contribute to them during the marriage then they remain yours, period.


----------



## hamadryad

Diana7 said:


> *Must admit if I was that concerned about loosing money and assets I would just stay single.*


Lose= not win
Loose=not tight


People are like animals...Once abused they tend to not do whatever it is that caused them pain...Well, some I guess are just gluttons for punishment, so I guess they can get what they deserved...."Fool me once", as they say...


----------



## thunderchad

Laws is every state are different. Within those states different circuit courts and even judges can have different guidelines. At best, it is a gamble.

My state' law defaults to the presumption that all assets are martial property, including pre-marital assets and the default distribution is 50/50. The only pre-marital asset that is truly protected is inheritance, as long as it has not been comingled.

Now judges have a statutory power to deviate from this if they want to, but they don't HAVE to.

And as someone else pointed out, not being married has risks too. There was a recent case of a billionaire and his live in girlfriend of 18 years. She made a claim against the increase in value of his business. 

It went all the way to the state Supreme Court. They rejected her claims and basically said he had the business before you met, and anything you contributed to the business was more than outweigh by the lifestyle the man gave.

"Also, the majority found, any benefits Sands did confer to Menard or his businesses was more than offset by benefits she received as his girlfriend, including a new Ford Mustang, law school loan repayment and numerous trips to the Caribbean, London, Italy and around the U.S."


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> In the eyes of the government, marriage is essentially a business contract.
> 
> But aside from that, I believe people should individually keep what they earn. I believe in self reliance and individualism. What I earn us mine and what my wife earns is hers. That's the fairest deal anyone can possibly have.


I totally believe in individualism and self reliance. I want everyone to pull their own weight. Call me old fashioned, but when we got married we became one family unit. I and my wife gave up some of our individualism to be one team that works together to lift us both up and to provide for our children. We are still self reliant, together. I have no interest going through married life splitting mortgage payments, household bills, restaurant bills, etc. That is a roommate agreement, not a marriage in my view.


----------



## Diana7

hamadryad said:


> Lose= not win
> Loose=not tight
> 
> 
> People are like animals...Once abused they tend to not do whatever it is that caused them pain...Well, some I guess are just gluttons for punishment, so I guess they can get what they deserved...."Fool me once", as they say...


You may be right for many. 
I always wanted to marry again. Never regretted it. Never regretted not having a prenup either. 
I wouldn't date again if my husband died before me though. Not because of assets or money, but 2 marriages is enough for me. ☺


----------



## hamadryad

BigDaddyNY said:


> You keep saying this, but it isn't true. I don't know about other countries, but every state in the US has provisions for recognizing premarital assets. The list of states you provided earlier are community property states. That only means that everything acquired DURING the marriage is marital property. You just can't play your mine is mine, hers is hers game. T*hat is all. If you owned a house or business or whatever, prior to marriage AND your spouse doesn't not contribute to them during the marriage then they remain yours, period.*


The thing is, its easy to say "take whatever I have" when you are in a good/successful marriage...I think most guys go into it with the same principles...But as they say.."it's all good until it goes bad"...

And as to the bolded...

Why does it necessarily have to be "it's yours if you had it before and they didn't contribute, but it's ours when you had it after and didn't contribute"?

Does the piece of paper have that much power, because at the end of the day, that person didn't contribute..? I think that's the part of it that a lot of people get stuck on...I think the courts probably know that in a lot of these cases, it is pretty unfair, but don't have the time or resources to deal with it..

Just like let's say a person has a high paying but very stressful job...He gets divorced and now has to pay an alimony judgment for x years...Maybe that person is tired of working that job anymore and would rather deliver pizza so he doesn't have that stress....Nope....can't do that...


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> I totally believe in individualism and self reliance. I want everyone to pull their own weight. Call me old fashioned, but when we got married we became one family unit. I and my wife gave up some of our individualism to be one team that works together to lift us both up and to provide for our children. We are still self reliant, together. I have no interest going through married life splitting mortgage payments, household bills, restaurant bills, etc. That is a roommate agreement, not a marriage in my view.


It's like being a house mate not a spouse isn't it.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DTO said:


> I agree in principal on splitting marital assets, but I don't think it's that simple in practice. How the law works vs what we consider fair may not line up. See the examples below.
> 
> Ex 1: I am divorced now and own a nice home; I don't intend to move. If I remarry it's likely she'll move in with me and help with utilities and food. So, let's say she Venmos her share. Then, we divorce and she claims a share of the house. "No, that wasn't money for expenses - I bought groceries and other stuff so we're even on that. That money was to help with the new roof because you were strapped." So now I have to litigate or pay up because she exploited a loophole.
> 
> Ex 2: I am lucky to have a job that provides a generous pension; I plan to put in 20 years and retire. After retirement, my wife of 10 years files for divorce and gets 25% of my pension. In CA, the law says that since we were married 10 years of the 20 years I worked at this job, 1/2 the pension is community property. Her share is 1/2 of that 1/2. That would be $2k per month for literally nothing. I already have the job and 80% of the contribution come straight from my employer, so it's not like we're sacrificing joint assets to generate that income.
> 
> While I'm confident I could build another career and take care of myself later in life (I've done it twice already), I'm simply too old to do it and have a good quality life without working until my 70s. So, I'm going to make sure I don't encounter the above scenarios if I remarry and get a prenup. The right woman will have her own so that separate assets are not an issue, or she will appreciate the opportunity to save for herself (you can save good money with just an average job if you don't have to run your own household).


She is getting it for literally nothing? 10 years of marriage is nothing? 10 years of being a partner in life, I'm assuming doing their part to run the family, is nothing?

Others must have a significantly different view on what it means to be married than I do.


----------



## Diana7

Its like being a house


BigDaddyNY said:


> I totally believe in individualism and self reliance. I want everyone to pull their own weight. Call me old fashioned, but when we got married we became one family unit. I and my wife gave up some of our individualism to be one team that works together to lift us both up and to provide for our children. We are still self reliant, together. I have no interest going through married life splitting mortgage payments, household bills, restaurant bills, etc. That is a roommate agreement, not a marriage in my view.


Absolutely.


----------



## Livvie

thunderchad said:


> Not in every state or country and especially in mine. Also marital property can pierced very easily. I would know, it's my career.


Name the state that doesn't recognize pre marital property. 

It's my career, too.


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> She is getting it for literally nothing? 10 years of marriage is nothing? 10 years of being a partner in life, I'm assuming doing their part to run the family, is nothing?
> 
> Others must have a significantly different view on what it means to be married than I do.


I think that is the main
issue here. That we have very different ideas of what marriage is than many others.


----------



## thunderchad

Prenups should be thought of a little different. They are similar to a business buy/sell agreement for shareholders What you are saying is hey we are building this life together and sharing ourselves and everything we have, but in the event the marriage ends here's a predetermined exit plan.


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> I won't marry again


I'm not sure I see a point for it at my age. I want commitment and even living together probably...but even that is a risk for the higher earner. And I shudder at the idea of being any kind of financial burden to someone I love.

I'll have to only fall in love with a man of modest finances!!! Then we can have fun and be happy and not care about money!


----------



## thunderchad

The other thing to consider is that marriage and families areno longer what they used to be. A man and a woman who get married, have children, and stay together until death is exceedingly rare.

I look around and people in my age range and I see a lot of unmarried couples, single moms with a guy, divorced people, and blended families. In intact nuclear family seems to be the minority now, especially for people in their 20s and 30s.


----------



## LisaDiane

I wonder if Dads would agree that they shouldn't get 50/50 custody after a divorce if they didn't contribute equally to raising them. I mean, sure they helped pay for the household and stuff, but if they didn't spend an equal amount of TIME with their children, would it be fair for custody to be decided based on that?


----------



## hamadryad

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder if Dads would agree that they shouldn't get 50/50 custody after a divorce if they didn't contribute equally to raising them. I mean, sure they helped pay for the household and stuff, but if they didn't spend an equal amount of TIME with their children, would it be fair for custody to be decided based on that?



Well....someone unfortunately had to work(hard), to pay for everything...the shore house, the fun and games, etc..

So then kick him in the teeth further by denying access, because he was out killing himself _for them?_?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

hamadryad said:


> The thing is, its easy to say "take whatever I have" when you are in a good/successful marriage...I think most guys go into it with the same principles...But as they say.."it's all good until it goes bad"...
> 
> And as to the bolded...
> 
> Why does it necessarily have to be "it's yours if you had it before and they didn't contribute, but it's ours when you had it after and didn't contribute"?
> 
> Does the piece of paper have that much power, because at the end of the day, that person didn't contribute..? I think that's the part of it that a lot of people get stuck on...I think the courts probably know that in a lot of these cases, it is pretty unfair, but don't have the time or resources to deal with it..
> 
> Just like let's say a person has a high paying but very stressful job...He gets divorced and now has to pay an alimony judgment for x years...Maybe that person is tired of working that job anymore and would rather deliver pizza so he doesn't have that stress....Nope....can't do that...


I've heard it said that if both parties in a divorce aren't happy with the split of assets then it was probably as fair as it possibly could be. Divorce is usually going to be ugly even in one that is quite amicable. 

I guess I have a problem with the didn't contribute part. What exactly does that mean. I could easily work out the numbers to show that my wife's earning never went to our mortgage. Does that mean she didn't contribute? If you're married and living in a house then I feel you both have rights to the value of that house, even if one had it prior and even if one was the primary financial contributor. 

If it is, lets say a separate home or apartment building that was owned prior to marriage and the couple never lives in it, then that should remain individual property, if that is what the couple decides. That type of case is a good candidate for a prenup. I still fundamentally think that marriage is an all-in thing. If you are so worried that your spouse may get something out of you during divorce then maybe you should seriously reconsider getting married in the first place.


----------



## LisaDiane

hamadryad said:


> Well....someone unfortunately had to work(hard), to pay for everything...the shore house, the fun and games, etc..
> 
> So then kick him in the teeth further by denying access, because he was out killing himself _for them?_?


NO...I am just saying in principle, based on the standards being laid out here. Should the same be applied to child rearing that is being applied to finances?

He can't be at home with the kids as much, because he's working and making money to provide financially. 
And she can't be out working to increase her financial status, because she is home taking care of the kids.

One is being considered differently than the other. WHY?


----------



## LisaDiane

hamadryad said:


> Well....someone unfortunately had to work(hard), to pay for everything...the shore house, the fun and games, etc..
> 
> So then kick him in the teeth further by denying access, because he was out killing himself _for them?_?


And your argument can be applied the same to his money -- someone unfortunately had to be home taking care of (endlessly) the children.

So then kick her in the teeth financially by denying her access to his earnings, because she was home exhausting herself every day _for them??_


----------



## thunderchad

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder if Dads would agree that they shouldn't get 50/50 custody after a divorce if they didn't contribute equally to raising them. I mean, sure they helped pay for the household and stuff, but if they didn't spend an equal amount of TIME with their children, would it be fair for custody to be decided based on that?


This is pretty much the case already. The court historically have been better to the moms than the dads. I don't know of a single dad who has more time with his kids than the mom but I know tons of moms that have more time than the dads.

I'm sure someone will chime in about how they know a dad who has more custody than the mom but the point is, in general, moms have more custody time than dads.


----------



## LisaDiane

thunderchad said:


> This is pretty much the case already. The court historically have been better to the moms than the dads. I don't know of a single dad who has more time with his kids than the mom but I know tons of moms that have more time than the dads.
> 
> I'm sure someone will chime in about how they know a dad who has more custody than the mom but the point is, in general, moms have more custody time than dads.


That's NOT what I asked...I asked if you thought it was fair and the right way to consider who gets custody and visitation.


----------



## thunderchad

They already do consider those factors when determining child placement.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> They already do consider those factors when determining child placement.


You still haven't answered. Do you think it is fair?


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> Prenups should be thought of a little different. They are similar to a business buy/sell agreement for shareholders What you are saying is hey we are building this life together and sharing ourselves and everything we have, but in the event the marriage ends here's a predetermined exit plan.


Marriage isnt a business. Its a joining of two people in a committed relationship. Everything becoming ours.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> You still haven't answered. Do you think it is fair?


I think mom's are better at raising kids than Dads, but kids need both a male and a female parent. I don't think the custody has to be equal. Here we have a legal test that says both parents should have "meaningful" time with both parents. If Dad works hard and is busier maybe that means he gets weekends only.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Prenups should be thought of a little different. They are similar to a business buy/sell agreement for shareholders What you are saying is hey we are building this life together and sharing ourselves and everything we have, but in the event the marriage ends here's a predetermined exit plan.


I'm sure that does make sense in some circumstances, but even in those cases it feels to me like you are expecting a divorce. I understand the horrible divorce rates and all that, but it seems like you may be setting up a self fulfilling prophesy. From the get go you are admitting that this union may not last. It could be argued that you are just being a realist, but I also think it plants the seed of doubt from before day 1 of the marriage. If you can't trust your future spouse with your assets, then should you really be getting married? I trust my wife with my life and the life of my children, why wouldn't I trust her with my assets?

Again, I agree that there are some circumstances where a prenup may make sense. Where it doesn't is with a young couple that are just starting out in life. 

And going back to the Bill Gates scenario. She was his partner in life and business for the vast majority the time he accumulated all that wealth. He also ended the marriage through infidelity. What, in your opinion, is she entitled to if not half the assets acquired during the marriage?


----------



## happyhusband0005

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder if Dads would agree that they shouldn't get 50/50 custody after a divorce if they didn't contribute equally to raising them. I mean, sure they helped pay for the household and stuff, but if they didn't spend an equal amount of TIME with their children, would it be fair for custody to be decided based on that?


It think that is fair logic. The sad thing is I think there are a lot of men who would make the keep more money for less custody of the kids trade.


----------



## MarmiteC

thunderchad said:


> This is pretty much the case already. The court historically have been better to the moms than the dads. I don't know of a single dad who has more time with his kids than the mom but I know tons of moms that have more time than the dads.
> 
> I'm sure someone will chime in about how they know a dad who has more custody than the mom but the point is, in general, moms have more custody time than dads.


I'll be the one to chime in. My bf has physical custody of his kids. Mom has them every other weekend for 2 nights.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> I think mom's are better at raising kids than Dads, but kids need both a male and a female parent. I don't think the custody has to be equal. Here we have a legal test that says both parents should have "meaningful" time with both parents. If Dad works hard and is busier maybe that means he gets weekends only.


Why don't you extend that same thought process to the assets accumulated during the marriage? That mom, that has the kids most of the time, isn't going to be able to work as hard as the dad that only has them on weekends. Should her financial status suffer because of that? That custody arrangement takes away her ability to focus on her career, while the man is free to do so. Very similar to when married and a SAHM, even if she is working part time. 

It is very unlikely that both spouses are going to provide equally in all aspects of a marriage. That just isn't the norm.


----------



## LisaDiane

MarmiteC said:


> I'll be the one to chime in. My bf has physical custody of his kids. Mom has them every other weekend for 2 nights.


Does she pay child support to him? She should.


----------



## MarmiteC

LisaDiane said:


> Does she pay child support to him? She should.


He declined it, but also on the basis she declined alimony. Net effect is a financial benefit to her, but he knew she couldn't afford it. He can manage and live ok.


----------



## hamadryad

LisaDiane said:


> And your argument can be applied the same to his money -- someone unfortunately had to be home taking care of (endlessly) the children.
> 
> So then kick her in the teeth financially by denying her access to his earnings, because she was home exhausting herself every day _for them??_



I don't think its necessarily fair to include kids in these discussions....Even in the most vicious of divorces, I have never heard any guy not want to provide for his kids, in fact most of the guys (rather than force a sale of the house) wind up letting the wife(that he may despise), live in the house with the kids, while he lives in the crappy apartment over the bakery..

Its more about what someone, who isn't even your blood and wasn't anything more than a face in the crowd before you met them, feels they are entitled to after a breakup...And I find it somewhat curious that while women are all about gender equality, seem to not want to touch these subjects/topics, that came about during a time when they had almost no options...Rather than say, "no problem, guys we don't need you", they are happy to play the game of the typical woman in the 40's that may have been left in the street after a divorce, if she didn't have family or couldn't find another guy to take her on..


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> And going back to the Bill Gates scenario. She was his partner in life and business for the vast majority the time he accumulated all that wealth. He also ended the marriage through infidelity. What, in your opinion, is she entitled to if not half the assets acquired during the marriage?


I would say she should get a house or two, money for retirement, and money to live out the rest of her life. That's probably in the millions or tens of millions but I disagree with the billions he had to fork over.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> Why don't you extend that same thought process to the assets accumulated during the marriage? That mom, that has the kids most of the time, isn't going to be able to work as hard as the dad that only has them on weekends. Should her financial status suffer because of that? That custody arrangement takes away her ability to focus on her career, while the man is free to do so. Very similar to when married and a SAHM, even if she is working part time.
> 
> It is very unlikely that both spouses are going to provide equally in all aspects of a marriage. That just isn't the norm.


Let me run this scenario by you:

Lets say there's a really nice guy who has a house, retirement, and nice business going for him. He meets a nice lady w/ 3 kids from another man. He marries her and she becomes a stay at home mom for her kids. He pays someone to do the cleaning and he does most of the cooking because she's a bad cook. Ten years down the road they divorce. Is she entitled to half of his assets or at least half of what he accumulated in those 10 years?


----------



## Diana7

thunderchad said:


> I would say she should get a house or two, money for retirement, and money to live out the rest of her life. That's probably in the millions or tens of millions but I disagree with the billions he had to fork over.


Either way he has so much money he doesn't know what to do with it. Thousands of people could live on what he gets so his wife having a good share will make no difference.


----------



## Cletus

thunderchad said:


> The other thing to consider is that marriage and families areno longer what they used to be. A man and a woman who get married, have children, and stay together until death is exceedingly rare.


It is estimated that ~40% of first marriages end in divorce. That means that the marriage that lasts for the full life of both partners is still, in fact, the most likely outcome. 70% of marriages entered into in the 1990's are still intact. 

If you're going to be taken seriously, you should stop playing so fast and loose with the fact.


----------



## Cletus

BigDaddyNY said:


> It is very unlikely that both spouses are going to provide equally in all aspects of a marriage. That just isn't the norm.


No, and it's childish in the extreme to think it likely or required.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> I would say she should get a house or two, money for retirement, and money to live out the rest of her life. That's probably in the millions or tens of millions but I disagree with the billions he had to fork over.


You are assuming that the success of Microsoft is solely his. You have no idea how much she contributed to the success of the company, or could have if she kept working there. Remember, all the way back in 87 when they met she was a Product Manager for Microsoft. You come off like she is just some leach taking his hard earned money. That simply isn't the truth, like a lot of what you keep saying. She kept working at Microsoft as a high level manager even when they were married in 94. She only quit in 96 when she left to start raising their children. Why does that mutual decision mean she forfeits her rights to her share of the family fortune?

At this point you don't actually know what she is getting, so I don't know why you keep saying he has forked over billions. They mutually agreed to a separation agreement and the details haven't been disclosed. I think her net worth is already north of $10B anyway, and I believe they transferred a large portion of their shared wealth into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She has specifically said she is donating the majority of her own wealth to the Foundation.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> Let me run this scenario by you:
> 
> Lets say there's a really nice guy who has a house, retirement, and nice business going for him. He meets a nice lady w/ 3 kids from another man. He marries her and she becomes a stay at home mom for her kids. He pays someone to do the cleaning and he does most of the cooking because she's a bad cook. Ten years down the road they divorce. Is she entitled to half of his assets or at least half of what he accumulated in those 10 years?


That is an extremely specific scenario. It is pretty ridiculous and unrealistic too. You basically set up a scenario where the wife comes off as a total freeloader. Why did they get married in the first place? The only thing you left for her to provide I guess is sex. 

I'll play along, but the answer depends on some details not known. I have to assume that they mutually agreed to her being a SAHM, because anything else would be a dysfunctional marriage from day one with the scenario you've provided. In that case I think she is entitled to any wealth accumulated during the marriage. Again, I'll say your scenario is utterly ridiculous. The man in your scenario basically hired a woman to provide sex and nothing else. He might as well just put her on the payroll rather than marry her.

You are reducing marriage to a simple business transaction and it isn't that simple. You can't break out a scale and weigh the contributions of each spouse. You are foolish to think everything will be always be equal in a marriage.


----------



## happyhusband0005

BigDaddyNY said:


> Again, I'll say your scenario is utterly ridiculous. The man in your scenario basically hired a woman to provide sex and nothing else. He might as well just put her on the payroll rather than marry her.


You have to realize that there is a group of men who view marriage essentially as you describe here.


----------



## Cletus

BigDaddyNY said:


> You are reducing marriage to a simple business transaction and it isn't that simple. You can't break out a scale and weigh the contributions of each spouse. You are foolish to think everything will be always be equal in a marriage.


This is a WAG, but I'd be willing to wager real money that OP is a libertarian.

I've been ever amused over 4 decades by the ability of people with that bent to reduce _everything _to an economic argument.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> That is an extremely specific scenario. It is pretty ridiculous and unrealistic too. You basically set up a scenario where the wife comes off as a total freeloader. Why did they get married in the first place? The only thing you left for her to provide I guess is sex.
> 
> I'll play along, but the answer depends on some details not known. I have to assume that they mutually agreed to her being a SAHM, because anything else would be a dysfunctional marriage from day one with the scenario you've provided. In that case I think she is entitled to any wealth accumulated during the marriage. Again, I'll say your scenario is utterly ridiculous. The man in your scenario basically hired a woman to provide sex and nothing else. He might as well just put her on the payroll rather than marry her.
> 
> You are reducing marriage to a simple business transaction and it isn't that simple. You can't break out a scale and weigh the contributions of each spouse. You are foolish to think everything will be always be equal in a marriage.


This is a real life situation I worked on. She ended up getting a bunch of $$ from the man and in my opinion she didn't deserve any. In fact, I think she should have reimbursed the man for all the money he put into raising kids that weren't his.

I wouldn't say she was a freeloader. That's the deal they made. He took care of her, which is fine, but I don't think that should have entitled her to any of his assets. She had already received significant benefit from being his wife.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

DTO said:


> Given the circumstances I agree with you 100%. I think where some people get annoyed are situations like mine. My ex had a full-time job but never really developed her career so her earnings plateaued fairly early. And because there was a big earnings gap, I wound up paying the bills and maintaining myself, while she just worried about herself. But nonetheless, because she did work full time she wasn't home all day to keep home. In fact I worked more hours than her and still did more than 50% for home / family.
> 
> So, I had all the responsibilities of being the sole provider with none of the benefits. I'm over it because I've done very well at rebuilding my life. But some people in this situation don't recover and I don't blame them for being pissed off.


Your situation sounds a lot like mine. We were a young couple with nothing when we started out. I got a degree, generously paid for by my parents, while my ex worked dead end minimum wage jobs. I got a good job, and my ex quit the dead end job and started a hobby-based business that never really took off but was much less stressful. I even inherited some money and we were able to buy a house. We had kids, and because of the nature of my job and my ex's self-employment, I did the bulk of the child raising. My ex worked long hours, and I did the bulk of the house work, too. ALL of this was done out of loving generosity and the belief that we were one entity, a partnership. THEN I found out my ex was cheating on me, and had been lying about how little money self-employment made and how much time it was taking, so that both could be diverted to that affair.

So upon divorce, my ex would benefit from half the house that my inheritance paid for, half the assets that my income paid for, and half the retirement my job provides, and I would pay support on top of that?? To someone who was clearly not treating the marriage like a partnership? Why should I be at all interested in being fair or equitable to the person who destroyed the marriage?

When we got married, divorce and a prenup was the farthest thing from my mind. Not even a possibility. I had no clue half my hard-earned stuff could go to a lying cheating ex. If a prenup had been required though, perhaps I would have understood better what I could have been getting into. I would still have done it, because I was young and naïve and trusting, but at least at the break-up stage it wouldn't have come as such an additional painful shock on top of everything else.

Times change. I believe it's time for the financial aspects of the marriage contract to change as well. Adults should be expected to be self-supporting, and if they team up in a domestic partnership, the benefits of that partnership should not last after its dissolution. If, with our discretionary income, I buy a fancy car and my ex travels a lot with friends, why do I have to give half the value of the car to my ex upon divorce?


----------



## thunderchad

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Your situation sounds a lot like mine. We were a young couple with nothing when we started out. I got a degree, generously paid for by my parents, while my ex worked dead end minimum wage jobs. I got a good job, and my ex quit the dead end job and started a hobby-based business that never really took off but was much less stressful. I even inherited some money and we were able to buy a house. We had kids, and because of the nature of my job and my ex's self-employment, I did the bulk of the child raising. My ex worked long hours, and I did the bulk of the house work, too. ALL of this was done out of loving generosity and the belief that we were one entity, a partnership. THEN I found out my ex was cheating on me, and had been lying about how little money self-employment made and how much time it was taking, so that both could be diverted to that affair.
> 
> So upon divorce, my ex would benefit from half the house that my inheritance paid for, half the assets that my income paid for, and half the retirement my job provides, and I would pay support on top of that?? To someone who was clearly not treating the marriage like a partnership? Why should I be at all interested in being fair or equitable to the person who destroyed the marriage?
> 
> When we got married, divorce and a prenup was the farthest thing from my mind. Not even a possibility. I had no clue half my hard-earned stuff could go to a lying cheating ex. If a prenup had been required though, perhaps I would have understood better what I could have been getting into. I would still have done it, because I was young and naïve and trusting, but at least at the break-up stage it wouldn't have come as such an additional painful shock on top of everything else.
> 
> Times change. I believe it's time for the financial aspects of the marriage contract to change as well. Adults should be expected to be self-supporting, and if they team up in a domestic partnership, the benefits of that partnership should not last after its dissolution. If, with our discretionary income, I buy a fancy car and my ex travels a lot with friends, why do I have to give half the value of the car to my ex upon divorce?


Agreed 100%


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> I'm not sure I see a point for it at my age. I want commitment and even living together probably...but even that is a risk for the higher earner. And I shudder at the idea of being any kind of financial burden to someone I love.
> 
> I'll have to only fall in love with a man of modest finances!!! Then we can have fun and be happy and not care about money!


That is my thought too. Too big of a risk for me. I will play the field and have fun.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> This is a real life situation I worked on. She ended up getting a bunch of $$ from the man and in my opinion she didn't deserve any. In fact, I think she should have reimbursed the man for all the money he put into raising kids that weren't his.
> 
> I wouldn't say she was a freeloader. That's the deal they made. He took care of her, which is fine, but I don't think that should have entitled her to any of his assets. She had already received significant benefit from being his wife.


I don't doubt that most ridiculous scenarios do play out in real life. 

How is she not a freeloader? You are placing zero value on her time in the marriage. Why did he even marry her? This is a case were a prenup would make sense. This was a scenario, as you laid it out, where it is totally one sided. She didn't contribute a single thing. I suspect she contributed more than you are saying though.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> Marriage isnt a business. Its a joining of two people in a committed relationship. Everything becoming ours.


Then why are you forced to sign a marriage contract?


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

Diana7 said:


> Marriage isnt a business. Its a joining of two people in a committed relationship. Everything becoming ours.


Of course marriage is a joining. But some marriages end in divorce. So do you think at divorce, everything should be split right down the middle? Or untangled to determine if there should be more differentiated division based on circumstances during the marriage? Or arranged so that one person continues to benefit from the finances of the other even though they are divorced?


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Then why are you forced to sign a marriage contract?


That's just the proof the marriage has taken place. It's not the marriage itself.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> It think that is fair logic. The sad thing is I think there are a lot of men who would make the keep more money for less custody of the kids trade.


But if you are lucky you can keep more money AND more custody. 😉


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> That's just the proof the marriage has taken place. It's not the marriage itself.


Still a BINDING contract. Business in ots purest sense.


----------



## Diana7

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Of course marriage is a joining. But some marriages end in divorce. So do you think at divorce, everything should be split right down the middle? Or untangled to determine if there should be more differentiated division based on circumstances during the marriage? Or arranged so that one person continues to benefit from the finances of the other even though they are divorced?


If possible it should be split 50/50 but of course it depends on a lot of things especially if there are dependant children involved. In my divorce we spilt the assets 50/50. I had the small house with mortgage and he had his pension. Both were valued at the same amount. 
Apart from that he paid child maintenance for our youngest child until she left school. I had the children full time so I needed a home for the 4 of us.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Still a BINDING contract. Business in ots purest sense.


Its still not a business. It's a joining if 2 people.


----------



## bobert

thunderchad said:


> In fact, I think she should have reimbursed the man for all the money he put into raising kids that weren't his.


Thanks for the laugh  He CHOSE to date, marry, and support a woman with children from a previous relationship. There are no taksies backsies when things go sour.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Your situation sounds a lot like mine. We were a young couple with nothing when we started out. I got a degree, generously paid for by my parents, while my ex worked dead end minimum wage jobs. I got a good job, and my ex quit the dead end job and started a hobby-based business that never really took off but was much less stressful. I even inherited some money and we were able to buy a house. We had kids, and because of the nature of my job and my ex's self-employment, I did the bulk of the child raising. My ex worked long hours, and I did the bulk of the house work, too. ALL of this was done out of loving generosity and the belief that we were one entity, a partnership. THEN I found out my ex was cheating on me, and had been lying about how little money self-employment made and how much time it was taking, so that both could be diverted to that affair.
> 
> So upon divorce, my ex would benefit from half the house that my inheritance paid for, half the assets that my income paid for, and half the retirement my job provides, and I would pay support on top of that?? To someone who was clearly not treating the marriage like a partnership? Why should I be at all interested in being fair or equitable to the person who destroyed the marriage?
> 
> When we got married, divorce and a prenup was the farthest thing from my mind. Not even a possibility. I had no clue half my hard-earned stuff could go to a lying cheating ex. If a prenup had been required though, perhaps I would have understood better what I could have been getting into. I would still have done it, because I was young and naïve and trusting, but at least at the break-up stage it wouldn't have come as such an additional painful shock on top of everything else.
> 
> Times change. I believe it's time for the financial aspects of the marriage contract to change as well. Adults should be expected to be self-supporting, and if they team up in a domestic partnership, the benefits of that partnership should not last after its dissolution. If, with our discretionary income, I buy a fancy car and my ex travels a lot with friends, why do I have to give half the value of the car to my ex upon divorce?


What you describe is awful and your ex is despicable. Sorry you went through that. There is always a risk that you may have picked a bad one, as you apparently did. However, I'm guessing that there was a time frame where all was good, before she started cheating. How would you have structured a prenup in your circumstances? You had no clue what the specifics would be down the road and I don't think a generic prenup, like his is his and hers is hers throughout the marriage and upon divorce would work or even be recognized by a court as valid. 

When you add kids it changes everything. There is no way you are going to be able to keep parity of income unless you hand the care of your kids over to a third party. That means in all likelihood one parent will have sacrificed some of their lifetime earnings potential to benefit the family. That can't be just tossed aside, even when one spouse unilaterally ends a marriage through infidelity. I think it would make sense that infidelity does come at a cost, maybe a reduced time frame for spousal support. That seems fair since their choices lead to the end of the marriage. I'm not sure how you put that into practice though. 

Also realize that my point of view is shaped by my life experiences. I don't think my wife would ever have earned what I do, had we not married, but I know our family choices negatively impacted her career and she would be earning more than she is now. We chose that path together. The problem is how do you quantify that? She has worked equally hard as I, but in a different way. I don't see anything fair about her being entitled to less than half of what we accumulated over the course of our marriage.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

bobert said:


> Thanks for the laugh  He CHOSE to date, marry, and support a woman with children from a previous relationship. There are no taksies backsies when things go sour.


Exactly, he married a woman with 3 kids, left her stay at home, paid for house cleaning and cooked all the meals. He deserves to lose half his assets for being an idiot.


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> What you describe is awful and your ex is despicable. Sorry you went through that. There is always a risk that you may have picked a bad one, as you apparently did. However, I'm guessing that there was a time frame where all was good, before she started cheating. How would you have structured a prenup in your circumstances? You had no clue what the specifics would be down the road and I don't think a generic prenup, like his is his and hers is hers throughout the marriage and upon divorce would work or even be recognized by a court as valid.
> 
> When you add kids it changes everything. There is no way you are going to be able to keep parity of income unless you hand the care of your kids over to a third party. That means in all likelihood one parent will have sacrificed some of their lifetime earnings potential to benefit the family. That can't be just tossed aside, even when one spouse unilaterally ends a marriage through infidelity. I think it would make sense that infidelity does come at a cost, maybe a reduced time frame for spousal support. That seems fair since their choices lead to the end of the marriage. I'm not sure how you put that into practice though.
> 
> Also realize that my point of view is shaped by my life experiences. I don't think my wife would ever have earned what I do, had we not married, but I know our family choices negatively impacted her career and she would be earning more than she is now. We chose that path together. The problem is how do you quantify that? She has worked equally hard as I, but in a different way. I don't see anything fair about her being entitled to less than half of what we accumulated over the course of our marriage.


As I see it if one parent cares for the home and children they both have jobs but one is paid and one isn't. I remember my first husband saying that he would rather do his job than mine any day. He recognised the many challenges of being a sahm and home maker.


----------



## happyhusband0005

thunderchad said:


> This is a real life situation I worked on. She ended up getting a bunch of $$ from the man and in my opinion she didn't deserve any. In fact, I think she should have reimbursed the man for all the money he put into raising kids that weren't his.
> 
> I wouldn't say she was a freeloader. That's the deal they made. He took care of her, which is fine, but I don't think that should have entitled her to any of his assets. She had already received significant benefit from being his wife.


Heres my take for what it's worth. This may not be a popular view with men or women, some might say it seems sexist in a way but here it goes. I think one thing that separates a man from a boy is forming the desire and mentality to take responsibility for and provide for a wife and children. We are seeing more and more adult males never fully developing into men, they seem to be hanging onto the self centeredness of boyhood and are not willing to be a responsible provider and protector, I see that as weakness. The exception here is the guys who have been badly burned by a women, the trauma from that I can see causing some significant regression understandably. 

Getting married is not the same as dating or having a long term relationship, it's just not, there is a different mentality one has to have. When you choose to get married you are choosing to join your life with your partner and you become of team. You support each other and are willing to sacrifice for each other. You are either all in or you should NOT get married. Marriage is hard, it takes work, it takes sacrifice at times you have to be willing to put your spouses happiness above yours. If you're not all in you are going to be more likely to pull the eject lever when things get a little tough. There is probably no way to determine this but I would venture a guess that the majority of divorces one or both partners are not really all in from day one. I think the best point in support of prenups on this thread was it's better to layout how things would end while you are both in a loving place instead in the heat of a divorce.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> But if you are lucky you can keep more money AND more custody. 😉


Yah, especially if your wife goes to federal prison, which is probably the best reason ever for a divorce. Judge I'm seeking full custody because the prison won't let the kids live with her per your order.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

happyhusband0005 said:


> Heres my take for what it's worth. This may not be a popular view with men or women, some might say it seems sexist in a way but here it goes. I think one thing that separates a man from a boy is forming the desire and mentality to take responsibility for and provide for a wife and children. We are seeing more and more adult males never fully developing into men, they seem to be hanging onto the self centeredness of boyhood and are not willing to be a responsible provider and protector, I see that as weakness. The exception here is the guys who have been badly burned by a women, the trauma from that I can see causing some significant regression understandably.
> 
> Getting married is not the same as dating or having a long term relationship, it's just not, there is a different mentality one has to have. When you choose to get married you are choosing to join your life with your partner and you become of team. You support each other and are willing to sacrifice for each other. You are either all in or you should NOT get married. Marriage is hard, it takes work, it takes sacrifice at times you have to be willing to put your spouses happiness above yours. If you're not all in you are going to be more likely to pull the eject lever when things get a little tough. There is probably no way to determine this but I would venture a guess that the majority of divorces one or both partners are not really all in from day one. I think the best point in support of prenups on this thread was it's better to layout how things would end while you are both in a loving place instead in the heat of a divorce.


Bravo, very well said.


----------



## Zedd

Diana7 said:


> Its still not a business. It's a joining if 2 people.


Not really. Even from a historical perspective, it's mostly been about the transfer of property amongst families.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> How is she not a freeloader? You are placing zero value on her time in the marriage. Why did he even marry her? This is a case were a prenup would make sense. This was a scenario, as you laid it out, where it is totally one sided. She didn't contribute a single thing. I suspect she contributed more than you are saying though.


She did provide companionship and sex. Maybe that's all he wanted? IDK and idc.


----------



## MarmiteC

happyhusband0005 said:


> You are either all in or you should NOT get married


I think you are either in this camp or not. I am and would consider myself incompatible with someone who started the relationship with an exit plan.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> Then why are you forced to sign a marriage contract?


I remember getting a marriage license but I don't remember it being a contract form.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> She did provide companionship and sex. Maybe that's all he wanted? IDK and idc.


Then he should have just hired her, that is basically what he did.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> Exactly, he married a woman with 3 kids, left her stay at home, paid for house cleaning and cooked all the meals. He deserves to lose half his assets for being an idiot.


True. This is an unpopular opinion but avoiding single mother is wise. Some are wonderful, but in todays marketplace I'd say 9/10 are disasters. My buddy wifed up a single mother of 3 about a year ago and things have been a disaster ever since. Another friend wifed up a mom of 2 and he has to deal w/ constant drama. Even if they are wonderful people they generally don't have the time to make you a priority. Save yourself for someone who does have that capacity.


----------



## DTO

MarmiteC said:


> He declined it, but also on the basis she declined alimony. Net effect is a financial benefit to her, but he knew she couldn't afford it. He can manage and live ok.


Same with me. My kid lived with me the last 2.5 years of high school (by which time she was already 18).

I didn't request support since my ex could not afford it and I didn't want her to fight to keep her 50% custody for the financial benefit.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> True. This is an unpopular opinion but avoiding single mother is wise. Some are wonderful, but in todays marketplace I'd say 9/10 are disasters. My buddy wifed up a single mother of 3 about a year ago and things have been a disaster ever since. Another friend wifed up a mom of 2 and he has to deal w/ constant drama. Even if they are wonderful people they generally don't have the time to make you a priority. Save yourself for someone who does have that capacity.


That may be unpopular, but it is smart. You at least need to fully think through what you are getting into. From day 1 you are getting involved with a woman that is still involved with another man. They may not be romantically involved anymore, or maybe even hate each other, but they are forever connected through their children. And as you said, they are going to place a priority on their children. You should never expect anything else. In fact I would wonder why a mom wouldn't put their children first over a new man, assuming they are not adult children. 

In the end it is no different than marrying for the first time. You want to try to get to really know a person and understand if you are compatible with one another before getting married. Prior relationships and children are just another part of that equation. This is all important, because when you get married you give up a portion of you individuality for the sake of the family.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> Yah, especially if your wife goes to federal prison, which is probably the best reason ever for a divorce. Judge I'm seeking full custody because the prison won't let the kids live with her per your order.


Funny thing is the prison helped more with the divorce the with the custody


----------



## Diana7

Zedd said:


> Not really. Even from a historical perspective, it's mostly been about the transfer of property amongst families.


Its not that now and its not that to me.


----------



## EleGirl

Diana7 said:


> That's why you need a will.


Yes, wills are a good idea as well.


----------



## Zedd

Diana7 said:


> Its not that now


Yes it is. It's 100% still true today or everyone would need to have a will in place. Add medical responsibility to the equation as well.


Diana7 said:


> its not that to me


I won't disagree with that, but it doesn't mean the former isn't still true.


----------



## DTO

BigDaddyNY said:


> She is getting it for literally nothing? 10 years of marriage is nothing? 10 years of being a partner in life, I'm assuming doing their part to run the family, is nothing?
> 
> Others must have a significantly different view on what it means to be married than I do.


I see your point. But she's getting me as a life partner too. Is my time and companionship not as valuable as hers?

Assuming she's not equally financially situated, she'll benefit from 10 years of not worrying about rent and working to build herself up because I'm covering everything else. That isn't enough?

I'm not sure what you mean by run the family. I'm talking about a second marriage. It's me and my adult daughter in school; she won't be around forever. She will work full-time; I don't want or need a housewife. There isn't much to do.

Conceptually, in my situation (grown kids, already established) the benefits should last for the duration of the marriage. I'm happy to share what I have and split what we accumulate together. What we had before and get after should be off limits. No dipping into assets obtained prior to marriage. No spousal support.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Cletus said:


> This is a WAG, but I'd be willing to wager real money that OP is a libertarian.
> 
> I've been ever amused over 4 decades by the ability of people with that bent to reduce _everything _to an economic argument.


Marriage may not be viewed as a primarily economic argument. But divorce ... divorce is _always_ an economic argument.

I've noticed a tendency in this thread to conflate the two.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

DTO said:


> I hear what you are saying. But she's getting me as a partner in life too. Is my time and companionship not as valuable as hers.
> 
> Assuming she's not equally financially situated, she'll benefit from 10 years of not having to worry about rent and working solely for herself because I'm covering everything else. That isn't enough?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by run the family. I'm talking about a second marriage. It's just me and my adult daughter going to school and she won't be around forever anyhow. What is there to do besides chipping in with the chores?


I understand what you are saying, and I think things are a bit different the second time around, especially when the kids are all grown up.

Even so, I think if you are going to take a big step in commitment and get married you should be looking at the whole situation as an equal partnership. Anything else sets up, at some level, a somewhat adversarial relationship.


----------



## Numb26

Let me ask this question. How many couples who are married keep their finances separate? Each having their own and having one strictly for household bills and living expenses?


----------



## Evinrude58

Diana7 said:


> I am 100% against prenups or post nups. I wouldn't get married to anyone who wanted a prenup.
> I am in my second marriage, in my divorce I always acted fairly and we didn't need to go to court.
> I believe marriage means that all you had and have is no longer yours and mine but ours. Therefore a prenup is irrelevant.
> Wanting a prenup would say to me that you are not committed to making the marriage work and that you are already planning for a divorce. That would be a massive red flag to me and I would say no.


That’s crazy. It doesn’t mean a man isn’t committed, it means he’s accepting reality which is that lots of marriages end in divorce and lots of people get screwed in them.
I hope you don’t buy health insurance or car insurance, it seems you don’t trust in God to take care of you, and plan on driving like a maniac or negligently if you have…

I would absolutely suggest a prenup for my son who is likely to be a physician and have a chance at making good money. If he marries and doesn’t, I’ll be majorly disappointed.

You always say “what you and your husband did/do”. That’s great, but the reality is that one person’s morals, values, etc have nothing to do with the other person’s, which is out of your control. And yes, people can hide their true character and often do.


----------



## Numb26

Evinrude58 said:


> That’s great, but the reality is that one person’s morals, values, etc have nothing to do with the other person’s, which is out of your control. And yes, people can hide their true character and often do.


 All you have to do is read these boards to know that this is true


----------



## Zedd

Numb26 said:


> Let me ask this question. How many couples who are married keep their finances separate? Each having their own and having one strictly for household bills and living expenses?


Sorta. We each have outside interests that we keep wholly separate - business, investments, a couple of non-profits we run, etc.

We also both have day to day employment. Our salaries from "work" are run through a joint account. It's a drop in the bucket relative to the above.


----------



## DownButNotOut

At the end of the day, I look at it like this.

You'll never see an old man on his deathbed, with his loving wife at his side, saying to himself "Dang, I wish I'd never gotten that prenup."

But go to divorce court, and every day you'll see someone sitting there kicking themselves saying "Dang, I wish I'd gotten that prenup when I could".

It's better to have gotten it and never need it than to end up needing it and never gotten it.


----------



## Evinrude58

bobert said:


> I have a postnup, I'm not against them. But...
> 
> No, even with a prenup or postnup you don't know exactly what will happen. A judge does not have to follow the prenup, and they won't if they think it's unfair or puts one spouse at a huge disadvantage (such as waiving alimony or walking away empty handed).
> 
> As for SAHM's deserving less than 50/50. That's another nope. They do just as much, if not more work than the working spouse does. They absolutely should get 50% of the _marital _assets. They also often support their husband's while climbing the corporate ladder, and judges absolutely take that into account.


I totally disagree with your statement that they “do just as much, if not more”. 
Few do. People as a whole take the path of least resistance and lots of stay at home dads and moms don’t do jack. We all know how it was well known that soap operas on tv got watched…. If one has a stay at home spouse that actually treats their duty as a job, so be it. 
I personally think stay at home spouses once the kids get in school, is just plain lazy and a recipe for disaster in a marriage. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop……


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Numb26 said:


> Let me ask this question. How many couples who are married keep their finances separate? Each having their own and having one strictly for household bills and living expenses?


Not us. We've had joint accounts only since we got married. That includes all checking, savings and CC. We do have individual retirement accounts, because they can't be joint.


----------



## LisaDiane

hamadryad said:


> I don't think its necessarily fair to include kids in these discussions....Even in the most vicious of divorces, I have never heard any guy not want to provide for his kids, in fact most of the guys (rather than force a sale of the house) wind up letting the wife(that he may despise), live in the house with the kids, while he lives in the crappy apartment over the bakery..
> 
> Its more about what someone, who isn't even your blood and wasn't anything more than a face in the crowd before you met them, feels they are entitled to after a breakup...And I find it somewhat curious that while women are all about gender equality, seem to not want to touch these subjects/topics, that came about during a time when they had almost no options...Rather than say, "no problem, guys we don't need you", they are happy to play the game of the typical woman in the 40's that may have been left in the street after a divorce, if she didn't have family or couldn't find another guy to take her on..


I know what you mean, I understand and even agree with you. It's not really a totally accurate comparison.
However, it's CLOSE.

And I need to correct you - my first husband still owes me $65k in child support, after he willfully hid his earnings to avoid paying. He also never wanted to see them.

My real dad also absolutely refused to pay my mother child support for me and my sister after he left her so he could have sex with as many women as possible with no "family" to hold him back. And he got away with that because it was 1971, and courts were much more male-friendly.

So my experiences are the opposite of what you've seen and of what I mostly read about on here, although I recognize that they mine are rare for the most part.

I also want to clearly say that I have ALWAYS said, "no problem guys, I don't need you (financially)"...while freely acknowledging that what matters most to ME is to have a partner for sex and to love and to enjoy my life with. I don't care about money, I never have. I'd sooner live in a tent with a man who loves sex with me than in a mansion with a cold-hearted man who never touches me.

I left my EX because of the lack of sex, and I waived alimony, and I gave him his entire 401k, and I paid for the divorce. And I have 1/3 of what he makes.

I have NO bad feelings about that...I don't hang on to resentment, I make my choices, pull up my big-girl panties and I move on with HOPE. Besides, whatever money I was entitled to that I forfeited was worth extricating myself from a sexless marriage, and no price could be put on that...not for ME anyway.

While I agree with most of the sentiments by the men on this thread (site), I can't help but notice the prejudicial attitudes and knee-jerk reactions to very general outcomes. YES, things aren't fair. YES, they should be changed. I hope they are.
But I don't see anyone with an emotionally generous attitude, which is fine and understandable, and maybe you are protecting your so-important money...but at what cost to you? At what cost to your heart and ability to connect with someone special? 

I would rather lose everything material and retain my ability to emotionally connect.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Evinrude58 said:


> I totally disagree with your statement that they “do just as much, if not more”.
> Few do. People as a whole take the path of least resistance and lots of stay at home dads and moms don’t do jack. We all know how it was well known that soap operas on tv got watched…. If one has a stay at home spouse that actually treats their duty as a job, so be it.
> I personally think stay at home spouses once the kids get in school, is just plain lazy and a recipe for disaster in a marriage. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop……


I agree with you that once the kids start becoming independent the SAHP should get back into the workforce. People should be actively employed in some way, whether as a homemaker or a wage earning job. That is exactly what we did. My wife eased back in when the kids started middle school and by the time our youngest was 14 or 15 she was full time again. I think my wife would have gone stir crazy just sitting at home. When the pandemic hit and schools closed she started cleaning the house like I've never seen. Next thing I know she's painting all the woodwork in the house, lol. She can't sit still for very long. Unless we are on the beach somewhere warn.


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> That is my thought too. Too big of a risk for me. I will play the field and have fun.


GREAT!!! Except I don't think I will enjoy playing the field like you do...I think I would be happier with one special person to focus all my fun and excitement on!


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> I know what you mean, I understand and even agree with you. It's not really a totally accurate comparison.
> However, it's CLOSE.
> 
> And I need to correct you - my first husband still owes me $65k in child support, after he willfully hid his earnings to avoid paying. He also never wanted to see them.
> 
> My real dad also absolutely refused to pay my mother child support for me and my sister after he left her so he could have sex with as many women as possible with no "family" to hold him back. And he got away with that because it was 1971, and courts were much more male-friendly.
> 
> So my experiences are the opposite of what you've seen and of what I mostly read about on here, although I recognize that they mine are rare for the most part.
> 
> I also want to clearly say that I have ALWAYS said, "no problem guys, I don't need you (financially)"...while freely acknowledging that what matters most to ME is to have a partner for sex and to love and to enjoy my life with. I don't care about money, I never have. I'd sooner live in a tent with a man who loves sex with me than in a mansion with a cold-hearted man who never touches me.
> 
> I left my EX because of the lack of sex, and I waived alimony, and I gave him his entire 401k, and I paid for the divorce. And I have 1/3 of what he makes.
> 
> I have NO bad feelings about that...I don't hang on to resentment, I make my choices, pull up my big-girl panties and I move on with HOPE. Besides, whatever money I was entitled to that I forfeited was worth extricating myself from a sexless marriage, and no price could be put on that...not for ME anyway.
> 
> While I agree with most of the sentiments by the men on this thread (site), I can't help but notice the prejudicial attitudes and knee-jerk reactions to very general outcomes. YES, things aren't fair. YES, they should be changed. I hope they are.
> But I don't see anyone with an emotionally generous attitude, which is fine and understandable, and maybe you are protecting your so-important money...but at what cost to you? At what cost to your heart and ability to connect with someone special?
> 
> I would rather lose everything material and retain my ability to emotionally connect.


I am the opposite. I would rather keep everything material and lose my ability to emotionally connect to ensure that my kids are taken care off.


----------



## Al_Bundy

BigDaddyNY said:


> You are assuming that the success of Microsoft is solely his. You have no idea how much she contributed to the success of the company, or could have if she kept working there. Remember, all the way back in 87 when they met she was a Product Manager for Microsoft. You come off like she is just some leach taking his hard earned money. That simply isn't the truth, like a lot of what you keep saying. She kept working at Microsoft as a high level manager even when they were married in 94. She only quit in 96 when she left to start raising their children. Why does that mutual decision mean she forfeits her rights to her share of the family fortune?
> 
> At this point you don't actually know what she is getting, so I don't know why you keep saying he has forked over billions. They mutually agreed to a separation agreement and the details haven't been disclosed. I think her net worth is already north of $10B anyway, and I believe they transferred a large portion of their shared wealth into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She has specifically said she is donating the majority of her own wealth to the Foundation.


I agree with the Microsoft situation you mentioned. At the same time, just because someone shares your address or even your last name (this goes for all family) it doesn't mean they are in your corner. Sometimes people get ahead despite who they got married to. Look at Patrick Mahomes, neither his brother or wife have taken one snap yet they out there all in front on social media riding his coattails. Now some might say hey she's been there since the beginning. Ok.....so what? Give her credit for sticking with someone who had obvious talent? Wow, that must have been tough. I mean seriously, wondering where in the first round of the NFL draft your guy is going to land. Such hardship. Maybe Steph Curry or Jason Kidd will give him a call.

To take it down a notch from Mr Gates and Mahomes, I have several friends/coworkers who have sacrificed advancing with a company because their wife didn't want to move to a different state or even city. Same thing for business travel too. I've been in meetings where guys can't jump on a project that involves travel because they have to talk to their spouse first. So then come evaluation time guess who doesn't have the results (raises, promotions) they could have? You guessed it, Mr Let Me Check With My Wife.

But I'll concede that there are a lot of partnerships out there and spouses deserve credit. But that includes if your man goes to prison. You want to share the glory of building a billion dollar company, then share in the glory of the big house because you cant give credit in one case and claim innocence in the other. So yes, let's give credit across the board. What's more equal than that?




Cletus said:


> 70% of marriages entered into in the 1990's are still intact.


While I do enjoy stats like that, my hot tub time machine is in the shop. People who got married in the 90s actually had to talk to each other in person!! I can remember being at a restaurant seeing people actually looking at each other and having conversations. Crazy times back then.


----------



## thunderchad

Numb26 said:


> Let me ask this question. How many couples who are married keep their finances separate? Each having their own and having one strictly for household bills and living expenses?


This is very common now, at least in people in the 20 - 40 range.


----------



## DTO

BigDaddyNY said:


> I understand what you are saying, and I think things are a bit different the second time around, especially when the kids are all grown up.
> 
> Even so, I think if you are going to take a big step in commitment and get married you should be looking at the whole situation as an equal partnership. Anything else sets up, at some level, a somewhat adversarial relationship.


The adversarial nature is where we may agree to disagree. If I bring you into my home and take responsibility for most of your needs, you have an opportunity to build a good future for yourself, whether we are together or not.

This is a win-win in my eyes. We get to be together and you get to build for yourself as well. If you can be with me for many years and leave in much better shape than when we met, but be upset that you didn't dip into what I already had, is that a person I want to be with?


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> I am the opposite. I would rather keep everything material and lose my ability to emotionally connect to ensure that my kids are taken care off.


I know what you mean. But don't forget, I know that of which I speak. I also ran 1800 miles away from a very toxic situation when my three kids were under 10, and I actually had NOTHING except what I could fit in my car.

It was terrifying. 

However, my kids were taken care of emotionally more than materially/financially, and they are better off because of it now as adults. I'm not saying I would do it all again, because it was incredibly difficult to go through. But it did NO harm to them.
They remember that time as VERY happy, and there were a few Christmases that I gave them each a notebook, a package of colored pencils or crayons, and some candy, and that's all. And they were excited and happy, because I was happy and loved them.

Don't underestimate the value for children of a parent with emotional warmth, strength, and openness. I believe it's better for kids than money.


----------



## thunderchad

Al_Bundy said:


> I agree with the Microsoft situation you mentioned. At the same time, just because someone shares your address or even your last name (this goes for all family) it doesn't mean they are in your corner. Sometimes people get ahead despite who they got married to. Look at Patrick Mahomes, neither his brother or wife have taken one snap yet they out there all in front on social media riding his coattails. Now some might say hey she's been there since the beginning. Ok.....so what? Give her credit for sticking with someone who had obvious talent? Wow, that must have been tough. I mean seriously, wondering where in the first round of the NFL draft your guy is going to land. Such hardship. Maybe Steph Curry or Jason Kidd will give him a call.
> 
> To take it down a notch from Mr Gates and Mahomes, I have several friends/coworkers who have sacrificed advancing with a company because their wife didn't want to move to a different state or even city. Same thing for business travel too. I've been in meetings where guys can't jump on a project that involves travel because they have to talk to their spouse first. So then come evaluation time guess who doesn't have the results (raises, promotions) they could have? You guessed it, Mr Let Me Check With My Wife.
> 
> But I'll concede that there are a lot of partnerships out there and spouses deserve credit. But that includes if your man goes to prison. You want to share the glory of building a billion dollar company, then share in the glory of the big house because you cant give credit in one case and claim innocence in the other. So yes, let's give credit across the board. What's more equal than that?


LOL. And also debt. Let's say this guy was a major loser and racked up millions in business debt. Should that be split w/ the wife?  They want all the reward and none of the risk.


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> I know what you mean. But don't forget, I know that of which I speak. I also ran 1800 miles away from a very toxic situation when my three kids were under 10, and I actually had NOTHING except what I could fit in my car.
> 
> It was terrifying.
> 
> However, my kids were taken care of emotionally more than materially/financially, and they are better off because of it now as adults. I'm not saying I would do it all again, because it was incredibly difficult to go through. But it did NO harm to them.
> They remember that time as VERY happy, and there were a few Christmases that I gave them each a notebook, a package of colored pencils or crayons, and some candy, and that's all. And they were excited and happy, because I was happy and loved them.
> 
> Don't underestimate the value for children of a parent with emotional warmth, strength, and openness. I believe it's better for kids than money.


You and I have similar circumstances and you know how I feel about my kids. I am lucky that I give both emotional, strength and security and also financial stability


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> You and I have similar circumstances and you know how I feel about my kids. I am lucky that I give both emotional, strength and security and also financial stability


Yes, I think you are doing such a great job with them, especially under the circumstances you are in...ugh!!

I actually believe you have it worse than I did because your EX is hanging around...at least mine stayed out of their lives (after he finally realized I wasn't coming back to him). BLEGH!!!!


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> Yes, I think you are doing such a great job with them, especially under the circumstances you are in...ugh!!
> 
> I actually believe you have it worse than I did because your EX is hanging around...at least mine stayed out of their lives (after he finally realized I wasn't coming back to him). BLEGH!!!!


Which Is why I keep her at least 2000 miles away! 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> That may be unpopular, but it is smart. You at least need to fully think through what you are getting into. From day 1 you are getting involved with a woman that is still involved with another man. They may not be romantically involved anymore, or maybe even hate each other, but they are forever connected through their children. And as you said, they are going to place a priority on their children. You should never expect anything else. In fact I would wonder why a mom wouldn't put their children first over a new man, assuming they are not adult children.
> 
> In the end it is no different than marrying for the first time. You want to try to get to really know a person and understand if you are compatible with one another before getting married. Prior relationships and children are just another part of that equation. This is all important, because when you get married you give up a portion of you individuality for the sake of the family.


Not all single mums have any involvement with the children's dad. He may have died. He may have done a runner. He may not be interested.
I had no contact with my ex husband when I met my now husband.

Mind you my husband would be very accepting if I had had to. I still have contact with and see my former parents in law and former sister in law. He always come with me and gets on with them well. I still think of them as family.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> LOL. And also debt. Let's say this guy was a major loser and racked up millions in business debt. Should that be split w/ the wife?  They want all the reward and none of the risk.


That debt will be shared, that is exactly what happens. That is why spouses should be making decisions together. What one does impacts the other.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Diana7 said:


> Not all single mums have any involvement with the children's dad. He may have died. He may have done a runner. He may not be interested.
> I had no contact with my ex husband when I met my now husband.


That is true in some circumstances. I think the majority are a result of divorce and it is commonplace for both spouses to have some custody. Sole custody is extremely rare. It is typically only when one parent is unfit for some reason.


----------



## Livvie

BigDaddyNY said:


> Exactly, he married a woman with 3 kids, left her stay at home, paid for house cleaning and cooked all the meals. He deserves to lose half his assets for being an idiot.


I agree.

He was probably one of those guys who couldn't stand being "alone" so he chose that situation. 

This might seem mean, but I have no compassion for people who get into and stay in crap relationships because they can't be single.


----------



## Al_Bundy

BigDaddyNY said:


> That debt will be shared, that is exactly what happens. That is why spouses should be making decisions together. What one does impacts the other.


Bernie Madoff...........Why wasn't she in prison with ole Bernie? They're a team right? What's the old saying, "Behind every great man and his ponzi scheme is a wife enjoying the cash"

But yes, a spouse's spending habits can sink the ship even if it's not a proper ponzi scheme.


----------



## bobert

Evinrude58 said:


> I totally disagree with your statement that they “do just as much, if not more”.
> Few do. People as a whole take the path of least resistance and lots of stay at home dads and moms don’t do jack. We all know how it was well known that soap operas on tv got watched…. If one has a stay at home spouse that actually treats their duty as a job, so be it.
> I personally think stay at home spouses once the kids get in school, is just plain lazy and a recipe for disaster in a marriage. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop……


If someone is going to neglect their kids, they shouldn't be a SAHP. If the kids are cared for, they are probably doing more than you think they are. And if the house is usually decent and there is usually dinner ready, they are definitely doing more than you think they are.

The only SAHM that I can really comment on is my wife. I _know_ that she does more than I do and I know her day is _far_ harder than mine. I barely functioned when I had to take care of the kids by myself longterm. I didn't accidently kill any of them, which seemed like a miracle some days. 

I sit in front of a computer from 8-4. My commute ranges from walking downstairs to a 10-15 minute drive. While I'm working I'm also taking (far too many) breaks whenever I want to play a chess game, watch a YouTube video, read something, be here (like now), whatever. If I don't feel like working, I fake it or take a day off because I have about 8 weeks a year. 

Most days she is doing things all day and doesn't sit still, from 5am until whenever the kids get in bed. Even when she goes to bed early and I take over, she really can't relax because she's still up with the little ones and dealing with all the kids going to her for help, to talk, etc., even though I'm right there. Her job is 24/7. Her breaks are at the mercy of tiny humans and often don't happen at all. If they do, she has to decide if she will take a break, eat for the first time that day, or get something done. I can eat and pee and peace, SAHM's not so much. There is no point for anyone to text her because she will see it but have her hands full, then forget about it. If she's sick, too bad. If she doesn't feel like showing up, too bad. If she's exhausted because she was up every hour with babies, too bad. I have told her to tell me if she needs a "day off" and I will book one off, she doesn't though. Probably because there is so much judgement about SAHM's being lazy, etc. 

I have 3 kids in school and two at home. So I can't comment on being a SAHM with all school aged kids. There is always something to be done with a large family, though. I have no intention of telling her to go back to work when the kids are all in school. I suspect she will be bored and want to do something, though.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Al_Bundy said:


> Bernie Madoff...........Why wasn't she in prison with ole Bernie? They're a team right? What's the old saying, "Behind every great man and his ponzi scheme is a wife enjoying the cash"
> 
> But yes, a spouse's spending habits can sink the ship even if it's not a proper ponzi scheme.


His wife got cut some slack for cooperating and giving help in recovering funds. She also has to forfeit everything upon her death, nothing goes to heirs. I'm pretty sure karma caught up with all of them. Their one son committed suicide and the other died from cancer, and Bernie died in jail.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

bobert said:


> If someone is going to neglect their kids, they shouldn't be a SAHP. If the kids are cared for, they are probably doing more than you think they are. And if the house is usually decent and there is usually dinner ready, they are definitely doing more than you think they are.
> 
> The only SAHM that I can really comment on is my wife. I _know_ that she does more than I do and I know her day is _far_ harder than mine. I barely functioned when I had to take care of the kids by myself longterm. I didn't accidently kill any of them, which seemed like a miracle some days.
> 
> I sit in front of a computer from 8-4. My commute ranges from walking downstairs to a 10-15 minute drive. While I'm working I'm also taking (far too many) breaks whenever I want to play a chess game, watch a YouTube video, read something, be here (like now), whatever. If I don't feel like working, I fake it or take a day off because I have about 8 weeks a year.
> 
> Most days she is doing things all day and doesn't sit still, from 5am until whenever the kids get in bed. Even when she goes to bed early and I take over, she really can't relax because she's still up with the little ones and dealing with all the kids going to her for help, to talk, etc., even though I'm right there. Her job is 24/7. Her breaks are at the mercy of tiny humans and often don't happen at all. If they do, she has to decide if she will take a break, eat for the first time that day, or get something done. I can eat and pee and peace, SAHM's not so much. There is no point for anyone to text her because she will see it but have her hands full, then forget about it. If she's sick, too bad. If she doesn't feel like showing up, too bad. If she's exhausted because she was up every hour with babies, too bad. I have told her to tell me if she needs a "day off" and I will book one off, she doesn't though. Probably because there is so much judgement about SAHM's being lazy, etc.
> 
> I have 3 kids in school and two at home. So I can't comment on being a SAHM with all school aged kids. There is always something to be done with a large family, though. I have no intention of telling her to go back to work when the kids are all in school. I suspect she will be bored and want to do something, though.


There was a time when I didn't fully appreciate how much my wife was doing. I kind of took her for granted and didn't do much when I got home from work. Eventually I saw the light and changed considerably. I did more things at home, but it didn't feel like I was giving something up after I got over the initial shock of change. In reality it worked completely to my benefit. It freed up some of my wife's time, she wasn't so frazzled and guess what, she wanted to do more husband/wife time, if you know what I mean.

I've found time and again that the more I put in to her and the family the more she gives back. And it isn't like she was holding back on anything. It has always just taken us to the next level. I firmly believe you have to be all in and give it everything you've got and it will pay off. No going half way with marriage.


----------



## Evinrude58

bobert said:


> If someone is going to neglect their kids, they shouldn't be a SAHP. If the kids are cared for, they are probably doing more than you think they are. And if the house is usually decent and there is usually dinner ready, they are definitely doing more than you think they are.
> 
> The only SAHM that I can really comment on is my wife. I _know_ that she does more than I do and I know her day is _far_ harder than mine. I barely functioned when I had to take care of the kids by myself longterm. I didn't accidently kill any of them, which seemed like a miracle some days.
> 
> I sit in front of a computer from 8-4. My commute ranges from walking downstairs to a 10-15 minute drive. While I'm working I'm also taking (far too many) breaks whenever I want to play a chess game, watch a YouTube video, read something, be here (like now), whatever. If I don't feel like working, I fake it or take a day off because I have about 8 weeks a year.
> 
> Most days she is doing things all day and doesn't sit still, from 5am until whenever the kids get in bed. Even when she goes to bed early and I take over, she really can't relax because she's still up with the little ones and dealing with all the kids going to her for help, to talk, etc., even though I'm right there. Her job is 24/7. Her breaks are at the mercy of tiny humans and often don't happen at all. If they do, she has to decide if she will take a break, eat for the first time that day, or get something done. I can eat and pee and peace, SAHM's not so much. There is no point for anyone to text her because she will see it but have her hands full, then forget about it. If she's sick, too bad. If she doesn't feel like showing up, too bad. If she's exhausted because she was up every hour with babies, too bad. I have told her to tell me if she needs a "day off" and I will book one off, she doesn't though. Probably because there is so much judgement about SAHM's being lazy, etc.
> 
> I have 3 kids in school and two at home. So I can't comment on being a SAHM with all school aged kids. There is always something to be done with a large family, though. I have no intention of telling her to go back to work when the kids are all in school. I suspect she will be bored and want to do something, though.


Not disagreeing with you about your wife, Bob, but you do realize they’re not all like that, right?😊


----------



## bobert

Evinrude58 said:


> Not disagreeing with you about your wife, Bob, but you do realize they’re not all like that, right?😊


Of course. But where are you getting your "few do" number from? Some suck, some don't but there is no way to put a number on it. You certainly can't use places like TAM as an example, because no one comes here to rave about their stay at home spouse.


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> That debt will be shared, that is exactly what happens. That is why spouses should be making decisions together. What one does impacts the other.


This is a good argument for pre-nups. Partners can project themselves from debt too.


----------



## Mybabysgotit

Angie?or… said:


> Yeah, after 38 years of being a team, lovers, family, one flesh and best friends, I would be so hurt and angry, I don’t think I would ever feel the same about him again. I believe we both always tried to put whatever we had into our marriage, and keeping track of, and assigning greater or lesser value to each person’s contribution would be completely antithetical to everything we have built and accomplished together.


That's kind of what I was thinking as well, but 17 years for me.


----------



## happyhusband0005

LisaDiane said:


> Don't underestimate the value for children of a parent with emotional warmth, strength, and openness. I believe it's better for kids than money.


This is a very true statement money doesn't help you raise, happy, kind, strong kids in fact it makes it harder to do so.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> This is a very true statement money doesn't help you raise, happy, kind, strong kids in fact it makes it harder to do so.


I am finding the opposite to be true actually


----------



## bobert

happyhusband0005 said:


> This is a very true statement money doesn't help you raise, happy, kind, strong kids in fact it makes it harder to do so.


I don't see how money can make it harder? That hasn't been my experience at all. 

Also depending on the circumstances, money absolutely needed to raise certain kids well. In one of my kids early years, I was spending around $50k/year on various services for him. There are early intervention programs and whatnot that are covered or subsidized but it's often not enough hours, and there can be waitlists that are years long.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

happyhusband0005 said:


> I remember getting a marriage license but I don't remember it being a contract form.


That's the whole problem that prenups address. Marriage IS a contract but the terms are completely invisible until the contract needs to be dissolved. Then everybody is shocked by what they had agreed to!


----------



## m.t.t

LisaDiane said:


> Why even marry again, though, if it's that complicated and possibly financially devastating?
> Plus, pre-nups aren't ironclad protection...the best protection for your assets is to not marry, apparently.


It would also never living with someone else again. Or building a future.


----------



## LisaDiane

bobert said:


> I don't see how money can make it harder? That hasn't been my experience at all.
> 
> Also depending on the circumstances, money absolutely needed to raise certain kids well. In one of my kids early years, I was spending around $50k/year on various services for him. There are early intervention programs and whatnot that are covered or subsidized but it's often not enough hours, and there can be waitlists that are years long.


All those programs are offered for kids with no money as well. My kids never needed anything like that, but my sister's son did, and it was all government supported because she didn't have enough money.


----------



## bobert

LisaDiane said:


> All those programs are offered for kids with no money as well. My kids never needed anything like that, but my sister's son did, and it was all government supported because she didn't have enough money.


Yes, absolutely, but like I said there is often a waitlist and frequently not enough hours. I wanted to be able to give my child every opportunity to be the best version of himself, and I'm thankful I could "easily" afford that.


----------



## bobert

Numb26 said:


> Let me ask this question. How many couples who are married keep their finances separate? Each having their own and having one strictly for household bills and living expenses?


My wife and I have always had separate bank accounts. We have one credit card between us and it is joint but there's nothing on it. 

We're not strict on "his money" and "her money", though. Bills generally come out of my account now that she's not working but previously it was whichever. We don't divide up purchases 50/50, say this is mine because I bought it, or divide bills based on income, etc.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> I am finding the opposite to be true actually


For us it has been very difficult to give our kids a sense of reality. They have grown up in a bubble, until recently all their friends have parents who are multi-millionaires, many of their friends just get whatever they want. Early on we were guilty of this also, you want a new this or that sure it's only a thousand bucks. Going on vacation to Europe who want to fly coach and wait in the main terminal when we can fly first class and hangout in the lounge. We have made a substantial change the past 4-5 years and have made our kids earn stuff much more and have stopped flying first class and things like that if the flight is under 6 hours. I think the appreciation I have for our success is very important to my happiness, if I had grown up the way my kids had been and always got everything I wanted I don't think I would have the work ethic I have or appreciate what I have now. You can see it with some of the kids in our town, just total brats who will freakout if they don't get the BMW for their 16th birthday, you can already see it coming. A lot of our friends who are the parents of our kids friends have made similar changes. I had a long talk with my son one day when I heard him and his friends talking about the fact they were rich. I had to break the sad news to him, Mom and I are rich, you're not. He made about 100k from competitive gaming in 2020 so that set off a whole other discussion about finances. It has been a struggle to get them to fully understand your have to work for what you have, you're not going to graduate college and be able to buy a three million dollar house and a Range Rover. My kids have a trust fund they will get when our youngest turns 30. They will not know they have one until they get it the only people that know about it is me, my wife, our accountant and our lawyer. 

Money does help reduce some stressors that could have a negative impact on kids but developing an appreciation for hard work and self achievement are greatly hampered in my experience.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Hopeful Cynic said:


> That's the whole problem that prenups address. Marriage IS a contract but the terms are completely invisible until the contract needs to be dissolved. Then everybody is shocked by what they had agreed to!


Ok I get what you're saying that actually makes a lot of sense.


----------



## bobert

happyhusband0005 said:


> For us it has been very difficult to give our kids a sense of reality. They have grown up in a bubble, until recently all their friends have parents who are multi-millionaires, many of their friends just get whatever they want. Early on we were guilty of this also, you want a new this or that sure it's only a thousand bucks. Going on vacation to Europe who want to fly coach and wait in the main terminal when we can fly first class and hangout in the lounge. We have made a substantial change the past 4-5 years and have made our kids earn stuff much more and have stopped flying first class and things like that if the flight is under 6 hours. I think the appreciation I have for our success is very important to my happiness, if I had grown up the way my kids had been and always got everything I wanted I don't think I would have the work ethic I have or appreciate what I have now. You can see it with some of the kids in our town, just total brats who will freakout if they don't get the BMW for their 16th birthday, you can already see it coming. A lot of our friends who are the parents of our kids friends have made similar changes. I had a long talk with my son one day when I heard him and his friends talking about the fact they were rich. I had to break the sad news to him, Mom and I are rich, you're not. He made about 100k from competitive gaming in 2020 so that set off a whole other discussion about finances. It has been a struggle to get them to fully understand your have to work for what you have, you're not going to graduate college and be able to buy a three million dollar house and a Range Rover. My kids have a trust fund they will get when our youngest turns 30. They will not know they have one until they get it the only people that know about it is me, my wife, our accountant and our lawyer.
> 
> Money does help reduce some stressors that could have a negative impact on kids but developing an appreciation for hard work and self achievement are greatly hampered in my experience.


To be honest, I just see that as bad parenting. 

The neighborhood that I live in has a median household income of $250,000, with more than 50% of households being single income. So most families are very comfortable, and yeah, there are _a lot_ of brats in the neighborhood. Money didn't cause that, the parenting choices did. 

I have never heard my kids say we are rich and they have no clue how many millions we have or how much is set aside for them. They do get things when they ask for them, but only because they don't ask often and they know to be reasonable (like under $100 unless it's a birthday, etc.). They think they are lucky if they get a treat from the grocery store! 

I have always talked to them about how some families don't have money, etc. They know they havr to work hard to earn money, as best as kids can comprehend that. We have always taught them to save money and often make them use it for things they want. My 5 year old yells at me if I buy something that's not on sale. We don't have a Lambo sitting in the driveway and I don't use vehicles as a status symbol. I want something reliable and functional for my needs, thats it.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> For us it has been very difficult to give our kids a sense of reality. They have grown up in a bubble, until recently all their friends have parents who are multi-millionaires, many of their friends just get whatever they want. Early on we were guilty of this also, you want a new this or that sure it's only a thousand bucks. Going on vacation to Europe who want to fly coach and wait in the main terminal when we can fly first class and hangout in the lounge. We have made a substantial change the past 4-5 years and have made our kids earn stuff much more and have stopped flying first class and things like that if the flight is under 6 hours. I think the appreciation I have for our success is very important to my happiness, if I had grown up the way my kids had been and always got everything I wanted I don't think I would have the work ethic I have or appreciate what I have now. You can see it with some of the kids in our town, just total brats who will freakout if they don't get the BMW for their 16th birthday, you can already see it coming. A lot of our friends who are the parents of our kids friends have made similar changes. I had a long talk with my son one day when I heard him and his friends talking about the fact they were rich. I had to break the sad news to him, Mom and I are rich, you're not. He made about 100k from competitive gaming in 2020 so that set off a whole other discussion about finances. It has been a struggle to get them to fully understand your have to work for what you have, you're not going to graduate college and be able to buy a three million dollar house and a Range Rover. My kids have a trust fund they will get when our youngest turns 30. They will not know they have one until they get it the only people that know about it is me, my wife, our accountant and our lawyer.
> 
> Money does help reduce some stressors that could have a negative impact on kids but developing an appreciation for hard work and self achievement are greatly hampered in my experience.


Yes, spoiling children never leads to good things but that's nothing to do with having money, that's a problem with parents. You automatically correlate having money to having spoiled children. And what reality are you talking about? My children's reality is that never have to do without and have a father who is there for them in every way possible. And yes, having money makes that possible. Regardless of what people are taught in school, on TV or in the movies, you don't have to be poor just to have a good character or morals. Having money doesn't make people "evil" even if the socialists say it does.


----------



## Diana7

happyhusband0005 said:


> This is a very true statement money doesn't help you raise, happy, kind, strong kids in fact it makes it harder to do so.


One of my children once said to me that it was far more important to him to have had me at home than to have had more money and things. Being there when they got home from school. When they were ill. Going to all their school events etc.
I was really touched when he said that.


----------



## karole

Children do not spoil themselves.


----------



## LisaDiane

happyhusband0005 said:


> For us it has been very difficult to give our kids a sense of reality. They have grown up in a bubble, until recently all their friends have parents who are multi-millionaires, many of their friends just get whatever they want. Early on we were guilty of this also, you want a new this or that sure it's only a thousand bucks. Going on vacation to Europe who want to fly coach and wait in the main terminal when we can fly first class and hangout in the lounge. We have made a substantial change the past 4-5 years and have made our kids earn stuff much more and have stopped flying first class and things like that if the flight is under 6 hours. I think the appreciation I have for our success is very important to my happiness, if I had grown up the way my kids had been and always got everything I wanted I don't think I would have the work ethic I have or appreciate what I have now. You can see it with some of the kids in our town, just total brats who will freakout if they don't get the BMW for their 16th birthday, you can already see it coming. A lot of our friends who are the parents of our kids friends have made similar changes. I had a long talk with my son one day when I heard him and his friends talking about the fact they were rich. I had to break the sad news to him, Mom and I are rich, you're not. He made about 100k from competitive gaming in 2020 so that set off a whole other discussion about finances. It has been a struggle to get them to fully understand your have to work for what you have, you're not going to graduate college and be able to buy a three million dollar house and a Range Rover. My kids have a trust fund they will get when our youngest turns 30. They will not know they have one until they get it the only people that know about it is me, my wife, our accountant and our lawyer.
> 
> Money does help reduce some stressors that could have a negative impact on kids but developing an appreciation for hard work and self achievement are greatly hampered in my experience.


I saw Kevin Hart on Graham Norton talking about bringing his kids to his old slum apartment where he grew up as a kid, wanting to give them a lesson about how much they had, and how much they should appreciate, and his kids started yelling, "We love it here! We want to live here!!"....Lol!!!


----------



## happyhusband0005

bobert said:


> To be honest, I just see that as bad parenting.
> 
> The neighborhood that I live in has a median household income of $250,000, with more than 50% of households being single income. So most families are very comfortable, and yeah, there are _a lot_ of brats in the neighborhood. Money didn't cause that, the parenting choices did.
> 
> I have never heard my kids say we are rich and they have no clue how many millions we have or how much is set aside for them. They do get things when they ask for them, but only because they don't ask often and they know to be reasonable (like under $100 unless it's a birthday, etc.). They think they are lucky if they get a treat from the grocery store!
> 
> I have always talked to them about how some families don't have money, etc. They know they havr to work hard to earn money, as best as kids can comprehend that. We have always taught them to save money and often make them use it for things they want. My 5 year old yells at me if I buy something that's not on sale. We don't have a Lambo sitting in the driveway and I don't use vehicles as a status symbol. I want something reliable and functional for my needs, thats it.


Yah I openly admit to making some mistakes early on. Our town and friends is very affluent 250k is closer to a monthly or even weekly income than annual. When I first started making real money my oldest was 4 or 5. I once bought and Audi R8 on a whim while I was picking up a different car and the salesman was showing me and my son how cool the engine sounded. I was new to having a lot of money I didn't handle it well at all, I was just like well I guess this is what you do now. But we also want to enjoy some of the fruits of our labor and we have enjoyed some luxuries. It took me a few years to get my head straight and we have made a big adjustment. But the fact remains even with us downplaying our money and handling things much differently than we did years ago our kids being teenagers now know they live in a very expensive house, they know most kids don't go to Europe for 3-4 weeks in the summer, they know when their schools expansion project went over budget their parents and a few of their friends parents donated the money to make up the difference. So we have to work hard to instill the idea they have to earn their own. Our new methods have worked well though, last night when I took my son to buy some new sweat pants and sweatshirts at ****s he decided we should go check if stuff was cheaper at Kohls. The biggest point we have had to work on is making them get that their parents having money doesn't guaranty them anything. No matter how much of their stuff I make them buy, or how tight we make the Christmas and birthday budgets the knowledge that they have a gigantic backstop looms. So it takes regular effort to keep them in reality by understanding their reality is not reality, thats a hard concept for kids to fully comprehend.


----------



## karole

I do have to admit that it is very, very hard, not to spoil a grandchild - much harder than it was with my daughter. LOL!


----------



## happyhusband0005

LisaDiane said:


> I saw Kevin Hart on Graham Norton talking about bringing his kids to his old slum apartment where he grew up as a kid, wanting to give them a lesson about how much they had, and how much they should appreciate, and his kids started yelling, "We love it here! We want to live here!!"....Lol!!!


Ha Ha, Ive seen that and it was such a good example of how kids think when they grow up in a wealth bubble.


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> Yes, spoiling children never leads to good things but that's nothing to do with having money, that's a problem with parents. You automatically correlate having money to having spoiled children. And what reality are you talking about? My children's reality is that never have to do without and have a father who is there for them in every way possible. And yes, having money makes that possible. Regardless of what people are taught in school, on TV or in the movies, you don't have to be poor just to have a good character or morals. Having money doesn't make people "evil" even if the socialists say it does.


And I don't really even blame the parents who "spoil" their kids, because it's in our nature as parents to want to provide for them and give them everything we can.

The kids who I have see who are profoundly unhappy with selfish expectations are kids who had rich parents who ignored their kids and didn't care about them because of their money. So like you said, it wasn't the money, it was how the kids were treated.

Even knowing the positive outcome, and how proud I am of my own kids now, I cannot say that I would choose the difficulties that taught them those things, because they were grueling for me as a mother. My kids remember it as a very happy time, but that's because I was a great faker with them!! I remember it as the worst time of my life!

And I'm sure even if I had had millions of dollars and no hardships at all, I would have parented them the same way, and they would have turned out the same way.

No money is no disadvantage, just like having money is no disadvantage. Not for raising mature, responsible, CARING people.


----------



## Diana7

happyhusband0005 said:


> For us it has been very difficult to give our kids a sense of reality. They have grown up in a bubble, until recently all their friends have parents who are multi-millionaires, many of their friends just get whatever they want. Early on we were guilty of this also, you want a new this or that sure it's only a thousand bucks. Going on vacation to Europe who want to fly coach and wait in the main terminal when we can fly first class and hangout in the lounge. We have made a substantial change the past 4-5 years and have made our kids earn stuff much more and have stopped flying first class and things like that if the flight is under 6 hours. I think the appreciation I have for our success is very important to my happiness, if I had grown up the way my kids had been and always got everything I wanted I don't think I would have the work ethic I have or appreciate what I have now. You can see it with some of the kids in our town, just total brats who will freakout if they don't get the BMW for their 16th birthday, you can already see it coming. A lot of our friends who are the parents of our kids friends have made similar changes. I had a long talk with my son one day when I heard him and his friends talking about the fact they were rich. I had to break the sad news to him, Mom and I are rich, you're not. He made about 100k from competitive gaming in 2020 so that set off a whole other discussion about finances. It has been a struggle to get them to fully understand your have to work for what you have, you're not going to graduate college and be able to buy a three million dollar house and a Range Rover. My kids have a trust fund they will get when our youngest turns 30. They will not know they have one until they get it the only people that know about it is me, my wife, our accountant and our lawyer.
> 
> Money does help reduce some stressors that could have a negative impact on kids but developing an appreciation for hard work and self achievement are greatly hampered in my experience.


For me we have NEVER had that problem. Reading what you write about your family and the area you live in and the crazy wages is like another world.


----------



## karole

happyhusband0005 said:


> Ha Ha, Ive seen that and it was such a good example of how kids think when they grow up in a wealth bubble.


Do your kids do any kind of charity work? Like help under privileged kids, work in a soup kitchen, spend time with the elderly in nursing homes? Those are great ways to teach kids about helping others as well as learning about the difficulties that other people face on a daily basis. Your kids will follow your example, so, you and your wife should do those things with them.


----------



## Zedd

happyhusband0005 said:


> I had to break the sad news to him, Mom and I are rich, you're not


Yeah, mate, this needed to be said a lot earlier in his life. It works. My kids gets it. He's 11 now. Plays hockey. Bunch of kids were getting on him because he doesn't have the $250 stick and it's weird because "he's rich."

His response as heard by one of the coaches in the locker room:

Dad's rich, not me. I don't have ****. If I want a new game, I have chores. I don't have the expensive stick because Dad says if I break it working on slapshots or whatever or want to try a different curve or kickpoint, he'll keep buying them, unless I break it because I'm mad. If I want the 250 stick, I can get it with my chore money. So, no offense, I'll keep breaking the cheap stick."

Oddly, he also has only gotten used skates because he doesn't like breaking them in. Saves me about 50-70%


----------



## LisaDiane

happyhusband0005 said:


> Yah I openly admit to making some mistakes early on. Our town and friends is very affluent 250k is closer to a monthly or even weekly income than annual. When I first started making real money my oldest was 4 or 5. I once bought and Audi R8 on a whim while I was picking up a different car and the salesman was showing me and my son how cool the engine sounded. I was new to having a lot of money I didn't handle it well at all, I was just like well I guess this is what you do now. But we also want to enjoy some of the fruits of our labor and we have enjoyed some luxuries. It took me a few years to get my head straight and we have made a big adjustment. But the fact remains even with us downplaying our money and handling things much differently than we did years ago our kids being teenagers now know they live in a very expensive house, they know most kids don't go to Europe for 3-4 weeks in the summer, they know when their schools expansion project went over budget their parents and a few of their friends parents donated the money to make up the difference. So we have to work hard to instill the idea they have to earn their own. Our new methods have worked well though, last night when I took my son to buy some new sweat pants and sweatshirts at ****s he decided we should go check if stuff was cheaper at Kohls. The biggest point we have had to work on is making them get that their parents having money doesn't guaranty them anything. No matter how much of their stuff I make them buy, or how tight we make the Christmas and birthday budgets the knowledge that they have a gigantic backstop looms. So it takes regular effort to keep them in reality by understanding their reality is not reality, thats a hard concept for kids to fully comprehend.


I'm not sure that them being aware of a "backstop" is a negative for them, though. That's security for them, which is always good. My kids have always had a backstop too, it was my unwavering belief that we would always be FINE. We work for what we want, and we don't have what we aren't willing to work for. I believe that is the same type of security. We have as much money as we want.

I've never had a "scarcity" mentality with my kids. I never fussed and was afraid with money. I would say NO WAY to buying things that were a stupid waste of money, but that was whether I had $5 in my account or $5000 in there. I've also allowed them to buy stupid things just for the fun of it. 

They have also experienced the reality of WAITING. I believe delaying gratification is a skill and requires emotional strength. So I had no problem saying, "let's wait until next week when I get paid", or whatever.

I also have NO debt (except my mortgage, which is almost paid off)....so they have watched me buy one tire at a time for 4 weeks so I could avoid using debt, or watched me want something and then say, "I can wait!", or "I don't need that yet!"...and I see them now modeling that behavior too.

I believe it's bad for kids to give "money" too much power, either way. I never wanted them to fear money. It's a TOOL for creating the lives we want, that's all. It's not a mythical, magic wand that can grant every wish. And we have to work to have it, and work more (or sell more) in order to get more if we want that.


----------



## DTO

Diana7 said:


> For me we have NEVER had that problem. Reading what you write about your family and the area you live in and the crazy wages is like another world.


Seriously though.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> Yes, spoiling children never leads to good things but that's nothing to do with having money, that's a problem with parents. You automatically correlate having money to having spoiled children. And what reality are you talking about? My children's reality is that never have to do without and have a father who is there for them in every way possible. And yes, having money makes that possible. Regardless of what people are taught in school, on TV or in the movies, you don't have to be poor just to have a good character or morals. Having money doesn't make people "evil" even if the socialists say it does.


Because it has nothing to do with what you give them or don't give them, kids brains do not work like an adults they don't process things logically like an adult (most adults). What you say and what they see can be very different and when they become aware there is a big difference in how they live and 99.9% of other people it creates an issue you have to figure out how to combat. The biggest things for us have been teaching them delayed gratification and making sure they understand what we have is the result of a lot of hard work and smart choices and humility. We have mostly figured it out now but the change for us was so fast and the timing was such that they were just old enough to see clearly things had changed, it has required us being very thoughtful in how we go about things. Kids can be spoiled just by knowing their parents reality even when they are not given everything they want or ask for.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> Because it has nothing to do with what you give them or don't give them, kids brains do not work like an adults they don't process things logically like an adult (most adults). What you say and what they see can be very different and when they become aware there is a big difference in how they live and 99.9% of other people it creates an issue you have to figure out how to combat. The biggest things for us have been teaching them delayed gratification and making sure they understand what we have is the result of a lot of hard work and smart choices and humility. We have mostly figured it out now but the change for us was so fast and the timing was such that they were just old enough to see clearly things had changed, it has required us being very thoughtful in how we go about things. Kids can be spoiled just by knowing their parents reality even when they are not given everything they want or ask for.


Why would it create an issue? There is a big difference and it seems that all you are doing is teaching them is to be guilty that their parents have money and that they are some how "lacking" compared to people that don't. 
You teach your kids by example what a good work ethic is, show them to help others when you can and you never, ever teach them to think themselves as lacking "humility" just because they come from money.
I have a question and I am not trying to be an ass, I am asking sincerely. Are you ashamed that you are well off?


----------



## Cletus

happyhusband0005 said:


> Because it has nothing to do with what you give them or don't give them, kids brains do not work like an adults they don't process things logically like an adult (most adults).


Nothing promotes humility and a sense of perspective like want.


----------



## happyhusband0005

Numb26 said:


> Why would it create an issue? There is a big difference and it seems that all you are doing is teaching them is to be guilty that their parents have money and that they are some how "lacking" compared to people that don't.
> You teach your kids by example what a good work ethic is, show them to help others when you can and you never, ever teach them to think themselves as lacking "humility" just because they come from money.
> I have a question and I am not trying to be an ass, I am asking sincerely. Are you ashamed that you are well off?


No I don't teach them to be guilty, the trouble is making them understand it doesn't come easy, they have no idea what it's like to worry about these things. They have friends without much drive or ambition of their own because they figure mom and dad will always take care of them. Having them understand that their situation is not normal prevents them from becoming arrogant ****s or the rich kids of instagram. I'm not ashamed at all of having money I worked hard for it and had to take huge risks to get it all going. As you can probably tell I am a little paranoid of them becoming douchebags as they go through high school and the temptation to show off will be there.


----------



## Numb26

happyhusband0005 said:


> No I don't teach them to be guilty, the trouble is making them understand it doesn't come easy, they have no idea what it's like to worry about these things. They have friends without much drive or ambition of their own because they figure mom and dad will always take care of them. Having them understand that their situation is not normal prevents them from becoming arrogant ****s or the rich kids of instagram. I'm not ashamed at all of having money I worked hard for it and had to take huge risks to get it all going. As you can probably tell I am a little paranoid of them becoming douchebags as they go through high school and the temptation to show off will be there.


All you can do is teach them that it is hard work that's brings the rewards and its not going to be handed to them (mine have chores they must do in order the earn an allowance, etc) and to pay it forward when ever they can but to do it anonymously (makes them learn to give without expecting a "pat on the back"). If you give them a good foundation hopefully they will make the right decisions later in life. I also teach them to never be ashamed of who they are, where they are from or what they have because around here having money is considered a bad thing.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

thunderchad said:


> This is a good argument for pre-nups. Partners can project themselves from debt too.


How will a prenup protect you from debt for a business or some other event that starts after you've been married?


----------



## thunderchad

BigDaddyNY said:


> How will a prenup protect you from debt for a business or some other event that starts after you've been married?


You can state in a pre-nup that all business debt past, present, and future is the responsibility of the business owning spouse. You can do the same with personal debt. IE, husband buys a boat with a loan...you can specify the boat and his loan are both his in the event of a divorce.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

I give up. You obviously only see marriage as a business arrangement. It seems you have the most negative view on everything that could happen in a marriage. I choose not to go through life like that. If the prenup worked for you and your wife great, but it isn't for everyone. There are circumstances where they make zero sense. Your statement that prenups are a must just isn't true, like very much of what you posted in this thread.


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> I give up. You obviously only see marriage as a business arrangement. It seems you have the most negative view on everything that could happen in a marriage. I choose not to go through life like that. If the prenup worked for you and your wife great, but it isn't for everyone. There are circumstances where they make zero sense. Your statement that prenups are a must just isn't true, like very much of what you posted in this thread.


The fact that so many people don't get pre-nups shows they are not a must. 
Countless millions do fine without them. 
Maybe they are a must for the op but not a must for many. Not a must for us.


----------



## Rus47

BigDaddyNY said:


> I give up. You obviously only see marriage as a business arrangement. It seems you have the most negative view on everything that could happen in a marriage. I choose not to go through life like that. If the prenup worked for you and your wife great, but it isn't for everyone. There are circumstances where they make zero sense. Your statement that prenups are a must just isn't true, like very much of what you posted in this thread.


I gather that OP deals with pre and post nups, maybe estate planning. Maybe he is a practicing attorney, It sounds like he has seen how things go wrong after a divorce. So if all of a person's career is cleaning up the messes, of course one's outlook is negative because the only examples you see are the bad ones.

I had a neighbor once who was a policeman, working the "graveyard" shift, Told me once that I had no idea what went on that he had to deal with while I was home asleep. He finally quit because he couldn't stand looking at every person he encountered as being a criminal.

Regarding the thread topic, what is wrong with having a prenup or a postnup? Seems about the same as having an estate plan or trust or even a will. If a breakup never happens then the prenup isn't needed. I have no idea what they cost, but doubt it could be more than a few $1000. Usually attorneys have ready-made fill-in-the blank forms that fir most people's situation.

I buy insurance for a lot of things will hopefully never experience. Like windstorm, or flood, or fire, or accidents, or my death (lol I will for sure experience that!). But it helps me (and wife!) sleep better.


----------



## Diana7

Rus47 said:


> I gather that OP deals with pre and post nups, maybe estate planning. Maybe he is a practicing attorney, It sounds like he has seen how things go wrong after a divorce. So if all of a person's career is cleaning up the messes, of course one's outlook is negative because the only examples you see are the bad ones.
> 
> I had a neighbor once who was a policeman, working the "graveyard" shift, Told me once that I had no idea what went on that he had to deal with while I was home asleep. He finally quit because he couldn't stand looking at every person he encountered as being a criminal.
> 
> Regarding the thread topic, what is wrong with having a prenup or a postnup? Seems about the same as having an estate plan or trust or even a will. If a breakup never happens then the prenup isn't needed. I have no idea what they cost, but doubt it could be more than a few $1000. Usually attorneys have ready-made fill-in-the blank forms that fir most people's situation.
> 
> I buy insurance for a lot of things will hopefully never experience. Like windstorm, or flood, or fire, or accidents, or my death (lol I will for sure experience that!). But it helps me (and wife!) sleep better.


You may be right about him being cynical due today his job but his statement isn't true. 
It's not essential to have a prenup and countless people don't want one.


----------



## Rus47

Diana7 said:


> You may be right about him being cynical due today his job but his statement isn't true.
> It's not essential to have a prenup and countless people don't want one.


Why would 'countless people' not want one? What if you could generate one for free by printing out a canned form off of a website like zoomlegal. Each party signs it in front of a notary, costs maybe $20. Each gets a copy, store in with the wills.

I didn't have one and at this stage setting up a post nup, besides being pontless for me, being close to exiting this earthly life, would inexplicable to my wife. Having said that, if was 20 in this day and age, contemplating marriage or even LTR, I would absolutely insist on a prenup. The world has changed greatly since I was young, and not IMO for the better. I have had too many friends and relatives picked clean by a hungry attorney and/or AP driving a p!st off wife.

It is only essential if you think there is a reasonable chance it might be useful. I think the chances of my house burning down is maybe one in hundred over the time I own it. I still buy insurance because while the chances are small, the loss is huge. So the risk is large enough to insure against.


----------



## Numb26

Rus47 said:


> Why would 'countless people' not want one? What if you could generate one for free by printing out a canned form off of a website like zoomlegal. Each party signs it in front of a notary, costs maybe $20. Each gets a copy, store in with the wills.
> 
> I didn't have one and at this stage setting up a post nup, besides being pontless for me, being close to exiting this earthly life, would inexplicable to my wife. Having said that, if was 20 in this day and age, contemplating marriage or even LTR, I would absolutely insist on a prenup. The world has changed greatly since I was young, and not IMO for the better. I have had too many friends and relatives picked clean by a hungry attorney and/or AP driving a p!st off wife.


Exactly this! Anyone with anything to lose would be a moron not to insist on one


----------



## Zedd

Numb26 said:


> Exactly this! Anyone with anything to lose would be a moron not to insist on one


Not quite true. You can have a lot to lose, but not care if you do.

I had a prenup in my first marriage. My wife's father insisted on it to protect any inheritance she would get. He was worth a couple million. She was 5 years older than me and at 22, I was in debit for my business. He just didn't want me throwing his inheritance at it. I understood, it was no big deal. Inheritance, if we got it, was not a marital asset and neither was the business. When I sold the business 18 months after being married for like 20x what his inheritance would eventually be, all those assets stayed aside, and were mine when we got divorced.

When I got re-married, I didn't ask for one. She offered though, unprompted. I grew up pretty poor so, it's not something that means a lot to me. I'm not worried about giving away half to her family if it were to come to it. They're all good people. It won't happen anyway.


----------



## LisaDiane

Rus47 said:


> It is only essential if you think there is a reasonable chance it might be useful. I think the chances of my house burning down is maybe one in hundred over the time I own it. I still buy insurance because while the chances are small, the loss is huge. So the risk is large enough to insure against.


This is the only point that matters about it.


----------



## Numb26

Zedd said:


> Not quite true. You can have a lot to lose, but not care if you do.
> 
> I had a prenup in my first marriage. My wife's father insisted on it to protect any inheritance she would get. He was worth a couple million. She was 5 years older than me and at 22, I was in debit for my business. He just didn't want me throwing his inheritance at it. I understood, it was no big deal. Inheritance, if we got it, was not a marital asset and neither was the business. When I sold the business 18 months after being married for like 20x what his inheritance would eventually be, all those assets stayed aside, and were mine when we got divorced.
> 
> When I got re-married, I didn't ask for one. She offered though, unprompted. I grew up pretty poor so, it's not something that means a lot to me. I'm not worried about giving away half to her family if it were to come to it. They're all good people. It won't happen anyway.


I guess it all depends on the circumstances. I still don't think it's a smart move to take a chance that a divorce will be amicable. I mean if your wife did something horrible enough to get a divorce why would you be ok giving half you assets to her? Makes no sense to me


----------



## Diana7

Rus47 said:


> Why would 'countless people' not want one? What if you could generate one for free by printing out a canned form off of a website like zoomlegal. Each party signs it in front of a notary, costs maybe $20. Each gets a copy, store in with the wills.
> 
> I didn't have one and at this stage setting up a post nup, besides being pontless for me, being close to exiting this earthly life, would inexplicable to my wife. Having said that, if was 20 in this day and age, contemplating marriage or even LTR, I would absolutely insist on a prenup. The world has changed greatly since I was young, and not IMO for the better. I have had too many friends and relatives picked clean by a hungry attorney and/or AP driving a p!st off wife.
> 
> It is only essential if you think there is a reasonable chance it might be useful. I think the chances of my house burning down is maybe one in hundred over the time I own it. I still buy insurance because while the chances are small, the loss is huge. So the risk is large enough to insure against.


I don't think the reason people don't get one is the cost, nor for me anyway.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Exactly this! Anyone with anything to lose would be a moron not to insist on one


You are calling billions of people morons.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> You are calling billions of people morons.


Maybe, doesn't make it any less true.


----------



## Diana7

Rus47 said:


> I gather that OP deals with pre and post nups, maybe estate planning. Maybe he is a practicing attorney, It sounds like he has seen how things go wrong after a divorce. So if all of a person's career is cleaning up the messes, of course one's outlook is negative because the only examples you see are the bad ones.
> 
> I had a neighbor once who was a policeman, working the "graveyard" shift, Told me once that I had no idea what went on that he had to deal with while I was home asleep. He finally quit because he couldn't stand looking at every person he encountered as being a criminal.
> 
> Regarding the thread topic, what is wrong with having a prenup or a postnup? Seems about the same as having an estate plan or trust or even a will. If a breakup never happens then the prenup isn't needed. I have no idea what they cost, but doubt it could be more than a few $1000. Usually attorneys have ready-made fill-in-the blank forms that fir most people's situation.
> 
> I buy insurance for a lot of things will hopefully never experience. Like windstorm, or flood, or fire, or accidents, or my death (lol I will for sure experience that!). But it helps me (and wife!) sleep better.


Even if we did ever break up I wouldn't regret not having one. I didnt have one in my first marriage and never gave it a moments thought in my second. 
If I felt I needed one then I wouldn't get married.


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> Maybe, doesn't make it any less true.


I dont know anyone who felt they needed a prenup, young or old. Believe me none of them are morons.


----------



## Zedd

Numb26 said:


> why would you be ok giving half you assets to her? Makes no sense to me


Well, I'm really confident that it won't happen, first of all. Second, as my life goes on, I won't notice at all if half is missing. Even if I did, somehow, we're both kinda passionate about the same things with regards to it. She'll be giving it away the same way we do as a couple.

Money is weird, when you get a good amount - to live really comfortably - upper middle class. It's really important to your life. You want that car that was just out of reach, etc. The condo with a view or house on that awesome lake, whatever.

When it crosses over into a stupid amount of money, you learn one thing in a hurry. Nothing changes. You don't feel better. Your problems don't go away. You already had enough to comfortably pay the bills, so that was no longer a major stressor in your life. Everything is the same. It's kinda weird. You expect everything to be different because you can buy anything you want, but all the other stuff that bothered you, still bothers you.

Losing it isn't that big of a deal. It doesn't impact your life, really.

So, yeah, I really don't care. We're good. I made her a bunch of money before we got engaged investing on stuff she'd research while she was getting her MBA - I made her do full write ups and proposals - I didn't just throw money at everything. Anyway She was technically wealthy herself by the time we got married, and like I said, losing half doesn't cause me any injury.

We're actively tyring to give a lot away already.


----------



## Numb26

Zedd said:


> Well, I'm really confident that it won't happen, first of all. Second, as my life goes on, I won't notice at all if half is missing. Even if I did, somehow, we're both kinda passionate about the same things with regards to it. She'll be giving it away the same way we do as a couple.
> 
> Money is weird, when you get a good amount - to live really comfortably - upper middle class. It's really important to your life. You want that car that was just out of reach, etc. The condo with a view or house on that awesome lake, whatever.
> 
> When it crosses over into a stupid amount of money, you learn one thing in a hurry. Nothing changes. You don't feel better. Your problems don't go away. You already had enough to comfortably pay the bills, so that was no longer a major stressor in your life. Everything is the same. It's kinda weird. You expect everything to be different because you can buy anything you want, but all the other stuff that bothered you, still bothers you.
> 
> Losing it isn't that big of a deal. It doesn't impact your life, really.
> 
> So, yeah, I really don't care. We're good. I made her a bunch of money before we got engaged investing on stuff she'd research while she was getting her MBA - I made her do full write ups and proposals - I didn't just throw money at everything. Anyway She was technically wealthy herself by the time we got married, and like I said, losing half doesn't cause me any injury.
> 
> We're actively tyring to give a lot away already.


I give you my address so you can send me a check! 😉🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Zedd

Numb26 said:


> I give you my address so you can send me a check! 😉🤣🤣🤣🤣


I knew that was coming. We fund a lot of scholarships/foundations. It's possible some might make it's way into your pockets some day - well, your kids.


----------



## Evinrude58

Diana7 said:


> Even if we did ever break up I wouldn't regret not having one. I didnt have one in my first marriage and never gave it a moments thought in my second.
> *If I felt I needed one then I wouldn't get married.*


Diana your reasoning here is lacking. Very few people go into a marriage expecting to divorce.
Your feelings and crystal ball predictions for your life are likely not nearly as infallible as you think. The fact is that you are married, and you are not immune to a divorce or a vindictive ex husband. You may have zero to lose. You may feel NOW that you’d gladly give half your goodies to your husband should you divorce.
However, there are lots of people that are thankful they had a prenup when their spouse went off the rails via infidelity, drugs, mental illness, etc. 
Nobody is gonna force you to get a post nup, btw. You can continue touting your good judgement, perfect marriage, etc., but is it ok if others have a differing view?


----------



## Numb26

Zedd said:


> I knew that was coming. We fund a lot of scholarships/foundations. It's possible some might make it's way into your pockets some day - well, your kids.


That's a good thing you do! I fund Wounded Warriors and Habitat for Humanity. And thanks for thinking of my kids but they are already taken care of. 😉


----------



## Mr. Nail

Diana7 said:


> That's how I see marriage. 'With all my wordly goods I thee endow'. Sharing everything.


miss applied quote, only the man makes this endowment leaving him impoverished for life, having given every possession he has or will have away.


----------



## Zedd

Numb26 said:


> That's a good thing you do! I fund Wounded Warriors and Habitat for Humanity. And thanks for thinking of my kids but they are already taken care of. 😉


Nice. I do two habitat builds a year through my work. Love habitat.

</end threadjack>


----------



## Diana7

Evinrude58 said:


> Diana your reasoning here is lacking. Very few people go into a marriage expecting to divorce.
> Your feelings and crystal ball predictions for your life are likely not nearly as infallible as you think. The fact is that you are married, and you are not immune to a divorce or a vindictive ex husband. You may have zero to lose. You may feel NOW that you’d gladly give half your goodies to your husband should you divorce.
> However, there are lots of people that are thankful they had a prenup when their spouse went off the rails via infidelity, drugs, mental illness, etc.
> Nobody is gonna force you to get a post nup, btw. You can continue touting your good judgement, perfect marriage, etc., but is it ok if others have a differing view?


I am in no way giving crystal ball predictions. I have already said I have had one divorce after a long first marriage and that if it were to happen again I would still be 100% against pre-nups. I just don't believe in them. Period.


----------



## Cletus

Diana7 said:


> I am in no way giving crystal ball predictions. I have already said I have had one divorce after a long first marriage and that if it were to happen again I would still be 100% against pre-nups. I just don't believe in them. Period.


And you're going to make damn sure that we hear you say it about 4 dozen times.


----------



## Diana7

Cletus said:


> And you're going to make damn sure that we hear you say it about 4 dozen times.


Are you all going to do the same?


----------



## Cletus

Diana7 said:


> Are you all going to do the same?


Well, in 26 pages, I have seven replies (eight, now) in this thread.


----------



## karole

Cletus said:


> And you're going to make damn sure that we hear you say it about 4 dozen times.


Uncalled for. She can state her view as many times as she chooses, unless there is a rule I’m not aware of. Skip over her posts if you don’t like what she says. No need for snide comments


----------



## Rus47

Diana7 said:


> Even if we did ever break up I wouldn't regret not having one. I didnt have one in my first marriage and never gave it a moments thought in my second.
> If I felt I needed one then I wouldn't get married.


Ok


----------



## Rus47

Evinrude58 said:


> However, there are* lots of people that are thankful they had a prenup when their spouse went off the rails via infidelity,* drugs, mental illness, etc


No one can foretell the future. And there are tons of people on TAM who were blindsided when the one person they loved and trusted the most decided to take up with a gym rat or tattoo "artist". Dianna knows this. Heck, I have been married practically forever. But have no illusions of being immune to tragedy of a divorce. 

I had a friend whose wife went totally off of the rails after they had their golden wedding anniversary celebration. He thought she had a brain tumor or something. Totally out of character (as he knew her). Turns out she had had a BF for YEARS, and decided 5 decades married was enough, and she wanted to be fulltime with her younger ( by 10 years) boyfriend so at 70 they divorced. They sold their big house and he moved to another state to live with his son.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

I do feel like a prenup diminishes the trust you have in your spouse, or at least the appearance of trust. Maybe this is a naïve or romanticized view of marriage that I have, but so be it. Pretty much everyone in my family got married very early, as in prior to 20 yo. None had anything of significant monetary value, myself included. A prenup and securing what we had was not ever given a thought. In fact all were focused on how they were going to survive and get by. Over the years we've built up a considerable amount of wealth and fact is most of that wealth was built from my actions, pushing up my education level, striving to further my career. I would give up a lot if we divorced and I had to split everything with my wife. That really doesn't matter to me, because I've long ago decided that we are a partnership of equals, regardless of who brought in the paycheck. I've witnessed over the years that she puts in as much effort to our marriage and our family, even if it didn't bring in the big paycheck. It would be a huge slap in her face to suggest something like a postnup at this point. 

I think if you have little or nothing when getting married the prenup would be more detrimental to the marriage than it would help. If you have some huge assets value or big inheritance coming you could likely justify a prenup. Without that it just looks like you are planning for failure of the marriage, IMO.

I can also understand why someone like @Diana7 wouldn't want one, for multiple reasons. For one, being later in life having had kids and out of a 20 something year marriage may make you feel like you have the ability know what you are getting into with someone. I assume she had a good feeling about her future 2nd husband. I know that may be naïve too, but I think her, like me, have an all-in attitude. I feel like a prenup means you aren't fully in. You may be 99% there, but not all the way.


----------



## drencrom

Livvie said:


> Courts divide MARITAL assets in half, as they should do. Anyone would be foolish to sign a pre or post nup specifying any other kind of split.


The only thing a prenup does, and should do, is protect assets/money, and any interest they would have made, PRIOR to marriage.

Anything accumulated during marriage SHOULD be divisible.


----------



## drencrom

MarmiteC said:


> I'll be the one to chime in. My bf has physical custody of his kids. Mom has them every other weekend for 2 nights.


Well then you found an exception. Again, "The court historically have been better to the moms than the dads" rings true. Hell, I even tried to get my kids on basis of my ex partying and smoking pot all the time. Nope, wasn't enough.

When the state says they want what is best for the children, they are full of s***.


----------



## Numb26

drencrom said:


> Well then you found an exception. Again, "The court historically have been better to the moms than the dads" rings true. Hell, I even tried to get my kids on basis of my ex partying and smoking pot all the time. Nope, wasn't enough.
> 
> When the state says they want what is best for the children, they are full of s***.


When the State says they want a drug using felon to have equal custody you know you have to take care of things yourself.


----------



## drencrom

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder if Dads would agree that they shouldn't get 50/50 custody after a divorce if they didn't contribute equally to raising them. I mean, sure they helped pay for the household and stuff, but if they didn't spend an equal amount of TIME with their children, would it be fair for custody to be decided based on that?


If they worked all day and came home and spent quality time with the kids, sure, they should get as much consideration. I would work all day, come home and the rest of the night was mine with them because my X would run over to friend's houses and party, yet it could be argued that because she is the SAHM, she did more to raise them??


----------



## drencrom

thunderchad said:


> Let me run this scenario by you:
> 
> Lets say there's a really nice guy who has a house, retirement, and nice business going for him. He meets a nice lady w/ 3 kids from another man. He marries her and she becomes a stay at home mom for her kids. He pays someone to do the cleaning and he does most of the cooking because she's a bad cook. Ten years down the road they divorce. Is she entitled to half of his assets or at least half of what he accumulated in those 10 years?


Half of what was accumulated during the 10 years, yes. Prior, no. Just like, prenup or not, my attorney told me everything in my 401k prior to marriage she is not entitled to. There are exceptions like the super rich. 

But for us commoners, you figure out your assets prior to marriage, document it, and there really is no need for a prenup. Other exceptions would be if for some reason a house someone had prior to marriage, but ended up refinancing and put the new spouse's name on the loan, etc.


----------



## LisaDiane

drencrom said:


> If they worked all day and came home and spent quality time with the kids, sure, they should get as much consideration. I would work all day, come home and the rest of the night was mine with them because my X would run over to friend's houses and party, yet it could be argued that because she is the SAHM, she did more to raise them??


I didn't mean that I thought it should actually happen that way...in fact, I DON'T. 

I was just posing the question to see what the men who don't believe SAHMs should get any of their money for their contributions to the family during the marriage thought about it.

You are RIGHT, men shouldn't be denied access to their children based on the actual time they contributed to their kids.
But I'm not sure I believe SAHMs should be denied half of their "husband's money" because of the actual amount they weren't able to contribute financially because of the nature of their job.

It's a gray area for me, that's why I was asking.


----------



## DTO

BigDaddyNY said:


> I think if you have little or nothing when getting married the prenup would be more detrimental to the marriage than it would help. If you have some huge assets value or big inheritance coming you could likely justify a prenup. Without that it just looks like you are planning for failure of the marriage, IMO.


Agree. Even if you do have those things to protect it can look like you're hedging your bet. I had to think hard and accept the risk an otherwise good woman would be put off by my keeping my assets separate.

And that's exactly why not everyone wants or should get one.


----------



## drencrom

LisaDiane said:


> I didn't mean that I thought it should actually happen that way...in fact, I DON'T.
> 
> I was just posing the question to see what the men who don't believe SAHMs should get any of their money for their contributions to the family during the marriage thought about it.
> 
> You are RIGHT, men shouldn't be denied access to their children based on the actual time they contributed to their kids.
> But I'm not sure I believe SAHMs should be denied half of their "husband's money" because of the actual amount they weren't able to contribute financially because of the nature of their job.
> 
> It's a gray area for me, that's why I was asking.


Ok, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## DownButNotOut

I don't know about hurting trust. I figure that if you can't sit down with me and work through the details of a prenup, how can I trust you to sit down and work through the details of any other difficult topic we might face in our lifetime together.


----------



## LisaDiane

DTO said:


> Agree. Even if you do have those things to protect it can look like you're hedging your bet. I had to think hard and accept the risk an otherwise good woman would be put off by my keeping my assets separate.
> 
> And that's exactly why not everyone wants or should get one.


Oh, do you mean you've already had a pre-nup for your other marriages?


----------



## DTO

LisaDiane said:


> Oh, do you mean you've already had a pre-nup for your other marriages?


No. I've only had the one and we got married young and poor so it never crossed my mind. But I developed a really good career that made us fairly well-off. But, seeing her bail as I got laid off, then try to hide assets and take whatever she could, and then try to claim child support while I was unemployed was an eye opener about how selfish people really can be. We had a big income differential and I had done a great job supporting her and the kids; it's not like she could justify it morally by saying I squandered by earnings on myself and left her hanging.

Then, needing years to rebuild my career was a wake-up call as to how devastating these setbacks can be. You hear how divorce can set you back for years and people generally do not make up the lost earnings after a layoff. But actually living that out was (for me, anyways) a whole different thing, especially because I went from a high-quality employer to two mediocre ones before landing my current position. It made me much more cautious because I know that a financial setback is only more painful as we get older.

With all that life experience, I am unwilling to take that same chance in any second marriage. Some friends and I were chopping this up as a group, and I've heard others talking about it as well. I came to realize that a significant number of ladies would insist on being full partners to whatever I had. But, having myself and a child to support, I realized that I'm not willing to enter into a marriage if I am exposed to whatever I had going in or what I might still get coming out (spousal support). If that means someone leaves me, I'm comfortable with that.


----------



## MarmiteC

DTO said:


> No. I've only had the one and we got married young and poor so it never crossed my mind. But I developed a really good career that made us fairly well-off. But, seeing her bail as I got laid off, then try to hide assets and take whatever she could, and then try to claim child support while I was unemployed was an eye opener about how selfish people really can be. We had a big income differential and I had done a great job supporting her and the kids; it's not like she could justify it morally by saying I squandered by earnings on myself and left her hanging.
> 
> Then, needing years to rebuild my career was a wake-up call as to how devastating these setbacks can be. You hear how divorce can set you back for years and people generally do not make up the lost earnings after a layoff. But actually living that out was (for me, anyways) a whole different thing, especially because I went from a high-quality employer to two mediocre ones before landing my current position. It made me much more cautious because I know that a financial setback is only more painful as we get older.
> 
> With all that life experience, I am unwilling to take that same chance in any second marriage. Some friends and I were chopping this up as a group, and I've heard others talking about it as well. I came to realize that a significant number of ladies would insist on being full partners to whatever I had. But, having myself and a child to support, I realized that I'm not willing to enter into a marriage if I am exposed to whatever I had going in or what I might still get coming out (spousal support). If that means someone leaves me, I'm comfortable with that.


Does this only apply if there is apparent financial disparity with a potential new partner? What if you have a similar level? What if she has more? How much would be classed as disparity?


----------



## DTO

MarmiteC said:


> Does this only apply if there is apparent financial disparity with a potential new partner? What if you have a similar level? What if she has more? How much would be classed as disparity?


I would sign the prenup even if she had more. I would be uncomfortable taking something from before or after the marriage. I assume she would want one also if her standing was equal to or better than mine, to provide the same protection I would want.

Since I'm prepared to sign one in general, I haven't thought about it in terms of some sort of threshold.


----------



## David60525

thunderchad said:


> If there's any advice I can give to my fellow men, it is pre-nuptial agreements are a must. If you're already married, then a post-nup.
> 
> I've seen so many men get raked over the coals in family court. I've seen businesses destroyed. I've seen life savings and retirement accounts lost. I've seen most prized possessions forcibly sold.
> 
> Most family law jurisdictions heavily favor the women. Protect yourself, your assets, and your future.
> 
> Getting a post-nup a few months before my divorce saved my ass bigtime.


Read the tactical guide to women. A must.


----------



## David60525

DTO said:


> I would sign the prenup even if she had more. I would be uncomfortable taking something from before or after the marriage. I assume she would want one also if her standing was equal to or better than mine, to provide the same protection I would want.
> 
> Since I'm prepared to sign one in general, I haven't thought about it in terms of some sort of threshold.


Either gender, get one
Also if not marrying get a cohabitation agreement, better yet, never play house. Separate residences, maybe no marriage, separate residences, and if separate residences have kids out of wedlock and split parenting. At least neither party gets raked by family law industry and loose all money and rights. Oh yeah no sleep overs, just scheduled hook up sessions. It will work. Men are getting obsolete. Daughters and sons will never know what a man is, but a sperm donor in the end.


----------



## LisaDiane

DTO said:


> No. I've only had the one and we got married young and poor so it never crossed my mind. But I developed a really good career that made us fairly well-off. But, seeing her bail as I got laid off, then try to hide assets and take whatever she could, and then try to claim child support while I was unemployed was an eye opener about how selfish people really can be. We had a big income differential and I had done a great job supporting her and the kids; it's not like she could justify it morally by saying I squandered by earnings on myself and left her hanging.
> 
> Then, needing years to rebuild my career was a wake-up call as to how devastating these setbacks can be. You hear how divorce can set you back for years and people generally do not make up the lost earnings after a layoff. But actually living that out was (for me, anyways) a whole different thing, especially because I went from a high-quality employer to two mediocre ones before landing my current position. It made me much more cautious because I know that a financial setback is only more painful as we get older.
> 
> With all that life experience, I am unwilling to take that same chance in any second marriage. Some friends and I were chopping this up as a group, and I've heard others talking about it as well. I came to realize that a significant number of ladies would insist on being full partners to whatever I had. But, having myself and a child to support, I realized that I'm not willing to enter into a marriage if I am exposed to whatever I had going in or what I might still get coming out (spousal support). If that means someone leaves me, I'm comfortable with that.


I don't think a potential partner who loves and values YOU would ever refuse to sign something that protects you.


----------



## LisaDiane

hamadryad said:


> ....on a side note, I have noticed an interesting trend....
> 
> Some of the guys I know that have earned a lot in their lives and may have gotten beat up in a divorce settlement are deliberately looking for women with money, so that they in essence, then turn the tables...The woman then becomes the workhorse, she shoulders a lot of the financial burdens, these guys either retire and look after the animals in the house(kids gone), or do other smaller odd stuff to keep semi busy...
> 
> Any one interested?? 😂


I don't understand this, I guess. Money is the very last thing I ever consider when deciding if someone makes me happy.

It's SO shallow and detached to judge people this way, and it's never how I want to relate to other people, especially someone who I want to give my HEART to.


----------



## Diana7

Cletus said:


> Well, in 26 pages, I have seven replies (eight, now) in this thread.


Not just you.


----------



## Diana7

LisaDiane said:


> I don't understand this, I guess. Money is the very last thing I ever consider when deciding if someone makes me happy.
> 
> It's SO shallow and detached to judge people this way, and it's never how I want to relate to other people, especially someone who I want to give my HEART to.


I am the same. There are so many more important things to think about than money and possessions.
That's partly why prenups aren't a priority to me.


----------



## LisaDiane

Diana7 said:


> I am the same. There are so many more important things to think about than money and possessions.
> That's partly why prenups aren't a priority to me.


I agree they aren't important to me either, however I would never be offended or refuse to sign one if they were important to a man I loved. If HE felt like he needed that to be secure with me and with my feelings for him, I would have no problem at all signing that for him.


----------



## happyhusband0005

LisaDiane said:


> I agree they aren't important to me either, however I would never be offended or refuse to sign one if they were important to a man I loved. If HE felt like he needed that to be secure with me and with my feelings for him, I would have no problem at all signing that for him.


I think getting the financial details of a potential breakup dealt with upfront makes sense and if both people have good representation it will be fair. I Would say if the person demanding it has the attitude that if your going to be a stay at home mom/dad your less valuable than me so you get less type of attitude that should give pause to the relationship. 

The intent is what is important.


----------



## Diana7

LisaDiane said:


> I agree they aren't important to me either, however I would never be offended or refuse to sign one if they were important to a man I loved. If HE felt like he needed that to be secure with me and with my feelings for him, I would have no problem at all signing that for him.


I would feel that if he wanted a prenup we weren't on the same page about how we saw marriage generally. That's why I wouldnt get serious with a guy who wanted one.
The subject never came up for us.


----------



## joannacroc

Diana7 said:


> I am the same. There are so many more important things to think about than money and possessions.
> That's partly why prenups aren't a priority to me.


Money and possessions might not be important to you, until you have kids who need sped and it's only decent in one or two school districts and every property there is expensive to rent or buy. To give your kid what they need, sadly you need money. It's not having the money, and rolling around in it like in a movie. It's being able to house, clothe and feed yourself and your kids without depending on others.


----------



## Numb26

joannacroc said:


> Money and possessions might not be important to you, until you have kids who need sped and it's only decent in one or two school districts and every property there is expensive to rent or buy. To give your kid what they need, sadly you need money. It's not having the money, and rolling around in it like in a movie. It's being able to house, clothe and feed yourself and your kids without depending on others.


Money is important no matter how much we wish otherwise


----------



## ThatDarnGuy!

This has become one popular thread. But in reality, a prenup is oftentimes not worth the paper its written on. 

I know a lady who is a divorce attorney. I asked her about this out of curiosity. She says some peenups stating something like one particular spouse retains X property in the event of divorce will stand in court. But she sees some of the most ridiculous crap that she gets thrown out. Stuff like in the event of divorce the ex wife agrees to waiving child support and alimony regardless of the length of the marriage. 

She says she has to be professional to her client. But on the inside, she is thinking why in the bleep would you even sign this??


----------



## bobsmith

I couldn't make it through the entire thread but I firmly agree with a pre nup and as others have pointed out, some laws will override certain language regardless. Never the less, get it all in there! The very first thing a woman will do before 'deciding to divorce' is weigh her financial options.

I am always blown away by people thinking marriage means forever! It means "forever, or until I find something else". The smartest play a man could make is to protect himself and plan for it! Women are quick to point out that "you should split things 50/50" but they change their tune REAL quick when the woman is carrying a bunch of cash! She will likely request a prenup! See the double standard here?

I have watches as men get financially ruined and the women dance off into the sunset with their 50%, then marry something else with cash that pays for everything. I think putting a prenup in the discussion very early may save a man a lot of wasted time! Many women will flat out walk away! Why? Because they may not get their golden parachute!

Now, I don't believe a woman should be left with nothing but let's be real. A man builds a multi $M company, then marries and she expects half of that???? Flip that coin over and see if the same holds true! I have lost count of how many women I personally know that have a nice new car, nice new home, nice everything, and the man is paying her many thousands/mo and barely managing! That's because he is now paying for all his expenses AND hers!

Get clued in men! The laws were written to enslave men into financial slavery! Protect yourself and don't fall for the "if you need a prenup, you don't really love me" BS. Love has nothing to do with this. This is a business transaction. Treat it as such!


----------



## karole

It is hilarious that most of the posts are ab men losing & women gaining. Most women in this day & age can support themselves. There are women with their own businesses & money just as there are men. Women should consider pre-nups to protect themselves just as men should. You guys act as tho men are the only people with property & money to protect. You are wrong guys


----------



## bobsmith

karole said:


> It is hilarious that most of the posts are ab *men losing & women gaining*. Most women in this day & age can support themselves. There are women with their own businesses & money just as their are men. Women should consider pre-nups to protect themselves just as men should. You guys act as tho men are the only people with property & money to protect. You are wrong guys


Karole, please throw over some examples of how a divorce causes the woman to have to pay 10K or more in alimony and child support!!!! PLEASE!!!

Because that is usually EXACTLY what happens Karole!

You literally make it sound like woman "CAN" support themselves, so they "DO".... As I said, when the woman comes into a relationship with serious cash, she will be instructed to get a prenup. But if a man does the same, he is a pric. It is a double standard that you cannot deny!


----------



## MarmiteC

DTO said:


> I would sign the prenup even if she had more. I would be uncomfortable taking something from before or after the marriage. I assume she would want one also if her standing was equal to or better than mine, to provide the same protection I would want.
> 
> Since I'm prepared to sign one in general, I haven't thought about it in terms of some sort of threshold.


I understand what you're saying. I guess I figure that legally many countries already protect the assets brought into a marriage so I see little point in creating a new legal document to protect what is often protected. Where it's not because a pre marital asset has somehow migrated to a marital asset, I need any potential future husband to trust in who I am at a base level, and that is a fair person who would ensure their pre-marital assets remained theirs post marriage. If they can't trust in this with me they shouldn't be marrying me, or me them. Perhaps that's too much of a romantic view and one day I'll change my mind on that but it's where I am today.


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> I have realized that apparently the ladies that hang around here, with, oh, 16k posts or so, seem to be the total opposite of what the rest of the population is actually like. I'd say if more women had your mind set, it would truly change the world. BUT, history is set on repeat and that is fact. hundreds of years ago women sold their bodies for BIG dollars and setting financial traps for men. Still holds true to this day. However, the men never seem to wise up so..........
> 
> You don't have to go far on this forum to find those with 5-10 posts, sharing their drama. It is like a repeating record here! Cheat, divorce, sell everything, alimony, child support to the max. There might be 1-2 women step in and tell their different story, but there are likely hundreds of men that fit the above to the letter. That sets the majority and the standard.
> 
> I remember when I was growing up and learned at church about this love/cherish/marriage thing. Life experiences have painted a much different reality. You get a "starter marriage" to run about, oh, 10yrs. Pop a couple kids, grow them until they wipe their own azz, then go looking for Mr. Right....er. The better looking one in the couple is the one that cheats. That is the one that files for divorce, and wins the duel! They make up stories to justify their behavior. If the man falls on hard times (aka, income reduction), divorce will follow.
> 
> I could go on, but I do math for a living and I recognize patterns and stat data. I wish I was not this calloused but my personal experienced coupled with those that I personally know have caused me to look at life as nothing but a business transaction.


I am fortunate in that I know loads of married couples who would never have a prenup and just don't see marriage that way. 
Maybe you are unlucky in that you don't know many.


----------



## LisaDiane

MarmiteC said:


> I understand what you're saying. I guess I figure that legally many countries already protect the assets brought into a marriage so I see little point in creating a new legal document to protect what is often protected. Where it's not because a pre marital asset has somehow migrated to a marital asset, I need any potential future husband to trust in who I am at a base level, and that is a fair person who would ensure their pre-marital assets remained theirs post marriage. If they can't trust in this with me they shouldn't be marrying me, or me them. Perhaps that's too much of a romantic view and one day I'll change my mind on that but it's where I am today.


There are many states in the US that the law says all assets become equal property after marriage. And even the ones that keep them separate have conditions that can make them equal property.

Also, while I am just like YOU are (I was fair and even generous to my EX in our divorce), I have personally seen three women in my family who became hateful, vengeful, and mercenary when their husbands wanted to divorce, for VERY good reasons, I might add.

So I do believe it's prudent to legally protect your own property that you owned or acquired before the marriage. Or you could very well end up losing it.


----------



## DTO

MarmiteC said:


> I understand what you're saying. I guess I figure that legally many countries already protect the assets brought into a marriage so I see little point in creating a new legal document to protect what is often protected. Where it's not because a pre marital asset has somehow migrated to a marital asset, I need any potential future husband to trust in who I am at a base level, and that is a fair person who would ensure their pre-marital assets remained theirs post marriage. If they can't trust in this with me they shouldn't be marrying me, or me them. Perhaps that's too much of a romantic view and one day I'll change my mind on that but it's where I am today.


I hear you, but I know from hard experience that the most noble intentions can be ignored when six figures is on the table and you're looking at a big lifestyle drop.


----------



## MattMatt

Zedd said:


> so, your outside experience is hearsay, then? Got it.
> 
> I get it. You want it to be true. It isn't. Just because you don't know what the wealthy people around you are doing, doesn't mean they aren't doing stuff.


*Moderator warning *Zedd, you have been warned privately about how you interact with other members. Now you are being warned in public.

Hearsay is only relevant in a court of law, not on a discussion forum about relationship issues, so the point you thought you were making is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Diana7

This says a lot of how I feel about the subject. Why You Shouldn't Sign a Prenup | HuffPost Life


----------



## MattMatt

*Moderator Warning *I just had to spend a long time cleaning up a pointless threadjack. The topic of this thread is "Pre Nups are a Must"_._

Anything else is a threadjack. And be nice to each other.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Diana7 said:


> This says a lot of how I feel about the subject. Why You Shouldn't Sign a Prenup | HuffPost Life


I agree with that article. Prenups, especially for a young first marriage couple, is more harmful than good for the longevity of the marriage.


----------



## Numb26

BigDaddyNY said:


> I agree with that article. Prenups, especially for a young first marriage couple, is more harmful than good for the longevity of the marriage.


They only make sense for a young first marriage couple if one of the pair is coming into the marriage with a lot of money and assets. Not to do so would be risky and uninformed.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Numb26 said:


> They only make sense for a young first marriage couple if one of the pair is coming into the marriage with a lot of money and assets. Not to do so would be risky and uninformed.


Risky, maybe, but why uninformed? It is easy enough to figure out what divorce laws look like in your state. If they are going to get legal advice about a prenup they could just as easily find out what standard divorce law states. 

I also suspect someone other than the future spouses are pulling the strings in your scenario here. You really think a 22 year old is concerned about their assets when they are in love and want to get married? 

I think any spouse that is being asked to sign a prenup should seriously reconsider getting married in the first place. You have a partner that is signaling they aren't all in. There is no other way to interrupt it. Again, I'm only talking about young first marriage couples.


----------



## Numb26

BigDaddyNY said:


> Risky, maybe, but why uninformed? It is easy enough to figure out what divorce laws look like in your state. If they are going to get legal advice about a prenup they could just as easily find out what standard divorce law states.
> 
> I also suspect someone other than the future spouses are pulling the strings in your scenario here. You really think a 22 year old is concerned about their assets when they are in love and want to get married?
> 
> I think any spouse that is being asked to sign a prenup should seriously reconsider getting married in the first place. You have a partner that is signaling they aren't all in. There is no other way to interrupt it. Again, I'm only talking about young first marriage couples.


I was in my 20's which is why I didn't get married till later in life. Wanting to protect yourself is in no way signaling that you aren't "aren't all in". Just shows that you are smart enough to know that things do happen and you have planned accordingly. "Poor planning leads to poor performance". If I was in love with someone, decided to get married again and that person raused a big stink about signing I would take it as she was being very mercenary and would dump her.


----------



## karole




----------



## LisaDiane

karole said:


> Speaking of donations by rich people: Elon Musk Donated $5.7 Billion in Tesla Shares to Charity in November (businessinsider.com)


All the rich vs poor posts were deleted, but I think this should be it's own thread!!!


----------



## karole

LisaDiane said:


> All the rich vs poor posts were deleted, but I think this should be it's own thread!!!


Oops! I don't know how to delete it.


----------



## LisaDiane

karole said:


> Oops! I don't know how to delete it.


Edit it and then replace all the text with a big smiling emoji!!! Lol! 

But start a new thread with that post, I think it would be a great topic!!


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> I agree with that article. Prenups, especially for a young first marriage couple, is more harmful than good for the longevity of the marriage.


I thought it was helpful in understanding why many of us wouldn't get one no matter what.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Numb26 said:


> I was in my 20's which is why I didn't get married till later in life. Wanting to protect yourself is in no way signaling that you aren't "aren't all in". Just shows that you are smart enough to know that things do happen and you have planned accordingly. "Poor planning leads to poor performance". If I was in love with someone, decided to get married again and that person raused a big stink about signing I would take it as she was being very mercenary and would dump her.


Sorry, I just don't like planning for failure when it comes to something like marriage. I think there needs to be a high level of trust for a successful marriage. A prenup is the antithesis of a high level of trust, and it is occurring before you even step into the marriage.


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> Sorry, I just don't like planning for failure when it comes to something like marriage. I think there needs to be a high level of trust for a successful marriage. A prenup is the antithesis of a high level of trust, and it is occurring before you even step into the marriage.


I would just know that we were not on the same page about marriage if a guy suggested a prenup. Probably a good thing to find out then though. 
As the article says, it's like sewing a seed. A bad seed.


----------



## LisaDiane

BigDaddyNY said:


> Sorry, I just don't like planning for failure when it comes to something like marriage. I think there needs to be a high level of trust for a successful marriage. A prenup is the antithesis of a high level of trust, and it is occurring before you even step into the marriage.


That's very idealistic of you, but how do you then explain all the divorces where there are no pre-nups? All that "trust" in the beginning did nothing to stop the eventual loss of love and dissolution of their marriage.

And then loss of any assets that weren't protected.


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> That's very idealistic of you, but how do you then explain all the divorces where there are no pre-nups? All that "trust" in the beginning did nothing to stop the eventual loss of love and dissolution of their marriage.
> 
> And then loss of any assets that weren't protected.


Exactly. I couldnt afford to live in that fantasy world, especially with what you can see all around you.


----------



## LisaDiane

Diana7 said:


> I would just know that we were not on the same page about marriage if a guy suggested a prenup. Probably a good thing to find out then though.
> As the article says, it's like sewing a seed. A bad seed.


Your husband now is fortunate (blessed) that he married a woman like you.

If he had married a woman like my sister, who in the beginning was a delightfully appearing "Christian" woman, he would have lost his assets to a serial cheater and liar.


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> Your husband now is fortunate (blessed) that he married a woman like you.
> 
> If he had married a woman like my sister, who in the beginning was a delightfully appearing "Christian" woman, he would have lost his assets to a serial cheater and liar.


Which is why CYA is always the best course of action


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> Which is why CYA is always the best course of action


CYA?


----------



## bobsmith

I think many men here have seen what happens to a woman once they find another. A vengeful race to an attorney to "see what they can get". If it is "just about love and nothing else", how is this behavior explained? If it is "just about love", why would a prenup be a big deal then?


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> CYA?


Cover your ass


----------



## Zedd

LisaDiane said:


> CYA?


cover your... backside


----------



## hamadryad

BigDaddyNY said:


> Sorry, I just don't like planning for failure when it comes to something like marriage. I think there needs to be a high level of trust for a successful marriage. A prenup is the antithesis of a high level of trust, and it is occurring before you even step into the marriage.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

LisaDiane said:


> That's very idealistic of you, but how do you then explain all the divorces where there are no pre-nups? All that "trust" in the beginning did nothing to stop the eventual loss of love and dissolution of their marriage.
> 
> And then loss of any assets that weren't protected.


Oh, I know there are plenty of ways for a marriage to end in divorce, prenup or not. What we don't know is how many of the very few marriages with prenups set up an adversarial atmosphere that poisoned the marriage. Just think about it, you are discussing the end of your marriage before it even starts. Does that really sound like a good way to start off? Do you plan your resignation before you start a new job? Did you have a plan for what you would do if you failed out of college, while you were still in high school?

Barring some very unique circumstance, every state in the US takes into consideration if an asset was owned prior to marriage. You have to be careful to not mingle assets in a way that makes them become marital assets, if that is what you are concerned about. So the assets are protected. There is no state in the US where your inheritance or your home you owned prior to marriage automatically becomes shared with your spouse. Also, a prenup that does not fit within existing state divorce law won't be upheld. So why bother?

Additionally, most of the things that will make personal assets become marital assets without a prenup will make them marital assets with a prenup. Say you own a home prior to marriage and put it in a prenup that you will maintain sole ownership in case of divorce. If your spouse can show they contributed in any way, made payments, made improvements, etc. they are going to be entitled to part of it anyway.

I'm sure I am being idealistic, but I think that is the attitude you need when jumping into a marriage. That's my opinion.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

I think it can be a source of friction during the marriage too. Suppose you have a house covered in a prenup and the couple is living in that house. The spouse locked out of any rights to the house due to the prenup will forever be thinking twice before putting anything into that house. They may even be barred from doing so. It is like they are a renter, not an owner. 

I don't see how you can be in favor of a prenup if you believe marriage is a full partnership, where it is a 100% team effort. It can't be a 100% team effort with a prenup. It will forever be we are a team, oh, except for this, that and the other thing.


----------



## karole

My husband and I didn't have very much between us when we married over 35 years ago; however, if something should happen to him and I were to remarry, I most definitely would require a pre-nup now. We have a 23 year old business and a home that is paid for. I do not feel that I should have to split what my husband and I worked for most of our lives with another man. Plus, I want whatever assets that are left to go to my daughter. I would expect the man I married to feel the same about his assets.


----------



## LisaDiane

BigDaddyNY said:


> Oh, I know there are plenty of ways for a marriage to end in divorce, prenup or not. What we don't know is how many of the very few marriages with prenups set up an adversarial atmosphere that poisoned the marriage. Just think about it, you are discussing the end of your marriage before it even starts. Does that really sound like a good way to start off? Do you plan your resignation before you start a new job? Did you have a plan for what you would do if you failed out of college, while you were still in high school?
> 
> Barring some very unique circumstance, every state in the US takes into consideration if an asset was owned prior to marriage. You have to be careful to not mingle assets in a way that makes them become marital assets, if that is what you are concerned about. So the assets are protected. There is no state in the US where your inheritance or your home you owned prior to marriage automatically becomes shared with your spouse. Also, a prenup that does not fit within existing state divorce law won't be upheld. So why bother?
> 
> Additionally, most of the things that will make personal assets become marital assets without a prenup will make them marital assets with a prenup. Say you own a home prior to marriage and put it in a prenup that you will maintain sole ownership in case of divorce. If your spouse can show they contributed in any way, made payments, made improvements, etc. they are going to be entitled to part of it anyway.
> 
> I'm sure I am being idealistic, but I think that is the attitude you need when jumping into a marriage. That's my opinion.


I am happy for you that you weren't forced through circumstances to lose your idealism.


----------



## Numb26

karole said:


> My husband and I didn't have very much between us when we married over 35 years ago; however, if something should happen to him and I were to remarry, I most definitely would require a pre-nup now. We have a 23 year old business and a home that is paid for. I do not feel that I should have to split what my husband and I worked for most of our lives with another man. Plus, I want whatever assets that are left to go to my daughter. I would expect the man I married to feel the same about his assets.


This is exactly correct!


----------



## BigDaddyNY

karole said:


> My husband and I didn't have very much between us when we married over 35 years ago; however, if something should happen to him and I were to remarry, I most definitely would require a pre-nup now. We have a 23 year old business and a home that is paid for. I do not feel that I should have to split what my husband and I worked for most of our lives with another man. Plus, I want whatever assets that are left to go to my daughter. I would expect the man I married to feel the same about his assets.


Now that is a circumstance where a prenup does have merit. Especially since you are protecting an asset for a child of your first marriage. I think the prenup is likely to make much more sense for a 2nd marriage. Even then, a lot will be protected by your state's divorce laws. It would be prudent to know what those are.


----------



## Numb26

BigDaddyNY said:


> Now that is a circumstance where a prenup does have merit. Especially since you are protecting an asset for a child of your first marriage. I think the prenup is likely to make much more sense for a 2nd marriage. Even then, a lot will be protected by your state's divorce laws. It would be prudent to know what those are.


Just on my personal experience, I would not put much faith in a State's divorce courts or laws or judges for that matter


----------



## BigDaddyNY

LisaDiane said:


> I am happy for you that you weren't forced through circumstances to lose your idealism.


Thank you, me too.

I'm know there are ways my idealism could be totally shattered, but I don't see the point in thinking that way or planning for it. Like I said, do you start a new job/career with an exit plan prior to your first day, or plan what will happen when you flunk out of college while you are a senior in HS? I doubt it, so why plan your exit in marriage?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Numb26 said:


> Just on my personal experience, I would not put much faith in a State's divorce courts or laws or judges for that matter


Those same courts and judges will preside over the execution of the prenup too.


----------



## Numb26

BigDaddyNY said:


> Those same courts and judges will preside over the execution of the prenup too.


Which is why having an excellent law firm is as important as having a prenup.


----------



## LisaDiane

karole said:


> My husband and I didn't have very much between us when we married over 35 years ago; however, if something should happen to him and I were to remarry, I most definitely would require a pre-nup now. We have a 23 year old business and a home that is paid for. I do not feel that I should have to split what my husband and I worked for most of our lives with another man. Plus, I want whatever assets that are left to go to my daughter. I would expect the man I married to feel the same about his assets.


I have very little...but if I fell in love with a man who really wanted to marry me (and I couldn't talk him out of it...Lol!!), who had less than or equal to me, I would absolutely want a pre-nup to protect my home and small nest egg. I would also want my children to have access to my assets if I died while married.

Also, as I have said before, if I love a man who NEEDS a pre-nup in order to feel secure that I am in love with HIM, I have absolutely no problem with signing one. It wouldn't be only about MY needs in our relationship, it would be about HIS needs as well. 

Since I truly have NO interest in anyone else's money except my own, why wouldn't I be willing to sign a pre-nup for a man I loved, with a full and accepting heart for who HE is and what matters to HIM...???

I don't understand the emotional implications some people have with this issue. If I loved HIM, and trusted in his love for me, of course I would sign anything that would protect him and prove that I never meant him any harm.


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> I have very little...but if I fell in love with a man who really wanted to marry me (and I couldn't talk him out of it...Lol!!), who had less than or equal to me, I would absolutely want a pre-nup to protect my home and small nest egg. I would also want my children to have access to my assets if I died while married.
> 
> Also, as I have said before, if I love a man who NEEDS a pre-nup in order to feel secure that I am in love with HIM, I have absolutely no problem with signing one. It wouldn't be only about MY needs in our relationship, it would be about HIS needs as well.
> 
> Since I truly have NO interest in anyone else's money except my own, why wouldn't I be willing to sign a pre-nup for a man I loved, with a full and accepting heart for who HE is and what matters to HIM...???
> 
> I don't understand the emotional implications some people have with this issue. If I loved HIM, and trusted in his love for me, of course I would sign anything that would protect him and prove that I never meant him any harm.


It is like people saying that they won't love someone unless they have access to their money


----------



## BigDaddyNY

LisaDiane said:


> I have very little...but if I fell in love with a man who really wanted to marry me (and I couldn't talk him out of it...Lol!!), who had less than or equal to me, I would absolutely want a pre-nup to protect my home and small nest egg. I would also want my children to have access to my assets if I died while married.
> 
> Also, as I have said before, if I love a man who NEEDS a pre-nup in order to feel secure that I am in love with HIM, I have absolutely no problem with signing one. It wouldn't be only about MY needs in our relationship, it would be about HIS needs as well.
> 
> Since I truly have NO interest in anyone else's money except my own, why wouldn't I be willing to sign a pre-nup for a man I loved, with a full and accepting heart for who HE is and what matters to HIM...???
> 
> I don't understand the emotional implications some people have with this issue. If I loved HIM, and trusted in his love for me, of course I would sign anything that would protect him and prove that I never meant him any harm.


Again, I think if it is not your first marriage there is a much greater likelihood that a prenup will make sense.

I don't know your history, but would you have felt the same at the start of your first marriage?


----------



## karole

BigDaddyNY said:


> Those same courts and judges will preside over the execution of the prenup too.


I worked for lawyers for 25 years, so, I know some good ones. Where people mess up his hiring a real estate attorney to draw up a pre-nup or a will. You need to retain lawyers that specialize in their fields.


----------



## LisaDiane

BigDaddyNY said:


> I think it can be a source of friction during the marriage too. Suppose you have a house covered in a prenup and the couple is living in that house. The spouse locked out of any rights to the house due to the prenup will forever be thinking twice before putting anything into that house. They may even be barred from doing so. It is like they are a renter, not an owner.
> 
> I don't see how you can be in favor of a prenup if you believe marriage is a full partnership, where it is a 100% team effort. It can't be a 100% team effort with a prenup. It will forever be we are a team, oh, except for this, that and the other thing.


Again, you can't envision the view from a second marriage in your late 40s or older. I brought a small amount of money and a small mortgage on property I own into my second marriage. Imagine if I had to split that with my EX, who worked as little as possible and snuck money out of our joint accounts throughout our marriage for himself. 

Fortunately for me, NC is not a community property state, so I knew when I was negotiating with him that he wouldn't be entitled to any of that. But in another state, it's possible that he WOULD HAVE BEEN. 

I will never put myself in that position again. And any man who loves me won't want to put me in that position. 
And I will feel that way about any potential partner I have -- I will never want to harm him. And what is the best way to prove that to him?? Legally giving up any claim to HIS property. Because I only want HIM, not his stuff.


----------



## bobsmith

karole said:


> My husband and I didn't have very much between us when we married over 35 years ago; however, if something should happen to him and I were to remarry, I most definitely would require a pre-nup now. We have a 23 year old business and a home that is paid for. I do not feel that I should have to split what my husband and I worked for most of our lives with another man. Plus, I want whatever assets that are left to go to my daughter. I would expect the man I married to feel the same about his assets.


LOL. This is exactly what I said! Women will pursue a prenup and it is socially accepted. I'd bet a fat roll of my own cash that if a man were in the exact same circumstance and pursued a prenup, he would be scolded at every corner for it! When women have something, they will do everything to protect it, and make it sound perfectly reasonable. But if a man does this, he is trying to scam his partner. When you couple all of this with the lopsided legal system, it seems pretty clear who should be protecting assets.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Numb26 said:


> It is like people saying that they won't love someone unless they have access to their money


I could turn that around to saying you don't trust me and think I'm just in it for your money.


----------



## karole

bobsmith said:


> LOL. This is exactly what I said! Women will pursue a prenup and it is socially accepted. I'd bet a fat roll of my own cash that if a man were in the exact same circumstance and pursued a prenup, he would be scolded at every corner for it! When women have something, they will do everything to protect it, and make it sound perfectly reasonable. But if a man does this, he is trying to scam his partner. When you couple all of this with the lopsided legal system, it seems pretty clear who should be protecting assets.


Did you not read my last sentence where I stated that I would expect the man to feel the exact same way about protecting his assets? Why do you have to make this out to be a male/female thing?


----------



## Numb26

BigDaddyNY said:


> I could turn that around to saying you don't trust me and think I'm just in it for your money.


Now your getting it. People will come and go but you have to make sure your assets will always be there. Especially if you have kids.


----------



## LisaDiane

BigDaddyNY said:


> Again, I think if it is not your first marriage there is a much greater likelihood that a prenup will make sense.
> 
> I don't know your history, but would you have felt the same at the start of your first marriage?


Yes. But we had nothing when we first married.

My first husband still owes me $65,000 in child support that I tried to collect, but he found ways around it. 

I could have tried harder, if I had been willing to risk exposing my children to a dangerous, violent drunk...but I wouldn't have done that for $65million. 

Money has never mattered to me. His feelings matter to me. Loving him matters to me. Sex matters to me.

Never money.


----------



## LisaDiane

BigDaddyNY said:


> I could turn that around to saying you don't trust me and think I'm just in it for your money.


You are turning it around and saying that -- he said this in response to you.


----------



## bobsmith

karole said:


> Did you not read my last sentence where I stated that I would expect the man to feel the exact same way about protecting his assets? *Why do you have to make this out to be a male/female thing*?


Because it really is! I quoted your response because it highlights what I have said, which is that if a 'woman' has something, she will want to protect it. However, just because you feel the same about another guy you many never marry, that does not null the general norm in current society in that if a man desires a prenup, he will be shamed for it, both from his partner, and society. 

I literally have a friend that married my best friend that was 'only in it for love'.....Boy did that change once the big D hit! She got the house, a $50k classic car that I helped build, and more! She marched right down to the local attorney mart and got the hook up. 

And now that the kid is grown, the CS done ran out and she is having to foot the bill solo. 

I try not to be bitter about it, but I have been out of the game long enough to see what it looks like on the outside. I wish it was the way I was taught and raised to be.


----------



## Diana7

Just read this which is interesting. 

How many people have a prenuptial agreement with their spouse?
Only 3% of people who have a spouse or are planning on getting married in the near future have a prenuptial agreement. Married couples who don’t pool all of their resources are more than twice as likely to wind up with marital problems that can include a divorce.


----------



## gold5932

My lawyer is drawing up my daughter's papers. Can you imagine in 5 years, they decide to divorce and the soon to be x sued her for half her share of the family business? That would mean 25% of the business the family worked hard to grow would become his. Totally unacceptable. And we're not talking about a couple of bucks but would it really matter?


----------



## bobert

BigDaddyNY said:


> I think it can be a source of friction during the marriage too. Suppose you have a house covered in a prenup and the couple is living in that house. The spouse locked out of any rights to the house due to the prenup will forever be thinking twice before putting anything into that house. They may even be barred from doing so. It is like they are a renter, not an owner.
> 
> I don't see how you can be in favor of a prenup if you believe marriage is a full partnership, where it is a 100% team effort. It can't be a 100% team effort with a prenup. It will forever be we are a team, oh, except for this, that and the other thing.


This can be accurate.

My wife inherited a lakehouse about 12 years ago. Being an inherited property already covers her pretty well but it is in our postnup as well and she has been very careful to keep that property (and some of her inheritance) separate from the marital assets. Whenever repairs need to be done, she uses "her" money and little of "mine" (in comparison) has gone towards it. I can't help but be a bit sour about it at times when issues come up or even when we are there because it feels like "hers" not "ours". It's not a huge issue but those feelings are there and I can see it causing issues for some people. 

It's not because I want the property or half the value, it's that she's keeping it as a sort of financial backup plan. I understand that given our situation but for someone who has a good marriage, I think it could cause more issues.


----------



## hamadryad

I really don't see what the issue is?

I'd imagine its mostly women that would be put off with it, no? I can't see many guys that would have issue with it, but I dunno...The fact that a woman wouldn't sign it, or become an issue where its a deal breaker, then I would have no other choice but to think that she is looking more for security, and may not be invested because of undying love........

The problem(I have seen) is that divorces are usually ugly and people go hard after one another, for no other reasons than the lawyers are egging their clients on, and at the time of divorce, they haven't reached the point of acceptance...If more couples just waited to officially file until they both have achieved acceptance then there would not be nearly as much vitriol and couples are far more likely to be fair with one another...


----------



## bobsmith

bobert said:


> This can be accurate.
> 
> My wife inherited a lakehouse about 12 years ago. Being an inherited property already covers her pretty well but it is in our postnup as well and she has been very careful to keep that property (and some of her inheritance) separate from the marital assets. Whenever repairs need to be done, she uses "her" money and little of "mine" (in comparison) has gone towards it. I can't help but be a bit sour about it at times when issues come up or even when we are there because it feels like "hers" not "ours". It's not a huge issue but those feelings are there and I can see it causing issues for some people.
> 
> It's not because I want the property or half the value, it's that she's keeping it as a sort of financial backup plan. I understand that given our situation but for someone who has a good marriage, I think it could cause more issues.


LOL. The saying is, "what is hers is hers. What is his.....is also hers". Women expect his assets to he shared, but it doesn't go the other way. You know....so they can protect their financial well being. But how dare a man try to protect himself! 

And the other thread about dad covering his daughter is pretty typical. Dad will step in only when there is money on her side to defend. 

I think what gives me a firm stance on the issue is my own self. I realize that at my age, no woman would marry me for "love". They are looking for a home for their kids to live in, and to get the bills paid. It is a business deal. Something I highly doubt I will ever have to entertain, but there is no way any woman is going to step in AFTER my achievement of financial freedom, and expect me to give her or her kids the farm. Is it not enough to provide everything else one needs in life? 

But I can't totally fault women for following human nature. They are trying to survive! They know their body will get them what they want, and they certainly use it. Men will continue to walk right into the trap....so....there really is no point here. As one pointed out, only like 3% of people even have a prenup. In most cases, man brings it up, woman says she will leave over it, he proceeds into the horrible odds of financial ruin.......


----------



## bobert

bobsmith said:


> LOL. The saying is, "what is hers is hers. What is his.....is also hers". Women expect his assets to he shared, but it doesn't go the other way. You know....so they can protect their financial well being. But how dare a man try to protect himself!
> 
> And the other thread about dad covering his daughter is pretty typical. Dad will step in only when there is money on her side to defend.
> 
> I think what gives me a firm stance on the issue is my own self. I realize that at my age, no woman would marry me for "love". They are looking for a home for their kids to live in, and to get the bills paid. It is a business deal. Something I highly doubt I will ever have to entertain, but there is no way any woman is going to step in AFTER my achievement of financial freedom, and expect me to give her or her kids the farm. Is it not enough to provide everything else one needs in life?
> 
> But I can't totally fault women for following human nature. They are trying to survive! They know their body will get them what they want, and they certainly use it. Men will continue to walk right into the trap....so....there really is no point here. As one pointed out, only like 3% of people even have a prenup. In most cases, man brings it up, woman says she will leave over it, he proceeds into the horrible odds of financial ruin.......


Not so fast.

1) The postnup was my idea, and came nearly a decade after she inherited money and property.
2) She tried (hard) to waive spousal support.
3) She has no desire to touch anything that is "mine".
4) Her inheritance was used to pay off our mortgage but she had every intention of splitting the house 50/50. I made the decision to say no, what she put into the house goes back to her, then we split the rest 50/50.
5) Her inheritance bought our third lakehouse which she has every right to but set that to go to me 100%, even though the value has more than tripled in price. My grandfather built it, and we bought it off my parents, and she would never want me to lose it or fight for it.
6) Our marriage has been unstable since its conception.
7) Her step-dad controlled all the money and was VERY abusive about it. She needs that little bit of control/safety and absolutely hates relying on a man. So, sometimes there is more to the story.

Don't paint every woman with the same brush, it makes you look like an ass.


----------



## bobsmith

Bobert, I am not trying to insult you or your wife here. But what you are saying is typical while 'still' being married!!!!! Things get quite shifty once the dirt starts flying. I am not saying your wife would, but statistically, it can get scary. Usually the more assets and cash there is, the messier it gets. I have heard so many older men tell me flat out, "it would cost too much to divorce her". That is a very sad state to live in.


----------



## karole

I honestly don’t understand why some men on here think men are the only ones with money or assets. That is insane thinking in this day & age. If that is really the way you guys think, you need to work on your woman picker.


----------



## bobert

bobsmith said:


> Bobert, I am not trying to insult you or your wife here. But what you are saying is typical while 'still' being married!!!!! Things get quite shifty once the dirt starts flying. I am not saying your wife would, but statistically, it can get scary. Usually the more assets and cash there is, the messier it gets. I have heard so many older men tell me flat out, "it would cost too much to divorce her". That is a very sad state to live in.


Of course things can go poorly in a divorce, but that goes for both sexes. If the wife has more, there is nothing stopping the husband from going after it and it does happen.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Numb26 said:


> Now your getting it. People will come and go but you have to make sure your assets will always be there. Especially if you have kids.


People may come and go, but I choose to believe we are in it for a lifetime and I act accordingly. I may have very rose colored glasses on, since I got married with absolutely nothing and 32 years into a extremely happy marriage shapes my point of view on this.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

gold5932 said:


> My lawyer is drawing up my daughter's papers. Can you imagine in 5 years, they decide to divorce and the soon to be x sued her for half her share of the family business? That would mean 25% of the business the family worked hard to grow would become his. Totally unacceptable. And we're not talking about a couple of bucks but would it really matter?


This is an instance where a prenup makes perfect sense. This is a situation that could have an impact on multiple people outside the marriage. In a case like this it would be foolish to not protect the business.


----------



## BigDaddyNY

bobert said:


> This can be accurate.
> 
> My wife inherited a lakehouse about 12 years ago. Being an inherited property already covers her pretty well but it is in our postnup as well and she has been very careful to keep that property (and some of her inheritance) separate from the marital assets. Whenever repairs need to be done, she uses "her" money and little of "mine" (in comparison) has gone towards it. I can't help but be a bit sour about it at times when issues come up or even when we are there because it feels like "hers" not "ours". It's not a huge issue but those feelings are there and I can see it causing issues for some people.
> 
> It's not because I want the property or half the value, it's that she's keeping it as a sort of financial backup plan. I understand that given our situation but for someone who has a good marriage, I think it could cause more issues.


That is exactly the kind of situation I was thinking of. I would feel extremely weird if I were in a house that my wife called hers, not ours. I can easily see how that slightly sour taste could become a major point of friction in a marriage.


----------



## happyhusband0005

LisaDiane said:


> That's very idealistic of you, but how do you then explain all the divorces where there are no pre-nups? All that "trust" in the beginning did nothing to stop the eventual loss of love and dissolution of their marriage.
> 
> And then loss of any assets that weren't protected.


For me the way my brain operates risk improves my chances of success. I think the risk keep you focused and prevents complacency. Of course in this situation the risk really only affects one side of the equation.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

Diana7 said:


> This says a lot of how I feel about the subject. Why You Shouldn't Sign a Prenup | HuffPost Life


That's why it should be standard for everybody. There would be no shame, no appearance of greed, no gender issues, just standard and normal and expected as part of the process.

Get the financial disclosure out in the open, so that no one is concealing assets or debts, and no one has to go back and try to figure out what they were worth years and years after the fact. Every state could have a standard version so you know what the terms would be instead of being surprised by them at separation. A couple could make modifications if they wished, get a lawyer to sign off on it, and then off they to go get the marriage license.

Marriage IS already a contract. It's just that the couple doesn't have any understanding of the legal obligations they are getting into. And they should.

The couple is still a team. It's just that the team has clarified terms for its possible dissolution. I don't feel that weakens the team. If anything, it gives them a more solid foundation to build on.

Plus, if your fiancée is asking to put weird, unfair or unloving things in the prenup, then that's a clue that maybe you shouldn't be trusting them before it's too late?


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm know there are ways my idealism could be totally shattered, but I don't see the point in thinking that way or planning for it. Like I said, do you start a new job/career with an exit plan prior to your first day, or plan what will happen when you flunk out of college while you are a senior in HS? I doubt it, so why plan your exit in marriage?


When you show up the first day of a new job and sign the paperwork, there's generally a contract involved, and you get to read the terms, right? Learn how severance may work, learn the circumstances under which you might be fired, learn about probationary periods, regular raises, vacation, benefits, etc? And you might even get to negotiate on some points?

When you enroll in college, you get to read the code of conduct, the terms in which you can be suspended or expelled, the fees and the deadlines on which you have to pay them, the requirements for any scholarship, etc?

We are surrounded by legal contracts. Marriage is one of the few where the terms are completely hidden until you end the contract. I'm just saying the couple should know those terms at the start, and customize them to suit themselves and their personal situation. Instead, divorcing people have to spend big bucks and need a judge to lay down the terms when tempers are hot and the love is gone.


----------



## bobsmith

Hopeful Cynic said:


> When you show up the first day of a new job and sign the paperwork, there's generally a contract involved, and you get to read the terms, right? Learn how severance may work, learn the circumstances under which you might be fired, learn about probationary periods, regular raises, vacation, benefits, etc? And you might even get to negotiate on some points?
> 
> When you enroll in college, you get to read the code of conduct, the terms in which you can be suspended or expelled, the fees and the deadlines on which you have to pay them, the requirements for any scholarship, etc?
> 
> *We are surrounded by legal contracts. Marriage is one of the few where the terms are completely hidden until you end the contract*. I'm just saying the couple should know those terms at the start, and customize them to suit themselves and their personal situation. Instead, divorcing people have to spend big bucks and need a judge to lay down the terms when tempers are hot and the love is gone.


ON THE HEAD! I call marriage a business transaction and people lose their minds. IT IS! It is also one that people are lead to just "trust their hormones". The divorce rates should really be enough for anyone to consider the "terms" more carefully, but it will be followed by smooches, humping, and "love"..... 

This technically should be the most important decision of your life.......but it's not anymore! This is why people just get hitched in Vegas and deal with the big D later. 

I could come up with a better legal plan in an afternoon but it would never matter because the smoking hot and poor women of the world would never go for it. After all, you marry money for a reason, right?


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Hopeful Cynic said:


> When you show up the first day of a new job and sign the paperwork, there's generally a contract involved, and you get to read the terms, right? Learn how severance may work, learn the circumstances under which you might be fired, learn about probationary periods, regular raises, vacation, benefits, etc? And you might even get to negotiate on some points?
> 
> When you enroll in college, you get to read the code of conduct, the terms in which you can be suspended or expelled, the fees and the deadlines on which you have to pay them, the requirements for any scholarship, etc?
> 
> We are surrounded by legal contracts. Marriage is one of the few where the terms are completely hidden until you end the contract. I'm just saying the couple should know those terms at the start, and customize them to suit themselves and their personal situation. Instead, divorcing people have to spend big bucks and need a judge to lay down the terms when tempers are hot and the love is gone.


All great points and I do believe there are situations where a prenup makes complete sense. Like in a previous example with a family owned business. 

However, to say prenups are a must for everyone is nonsense and would just be a windfall for lawyers. Take me for example. Why would an 18 and 21 year old that own nothing but their cars and have to pool all their resources to survive need a prenup? I can't even conceive what a prenup for that kind of situation would be structured without totally alienating both parties. I make 10x what my wife does, but she deserve a lot of credit for that. That was a complete unknown when we got married 30+ years ago. How would could you factor in all the possible outcomes of your careers and life all in advance. 

Also, the examples you gave about jobs and college. That is actually a problem I see with prenups. Everything you list is pretty much one sided. The employer or the college dictate everything to you. Yeah, you may be able to negotiate some with an employer if you are being hired for a fairly high level position, but your typical run of the mill employee is going to be told exactly what's what. Sign or don't take the job. That is how I see prenups. One person has something and they are in no uncertain terms unwilling to share it or its fruits with their soon to be spouse and the other person's only options are accept it or not get married. That is a difficult position to be put in when you are in love.


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> Thank you, me too.
> 
> I'm know there are ways my idealism could be totally shattered, but I don't see the point in thinking that way or planning for it. Like I said, do you start a new job/career with an exit plan prior to your first day, or plan what will happen when you flunk out of college while you are a senior in HS? I doubt it, so why plan your exit in marriage?


Despite the fact my first marriage ended in divorce it didn't and never will change my 'idealism'/views on prenups and I suspect you would be the same in those circumstances. 
First marriage or second marriage, planning for divorce before you get married seems like asking for trouble. 
I was pleased to read that only 3% of married and engaged couples have prenups. Reading on this forum it seemed that the vast majority had them. Maybe they are far more common in the USA?


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> ON THE HEAD! I call marriage a business transaction and people lose their minds. IT IS! It is also one that people are lead to just "trust their hormones". The divorce rates should really be enough for anyone to consider the "terms" more carefully, but it will be followed by smooches, humping, and "love".....
> 
> This technically should be the most important decision of your life.......but it's not anymore! This is why people just get hitched in Vegas and deal with the big D later.
> 
> I could come up with a better legal plan in an afternoon but it would never matter because the smoking hot and poor women of the world would never go for it. After all, you marry money for a reason, right?


Yet many women such as myself come into a marriage with more than their partners so they are not 'marrying into money.' You may get a small number of men and women who marry just for the money if the other person is very rich, but most don't marry for that reason. 

If I thought a marriage was a business transaction I wouldn't bother getting married. I would rather be single.


----------



## MarmiteC

LisaDiane said:


> There are many states in the US that the law says all assets become equal property after marriage. And even the ones that keep them separate have conditions that can make them equal property.
> 
> Also, while I am just like YOU are (I was fair and even generous to my EX in our divorce), I have personally seen three women in my family who became hateful, vengeful, and mercenary when their husbands wanted to divorce, for VERY good reasons, I might add.
> 
> So I do believe it's prudent to legally protect your own property that you owned or acquired before the marriage. Or you could very well end up losing it.


Perhaps it depends on the circumstances. I don't have children, I don't need to provide for them. Yes, I do need to make sure I provide for myself. Following my divorce my assets are currently very liquid. If I put them into a property prior to another marriage then that would be a pre marital asset. If that was to become the main family home, I would see what could be done financially for my potential husband to buy into the property, making it a full marital asset, also avoiding any requirement for a prenup. Perhaps if that wasn't possible I would need to consider something different since then in the UK it would be considered a marital asset, however I am unlikely to truly fall in love with someone who doesn't work, who doesn't also provide something, for themselves or for the family since I highly value a working ethic. Absolute earnings is not important, but approach life with goals and motivation is.



DTO said:


> I hear you, but I know from hard experience that the most noble intentions can be ignored when six figures is on the table and you're looking at a big lifestyle drop.


And maybe if I ever found myself with that level of disparity my rose tinted glasses would fall! lol


----------



## BigDaddyNY

Diana7 said:


> Despite the fact my first marriage ended in divorce it didn't and never will change my 'idealism'/views on prenups and I suspect you would be the same in those circumstances.
> First marriage or second marriage, planning for divorce before you get married seems like asking for trouble.
> I was pleased to read that only 3% of married and engaged couples have prenups. Reading on this forum it seemed that the vast majority had them. Maybe they are far more common in the USA?


They aren't any more common in the US. 

It seems the the majority of people don't like the idea of a prenup and there aren't even that many divorcees that wish they did have a prenup. This is from a divorce and family law site.


Despite half of all marriages ending in divorce, only 11% of couples state that there’s a chance their marriage could end in divorce and less than 5% have a prenup in place to protect their interests should they divorce
15% of divorcees wish they had put a prenup in place before getting married
If your prenup is drafted correctly (with the help of an experienced attorney), it can override Equitable Distribution State Law and Community Property Law
Prenups are thrown out when it matters most (during a divorce) all the time because they aren’t drafted to hold up in a court of law; hiring an experienced attorney is critical to ensure your prenup is solid and enforceable
Prenuptial agreements have some limitations; they can’t determine custody or visitation agreements or stipulate certain parenting rules
62% of people think that asking for prenuptial agreement has negative connotations and 63% of people feel that they would be at increased risk of divorce if their potential spouse asked them to sign a prenup
Prenuptial agreements cost significantly less than a battle over property in court and can save money in the long run


----------



## Zedd

As mentioned, there are certain situations where they're super-important - group owned businesses, etc.

But, part of the reason they fall apart, is due to children. And, while you may be able to protect assets from a spouse, courts claw around that really easily by saying "the children have a right to continue to live the life they're accustomed to," so any split of assets protected by the prenup ultimately becomes child support the other spouse lives off of "to help the kids live their normal lives."


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

BigDaddyNY said:


> Also, the examples you gave about jobs and college. That is actually a problem I see with prenups. Everything you list is pretty much one sided. The employer or the college dictate everything to you. Yeah, you may be able to negotiate some with an employer if you are being hired for a fairly high level position, but your typical run of the mill employee is going to be told exactly what's what. Sign or don't take the job. That is how I see prenups. One person has something and they are in no uncertain terms unwilling to share it or its fruits with their soon to be spouse and the other person's only options are accept it or not get married. That is a difficult position to be put in when you are in love.


I don't think marriage is as different as you think. The state dictates almost everything to the divorcing couple right now. It's one-sided state vs couple. You just don't know what the terms are until divorce. A mandatory prenup would just be the state saying "These are the default terms for divorce. Change them to your mutual satisfaction now if you want, and sign at marriage." So then the couple knows the terms, and has the power to make adjustments, at the start of the contract when they love each other instead of being surprised by them at the end when they may despise each other and having a bitter court battle.


----------



## Diana7

BigDaddyNY said:


> They aren't any more common in the US.
> 
> It seems the the majority of people don't like the idea of a prenup and there aren't even that many divorcees that wish they did have a prenup. This is from a divorce and family law site.
> 
> 
> Despite half of all marriages ending in divorce, only 11% of couples state that there’s a chance their marriage could end in divorce and less than 5% have a prenup in place to protect their interests should they divorce
> 15% of divorcees wish they had put a prenup in place before getting married
> If your prenup is drafted correctly (with the help of an experienced attorney), it can override Equitable Distribution State Law and Community Property Law
> Prenups are thrown out when it matters most (during a divorce) all the time because they aren’t drafted to hold up in a court of law; hiring an experienced attorney is critical to ensure your prenup is solid and enforceable
> Prenuptial agreements have some limitations; they can’t determine custody or visitation agreements or stipulate certain parenting rules
> 62% of people think that asking for prenuptial agreement has negative connotations and 63% of people feel that they would be at increased risk of divorce if their potential spouse asked them to sign a prenup
> Prenuptial agreements cost significantly less than a battle over property in court and can save money in the long run


Thats quite encouraging really. Going by tam you would think that 99% of people want them or have them. I read it's just 3% of people who have them.


----------



## SongoftheSouth

I had a prenup agreement. The advice I got from lawyer friend was sign, notarize, put in safety deposit box and hope you never need it. He also mentioned they are never 100% and almost always challenged by one party. Use it as a bargaining chip if you can, When the time came her lawyer stated he would challenge it of course since I accumulated a lot of assets which were separate property as per agreement. I knew she wanted our house and I let her have it (worth around 350k); however, I had well north of a million dollars in other assets which I insisted we enforce as part of the agreement. They agreed and that was that. My sister said I was a fool to give her anything because the agreement was enforceable; however, sometimes its better to negotiate something that makes everyone happy and close the book. 

But in general I agree. If you have assets prior to marriage and expect to be a high earner and accumulate wealth and property during the marriage get a prenuptial agreement. You can spell out terms of alimony and more important what will be considered separate property but CS cannot be included in your agreement. Depending upon the skill of the attorney you can negotiate and horse trade there at the time of the divorce though.


----------



## DTO

SongoftheSouth said:


> But in general I agree. If you have assets prior to marriage and expect to be a high earner and accumulate wealth and property during the marriage get a prenuptial agreement.


This exactly. If I'm just getting by and/or need her to contribute so we build together, it doesn't make much sense. If I don't remarry until after retirement there might not be much point then either.

Otherwise, do it.


----------



## SongoftheSouth

BigDaddyNY said:


> They aren't any more common in the US.
> 
> It seems the the majority of people don't like the idea of a prenup and there aren't even that many divorcees that wish they did have a prenup. This is from a divorce and family law site.
> 
> 
> Despite half of all marriages ending in divorce, only 11% of couples state that there’s a chance their marriage could end in divorce and less than 5% have a prenup in place to protect their interests should they divorce
> 15% of divorcees wish they had put a prenup in place before getting married
> If your prenup is drafted correctly (with the help of an experienced attorney), it can override Equitable Distribution State Law and Community Property Law
> Prenups are thrown out when it matters most (during a divorce) all the time because they aren’t drafted to hold up in a court of law; hiring an experienced attorney is critical to ensure your prenup is solid and enforceable
> Prenuptial agreements have some limitations; they can’t determine custody or visitation agreements or stipulate certain parenting rules
> 62% of people think that asking for prenuptial agreement has negative connotations and 63% of people feel that they would be at increased risk of divorce if their potential spouse asked them to sign a prenup
> Prenuptial agreements cost significantly less than a battle over property in court and can save money in the long run


those points are pretty accurate from my experience but they are still generalities. the final bullet is so true however

Prenuptial agreements cost significantly less than a battle over property in court and can save money in the long run
If anyone has questions I will provide you answers based on my experience, but my alibi isnot all experiences are identical of course


----------



## snerg

SongoftheSouth said:


> I had a prenup agreement. The advice I got from lawyer friend was sign, notarize, put in safety deposit box and hope you never need it. He also mentioned they are never 100% and almost always challenged by one party. Use it as a bargaining chip if you can, When the time came her lawyer stated he would challenge it of course since I accumulated a lot of assets which were separate property as per agreement. *I knew she wanted our house and I let her have it (worth around 350k); however, I had well north of a million dollars in other assets which I insisted we enforce as part of the agreement.* They agreed and that was that. My sister said I was a fool to give her anything because the agreement was enforceable; however, sometimes its better to negotiate something that makes everyone happy and close the book.
> 
> But in general I agree. If you have assets prior to marriage and expect to be a high earner and accumulate wealth and property during the marriage get a prenuptial agreement. You can spell out terms of alimony and more important what will be considered separate property but CS cannot be included in your agreement. Depending upon the skill of the attorney you can negotiate and horse trade there at the time of the divorce though.


Kind of an off the subject question.

Why would you tell complete strangers that you have well north of million dollars in other assets?

Doesn't this make you a little worried someone may come to collect those assets?


----------



## bobsmith

It is not a shocker that most people chose willingly to ignore a prenup, under the guise of "love/marriage/blah". Right until the cheating and deceit starts. Then the horns come out. But at least in my parts, I do find it quite contradicting that if a woman has many assets, her protecting them seems socially acceptable. But if a MAN has many, his seeking to protect himself is seen as 'disrespectful'. 

What is hers is hers. What is his....is also hers.


----------



## Numb26

bobsmith said:


> It is not a shocker that most people chose willingly to ignore a prenup, under the guise of "love/marriage/blah". Right until the cheating and deceit starts. Then the horns come out. But at least in my parts, I do find it quite contradicting that if a woman has many assets, her protecting them seems socially acceptable. But if a MAN has many, his seeking to protect himself is seen as 'disrespectful'.
> 
> What is hers is hers. What is his....is also hers.


Pretty much how the thinking goes


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Don't get married. If you shack up, break up every few years to avoid common law pitfalls. Problem solved.


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> It is not a shocker that most people chose willingly to ignore a prenup, under the guise of "love/marriage/blah". Right until the cheating and deceit starts. Then the horns come out. But at least in my parts, I do find it quite contradicting that if a woman has many assets, her protecting them seems socially acceptable. But if a MAN has many, his seeking to protect himself is seen as 'disrespectful'.
> 
> What is hers is hers. What is his....is also hers.


The fact that my first marriage ended suddenly with so much pain and hurt after 23 years didn't change my mind about getting a prenup when getting married again coming up for 17 years ago now. 
I don't see any difference between whether men or women get prenups. 
It was something never bought up between us.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Everyone has a prenup whether they realize it or not.

If you do nothing your prenup is the law in effect in your jurisdiction. If you're fine with how that will work out for you, then I guess you don't need anything else. But if you'd like to tweak the default prenup, then you need to draw up something else that you and your fiancé can agree to.


----------



## Ms. Hawaii

DownButNotOut said:


> If you do nothing your prenup is the law in effect in your jurisdiction.


That’s not a prenup  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DownButNotOut

Ms. Hawaii said:


> That’s not a prenup
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course it is, in a way. What is a prenup? An agreement on how marital property will be dissolved upon divorce. Without a separate agreement, the laws of the jurisdiction where you divorce will determine it. In both cases, by agreeing to the marriage contract you also implicitly agree to be bound by the rules of divorce whether the default, or modified by a separate agreement.


----------



## Ms. Hawaii

DownButNotOut said:


> Of course it is, in a way. What is a prenup? An agreement on how marital property will be dissolved upon divorce. Without a separate agreement, the laws of the jurisdiction where you divorce will determine it. In both cases, by agreeing to the marriage contract you also implicitly agree to be bound by the rules of divorce whether the default, or modified by a separate agreement.


No, it isn’t. A prenup is a contract. Laws are NOT contracts. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DownButNotOut

Ms. Hawaii said:


> No, it isn’t. A prenup is a contract. Laws are NOT contracts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course a law is not a contract. But a marriage is a contract. Part of that contract is how to deal with its dissolution. By default, it is implicitly agreed by both parties to be bound by the State. A prenup is an explicit agreement to bind both parties upon marriage termination. Either way, when you enter into a marriage contract you have agreed to be bound by certain rules upon the ending of that marriage. Hence why I say there is a prenup in place whether you sign a separate agreement or not. I don't mean it in a strict legal sense, but in a conceptual sense.


----------



## pk1at

Does anybody have experience using a trust?


----------



## ABHale

thunderchad said:


> In this situation alimony for a temporary amount of time for the spouse to get a job and start earning a living would be appropriate. Also a percentage of the family assets maybe but I disagree with the automatic 50/50. But what's nice about pre and post nups is you can spell this all out beforehand. You can go into a marriage knowing exactly what will happen if you ever get divorced.


I will disagree here with this. If it was a joint decision for the one to stay home then more time should be given. There is a big difference between start earning a living and being established in a career. The SAHP should be given time to establish themself.

Now if one made the decision that they wanted to stay home with no input from the other spouse, they can eat dirt for all I care.


----------

