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

[DapperButch]

With the recent passing of same-sex marriage in many states, getting married, is no longer "getting married". People can take your shit now!

I was just wondering what people's thinking was about prenups. Do you have one? Would you have one? Do you have any future inherited property you would lose, money, other things of value to you that you want to make sure that you will still have after you divorce?

Here is the first article I found on the subject:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ows-30283.html

If I married my partner, I would want a prenup. I would want one due to my future inheritance. My partner and I have talked about it and it doesn't matter to her. I think we should have one for her sake, as well. Although she says she would be comfortable with much/most of her money going to me when she passes as she knows I will pass it onto her son, it is important to me that she designate a certain percentage to him (whatever she decides upon), that would be "his" upon her death (or at whatever age she thinks would be appropriate for him). It would just make me feel better for some reason.

Any money we make after getting married I would have no problem with splitting. It is what I am coming into the relationship with and will get from my family upon their deaths (ok, so my mother's death), that I am concerned about.

How do others feel? As I said earlier, if you had something/things that you don't want to chance losing in the divorce, would you tell your partner you would like a prenup? How would you feel if your partner wanted one?

[Kent]

No, I would not want a prenuptial agreement before marriage. I will only marry once and I will not be contemplating divorce before the marriage. It will be for the rest of my life and/or hers. I would want to leave everything I own to her if something were to happen to me. I would want to make sure that she would be taken care of in the event of my death and I'd want to have a life insurance policy in case of such an event.

Marriage is a very serious relationship and should be taken as such. If I have doubts before I marry her, then she is not the woman for me. If there is a need for a prenuptial agreement then there would be no marriage for me.

Just my two cents...

[*Anya*]

My partner and I have talked at length about money.

I never really had any money to speak of till my current job but it is so soul-crushing, I am looking for another job. If I change jobs, I will be back in the same general salary ball-park I always was.

My surgeries and hospital stays put me in debt that I am still climbing out from under.

My GF is a regional director and makes way more than I do and always has. She spent a short time after college working as a PE teacher and then went into the transportation industry for a corporation; a primarily male industry.

I still don't have a lot of money to speak of. She does.

She got soaked when her 21 year relationship ended. They were domestic partners but had no pre-nup.

I know a lot of people think a pre-nup is awful, untrusting and unromantic. I personally think it is wise. I don't think that I have a right to expect any of the money or property that she had when we got together. I have daughters and grandchildren. If I die, I want them to get what is fair.

She had nieces and nephews that she wants to do the same.

All cards on the table, no surprises before the I do's. A lot is not going to be easy to talk about. My welfare years were grim and they were some years that should have been good earning years but were spent in poverty instead

She needs to know all of it. Just a couple more secret shames around bad money choices during my time living on poverty lane. Even though it was long ago-it still has repercussions today....

Yeah Kanye, we want pre-nup, we want pre-nup!

Everything nice and kosher. It protects both of us.

[blush]

It's interesting to me how a marriage, or the end of one, can come down to protecting money. There are many "assets" in a marriage, money is the only tangible thing we can control when the bottom falls out. So, a lot of lawyers are making a lot of money selling marriage insurance in the form of pre-nups.

Bottom line for me is I need to trust my partner enough NOT to screw me over if things go bad. Otherwise, I don't need to get married. Marriage doesn't have a net.

I am a firm believer in air-tight wills, power of attorney, etc...that is where I'll spend my lawyer money.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kent

No, I would not want a prenuptial agreement before marriage. I will only marry once and I will not be contemplating divorce before the marriage. It will be for the rest of my life and/or hers. I would want to leave everything I own to her if something were to happen to me. I would want to make sure that she would be taken care of in the event of my death and I'd want to have a life insurance policy in case of such an event.

Marriage is a very serious relationship and should be taken as such. If I have doubts before I marry her, then she is not the woman for me. If there is a need for a prenuptial agreement then there would be no marriage for me.

Just my two cents...

Hey, Kent, just to clarify, I am talking about two separate issues in the prenup. Money that happens at the time of divorce, and my partner's money in relation to her son at her time of death. I am not saying my partner would not get all of the money I have at the time of my death (including any money I received from my mother upon HER death).
---------------------

To clarify our position a bit more, neither of us our actually coming in to the relationship with a large amount of our own money (well, I am coming in with some retirement money). My partner is coming into the relationship with some money she received at her father's death. I will be getting some money at the time of my mother's death (most likely). So, for us, it is about protecting money that we received through our respective parents (her's now, mine later).

There is certainly no reason why we can't split the money we received from our parents when we divorce even if we have a prenup in place, but I can't think of a reason why that would make sense to either one of us to do that.

Currently, my partner and I do not share money. We do not share a residence. We would not do those things until we did marry. Perhaps if we were already sharing expenses it would feel different.

-------------------

To roll back to the original point though, and to be clear the above is not seen as me attempting to backpeddle, if we did come into the relationship with radically different amounts of money (see Anya's post), I assume I would still want a prenup. It would make things nice and clean at the time of divorce and I do feel that people should leave with the money they entered the relationship with. A prenup ensures that emotions don't come into play when it comes to the biggest stressor at the time of every divorce, the splitting of assets. For me a prenup has nothing to do with trust, it has to do with making things clean and easy. It has nothing to do with not trusting my partner.

[Kobi]

I am a realist and a pragmatist. I am also 57 years old. I would insist on a prenup for both parties.

The reason, for me, is to protect premarital assets, to shield each other from premarital debt, and to protect any foreseeable future monies that are unconnected to the marriage.

To me, at my age, it just makes sense. We each have made decisions and financial plans for ourselves and our future well before the marriage. Positive or negative, we each have to live with the consequences.

In addition, at my age, my earning capacity is time limited. To have to assume someone else's debts is just illogical, and to have to rebuild a nest egg is self defeating.

Dapper, I am also confused about why you are lumping the distribution of assets after the death of a partner with a prenup. They are totally separate issues in my head, each with their own legal instrument and purpose.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I am a realist and a pragmatist. I am also 57 years old. I would insist on a prenup for both parties.

The reason, for me, is to protect premarital assets, to shield each other from premarital debt, and to protect any foreseeable future monies that are unconnected to the marriage.

To me, at my age, it just makes sense. We each have made decisions and financial plans for ourselves and our future well before the marriage. Positive or negative, we each have to live with the consequences.

In addition, at my age, my earning capacity is time limited. To have to assume someone else's debts is just illogical, and to have to rebuild a nest egg is self defeating.

Dapper, I am also confused about why you are lumping the distribution of assets after the death of a partner with a prenup. They are totally separate issues in my head, each with their own legal instrument and purpose.

Prenups can actually include assets after death as well. However, I made things confusing by mentioning that (which I noticed by reading Kent's post), so I was clearing that up for Kent and essentially saying to ignore that part of my post.

However, yes we will have a wills, power of attorny, etc.

[Jane Bond]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I am a realist and a pragmatist. I am also 57 years old. I would insist on a prenup for both parties.

The reason, for me, is to protect premarital assets, to shield each other from premarital debt, and to protect any foreseeable future monies that are unconnected to the marriage.

To me, at my age, it just makes sense. We each have made decisions and financial plans for ourselves and our future well before the marriage. Positive or negative, we each have to live with the consequences.

In addition, at my age, my earning capacity is time limited. To have to assume someone else's debts is just illogical, and to have to rebuild a nest egg is self defeating.

Dapper, I am also confused about why you are lumping the distribution of assets after the death of a partner with a prenup. They are totally separate issues in my head, each with their own legal instrument and purpose.

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

[QueenofSmirks]

My sentiments run along the lines of what blush had to say about it. I think anyone concerned about protecting their assets from the person they are about to marry should rethink marriage. This isn't coming from a "marriage is love, love should be romantic" place, because I'm much more practical than that. Marriage in this country is a legal contract, essentially, and yes, legal contracts often involve assets. But to put protections in place up front -- to me that just says "I don't trust this person."

Edited to add: If protecting assets is a major concern, maybe the "benefits" of marriage don't outweigh the potential pitfalls.

Another thought: Someone mentioned that a prenup would force a frank discussion about finances. Living together doesn't automatically equate to the sharing of assets, pooling of funds, etc. These types of discussions should be had *anyway* -*before* deciding to live together and especially before considering getting married to each other. If you need a prenup to force a discussion, then it seems strange to me that marriage would even be a consideration.

[Kent]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

Hey, Kent, just to clarify, I am talking about two separate issues in the prenup. Money that happens at the time of divorce, and my partner's money in relation to her son at her time of death. I am not saying my partner would not get all of the money I have at the time of my death (including any money I received from my mother upon HER death).
---------------------

To clarify our position a bit more, neither of us our actually coming in to the relationship with a large amount of our own money (well, I am coming in with some retirement money). My partner is coming into the relationship with some money she received at her father's death. I will be getting some money at the time of my mother's death (most likely). So, for us, it is about protecting money that we received through our respective parents (her's now, mine later).

There is certainly no reason why we can't split the money we received from our parents when we divorce even if we have a prenup in place, but I can't think of a reason why that would make sense to either one of us to do that.

Currently, my partner and I do not share money. We do not share a residence. We would not do those things until we did marry. Perhaps if we were already sharing expenses it would feel different.

-------------------

To roll back to the original point though, and to be clear the above is not seen as me attempting to backpeddle, if we did come into the relationship with radically different amounts of money (see Anya's post), I assume I would still want a prenup. It would make things nice and clean at the time of divorce and I do feel that people should leave with the money they entered the relationship with. A prenup ensures that emotions don't come into play when it comes to the biggest stressor at the time of every divorce, the splitting of assets. For me a prenup has nothing to do with trust, it has to do with making things clean and easy. It has nothing to do with not trusting my partner.

Dapper, there's nothing wrong with the way you feel about the topic. But, just to clarify my feelings: if money is that important to someone, I doubt that I'll be marrying her. To me marriage is a sacred bond between two people who love each other til death do they part, money or no money. Money does not figure into my equation for marriage in any shape or form. Love is all that I want and need from a woman. Money is not important to me. Love is all it's about for me.

[Chancie]

It has been almost 20 years since the commitment ceremony where my ex and I celebrated our love in front of 135 friends and family. My best friend sang, When I Fall in Love, as we walked in hand in hand; my mother told a story she wrote for us; our respective sisters read poetry; and we danced with our fathers to Dinah Washington. I wore a dress that was made for me, with a satin bodice with embroidery and pearls, and tulle sleeves and a full skirt. My ex wore a cream colored suit with tails and Kenneth Cole boots.

I usually say, She fell out of love with me, but we were both unhappy and our breakup was ugly. I was financially dependent on her because I was in school. We had made an agreement that when I graduated, she would quit the job she hated, although she made a lot money. But, she hired a lawyer, which meant I had to hire a lawyer, and she fought me on every detail of the dissolution of our shared assets. Six thousand dollars later, I was in debt, without a job, with no place to live.

When we first met, I took an HIV test, and she cried when it was negative. Now I'll have you for the rest of my life, she said, but when our relationship ended, she would have kicked me out of the house we bought together.

[CherylNYC]

This thread caught my eye because I've been commenting to friends lately that the possibility of full and equal marriage seemed so far away for so long, and the reality that it will actually become available to us any day now came so quickly, that we as a community haven't even settled on the words we would use to refer to our legally wed partners, much less acclimated our minds to the messy reality that the state and the courts would become involved in the possible disintegration of our previously unrecognised relationships. I'm in no danger of marriage at this time, but many of my friends are or will be married.

For those who feel that a pre-nup wouldn't be relevant to them because marriage is forever, please consider what happened between my friends W and G. They're both professionals though G was the bigger earner. G had spent her working life building her assets which were considerable by the time she married W who had been far less concerned with her personal finances. They were married in a state that recognises marriage equality. G felt that her marriage was a sacred and permanent trust. Period.

W left the marriage after seven years. They hired lawyers. G gave W half her life savings in the divorce. Both women are my friends, and no one has suggested that W was a gold digger. The marriage simply failed, and W happened to leave the relationship in a far better financial position than she was in when she entered it. After a bitter period W and G are now friends again, thankfully.

There are way too many variables when it comes to personal relationships. This is a purely theoretical question to a single person without many assets such as myself, but relationships sometimes fail, and losing property/assets that you worked hard to accrue to someone who has left you would certainly be a bitter pill for me.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by Kent

Dapper, there's nothing wrong with the way you feel about the topic. But, just to clarify my feelings: if money is that important to someone, I doubt that I'll be marrying her. To me marriage is a sacred bond between two people who love each other til death do they part, money or no money. Money does not figure into my equation for marriage in any shape or form. Love is all that I want and need from a woman. Money is not important to me. Love is all it's about for me.

Money iis not important to me either. I also have nothing. I don't care about material goods. I really don't. I've moved around too much to see them as anything but a pain in the ass. I never wanted a morgage or to stay put.

I married someone who felt about those things exactly the same as I did. Exactly. It was fantastic. We never fought about money, not once.

And then forever fucked off with someone from work because her father died and she lost herself. Everything changed, very *VERY* suddenly. I didn't have a single doubt about her, not one. Not ever. And I don't trust people. But she chose someone who makes £100,000 a year with a house and to have kids with. As in she will be giving birth. She never wanted to have kids and the thought of giving birth wierded her self-concepts out.

Her father dying changed everything. everything everything everything.

When the divorce was in process I got a letter off of her telling me she saw our marriage as a business transaction.

you could have knocked me over with a feather. This was my anti-capitolist, socialist, die hard unionist, loving partner that proposed to me in a tree in Hamstead heath with a glass ring because we couldn't afford a silver one.

A business transaction.

Our wedding was in the snow in amsterdam during a full lunar eclipse on the longest night of the year.

A business transaction. that's all it meant to her now.

Invasion of the bodysnatchers.

We both had debts, not stuff. But my mom is not well and the gal I was dating at the time said "push that through asap before she gets her arsehole hands on your mom's inheritance"

I was given the option to file for 12 years of alimony because of desertion. Leaving me with all the bills etc.

I had left the country. what the hell did I care. But I thought about taking those 12 years of alimony to make her understand just what the fuck she did.

My dad told me no. let her go and make your own money, like you always have. So I signed the opportunity away.

Never ever think that people cannot suddenly change. I just learned that one.

Would I have a prenup next time? I have no idea. I don't have anything. I have 9 bags of stuff and 20 boxes and a student debt. That will change when I get my inheritance but we'll see. I'm not interested in anyone else's money. I've had people offer me the moon, and very wealthy people. It never impressed me and frankly rather put me off.

But who knows. But I do know that people can change on a dime.

[Kelt]

I am in the same camp with Dapper and Kobi.

I think a prenup is essential for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that it would encourage, actually force, a frank and open communication about money with all cards on the table. And, like Dapper, I am in the situation of probably having a substantial inheritance in my future. I don't do my planning around that, but the potential is there. I am also finding that age has a big and immediate way of ripping the blinders off.

The specific reasons for having it have already been articulated quite well. I have not been researching this as I have no current need for it. But I did read the the document that was linked to in the OP, and it raised a question in my mind.

This part:
"Encourage" divorce. At one time, many courts viewed any prenup specifying how things would be divided up in case the couple splits as void and unenforceable because it promoted divorce. The modern approach allows such agreements, but judges in some states still take a hard look at them. If the agreement appears to offer a financial incentive for divorce to one party, it may be set aside.

It made me run some scenarios through my mind, and I found this disturbing. In the "what if" department I was wondering about this. What if you were married to a person and they had a sudden behavioral change? E.g. Your partner develops a penchant for heavy gambling, or another habit that rapidly incurs huge amount of debt for which you would be liable. This makes it seem that if you were to seek divorce because the person became something other than what you initially married, a judge could view this as trying to preserve your own assets, (and that would probably be part of it), and could overwrite the prenup. Curious.

In some ways I think that gay couples in general have not had to deal with some of these hard decisions by default of circumstances. On the other hand, I suppose it would be no different than straight couples, some people will go in fully responsible, and some will not. (Acknowledging that different people define "responsibility" differently). In any event, it is a new discussion within our community and I think an interesting one.

Thanks for the great thread Dapper!

[jools66]

even though its not romantic, i think in this day and age its a wise thing to have a pre-nup.
We never like to think that when we get married it will end in divorce, but some things are just out of our control.
i got married years ago, wasnt true to who i was (as in gay) and i left the relationship with nothin bc i wanted it that way.
i was the one who hurt him, and for me personally, i went into it with nothing much money wise.
i just wanted a clean break, with no tangles.
but if i was ever to get married again, i think i would lean more towards getting a prenup.
simply bc my own money circumstances have changed.

[Nattih]

Short answer: Nope.

Long answer: Hell nope.

I realize this will largely kill my ability to marry and I 100% accept that. The idea that I am already a liability to my future wife? Can't deal with.

[Jesse]

I have to agree with imperfect_cupcake, people do change. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes, through no fault of the person it's for the worse.

Were I to ever marry I would want a prenup. I prefer to see it as a means of the two of us taking care of one another and being responsible financially for the sake of both of our futures. It may have to have a lottery clause too.

I also will not share a banking account. There was a time years ago (30) when a girlfriend and I shared a bank account and I paid for that the hard way. It took me 6 months to pay all of the bounced check fees and bills that got behind because she walked the day after we put the checks in the mail for the monthly bills, and she cleaned out the bank on her way out and everything bounced. Lesson learned.

Also I think most of us go into a committed relationship with the thought in mind that it will be forever, and well, sadly it doesn't always work out that way.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Jesse

Were I to ever marry I would want a prenup. I prefer to see it as a means of the two of us taking care of one another and being responsible financially for the sake of both of our futures. It may have to have a lottery clause too.

Exactly. That is how I was seeing it when I wrote the first post. I saw/see it as a way to protect my wife and also as a way to make things easy and less stressful if we ended. I would actually see it as me being a good husband and doing something "for us", by initiating the process for the two of us.

I think that it is also easy for people who dont have any family assets to say that they would never consider it, as there is not a reason for them to consider it in the first place. It has nothing to do with the money you make as a couple, it has to do with money that you had before the person ever existed in your world. Or, at least for me, that is what I would want in a pre-nup. Not the money we make as a couple.

[Katniss]

Not to sound too jaded about it but frankly there is love and there is the business of life. I have auto and home insurance in case the unthinkable happens and Mother Nature decides those trees in the back yard are coming down on my stuff. I may hope and trust it won't happen but if it does I like to know what to expect while I go about picking up the pieces. I feel the same way about organ donation and end of life decisions. I want to have the hard conversations now while happy and smiling, not standing in the E.R. feeling scared and pressured. To me a pre-nup fits right in there with the first two life items. I am 100% for a pre-nup because I love clarity and a pre-nup provides that for me. I have been married before and we did not have a pre-nup however we were young, dewy-eyed in love and with no kids. Now I am older and the kiddo is 13. Priorities have shifted and while I find it almost laughable that I would get married again (never say never I suppose) I would want to make sure she is taken care of going forward. Especially if something were to happen before she was 18.

I won't reiterate what some of the other posters have said about aging, care issues, etc. as I do agree with all of those. What I do want to emphasize is I truly believe a pre-nup protects both parties regardless of whether their assets are equally matched going in or not. All it takes is one terrible accident and one partner is deceased, one incapacitated and now a guardian of the incapacitated is contesting the will of the deceased and leaving kids from a previous marriage cut out. I've seen that happen and it was ugly. A pre-nup (the deceased owned a business that the other spouse was not involved with at all) would have prevented that from happening. I also know the incapacitated spouse loved those kids and would never have wanted that to happen. But as she was incapacitated mentally she had no say. Not only was it ugly to resolve it was also expensive.

As an aside I do think it will be interesting in ten or so years to compare the divorce statistics of gay couples with those of straight couples. I'd like to think after years and years of fighting for the right to marry that our divorce stats will be lower, but sadly I am not banking on it.

Katniss~~ (As granny used to say, "Trust the preacher but have the ushers count the collection.")

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by Jesse

I have to agree with imperfect_cupcake, people do change. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes, through no fault of the person it's for the worse.

Were I to ever marry I would want a prenup. I prefer to see it as a means of the two of us taking care of one another and being responsible financially for the sake of both of our futures. It may have to have a lottery clause too.

I also will not share a banking account. There was a time years ago (30) when a girlfriend and I shared a bank account and I paid for that the hard way. It took me 6 months to pay all of the bounced check fees and bills that got behind because she walked the day after we put the checks in the mail for the monthly bills, and she cleaned out the bank on her way out and everything bounced. Lesson learned.

Also I think most of us go into a committed relationship with the thought in mind that it will be forever, and well, sadly it doesn't always work out that way.

Agreed, people sometimes do change, but usually not their basic ethics, if they seem to maybe you didn't know them quite that well or in the lush of new love you look the other way. It happens, we want to think of the person we are in love in the very best of terms..for those who can't deal with the risk, I can see a prenup is a good solution but I still understand the need for a marriage license. But I am stubborn that way :P