What do you think of pre-nuptial agreements?

[Herman Munster]

relationship killer or absolutely necessity?

[MrModerate]

1. Depends on the circumstances . . .

For the rich, probably a necessity. However, it strikes me as a real relationship-killer, and thereby something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[abluelady]

2. I'm An Old Lady

And from all my year's of experience, I think they are not absolutely necessary, but if they are a relationship killer, they were absolutely necessary.

[JuniperLea]

7. I wish I could nominate a "Best Post"!

That is exceedingly wise!

[abluelady]

24. Thanks.

[patricia92243]

8. Wow! That is a REALLY good answer!!! n/t

[abluelady]

23. Thanks.

[JuniperLea]

3. I hate the idea!

But if I were wealthy I would probably view them as a necessary evil.

My dad won't marry his long-term, live-in girlfriend because he refuses to do a pre-nup and he doesn't want to chance anything happening to my and my siblings' inheritance. It totally sucks. I adore his lady. Her daughter is nice, but she is rather immature... I wonder if perhaps this is the issue, not knowing how a wad of cash would make her react.

I'm just glad he didn't ask me my opinion before he made all his arrangements.

[SharonAnn]

46. Absolutely important if you have children! Otherwise, they may be

at the mercy of a step-parent or even a step-sibling.

And even that isn't enough protection if the "steps" are really determined.

[RB TexLa]

4. We have one

Only way to keep your individual rights, otherwise state's community property laws apply.

[villager]

5. wish I'd had one -- woulda made things a lot easier

when the Ex swapped "I love you forever" for "I've found somebody else..."

[slackmaster]

51. I knew it was over the minute my then-wife said "You're perfect for me"

Nobody is perfect for anybody.

Our marriage counselor knew it was over when my then-wife said "I want to be like the people on TV".



A prenup wouldn't have made any real difference. We did the divorce sans lawyers, split the community property down the middle, and drove away in the same vehicles we had when we met.

[villager]

54. yeah.... Ex and I are seeing a mediator next week...

we've been legally separated for four years, and gotta finish up and move on...

[Demeter]

6. The Kind of Agreements I Would Want Are Unenforceable

that old love, honor, cherish in sickness and in health, richer or poorer jazz.

[mcscajun]

9. Neither. Or Both, circumstances depending. For some, they make

perfect sense.

Someone who is either widowed or divorced with an established family and obligations to them, extensive personal property, etc., should probably have one. When both parties have their own personal fortunes and careers, the same applies.

The less you have, the less essential they are.

Of course, in any all cases they could be relationship killers if there is a substantial weakness in the relationship to begin with.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Holler "we want pre-nup"! n/t

[mike_c]

11. I think they're absolutely necessary, and I speak as someone...

...who's been married and divorced, and didn't really need a prenup in the end (and didn't have one). But I live in a community property state, and the very notion of losing individual rights as a consequence of marriage grates on me. I didn't really understand that until after my divorce. We negotiated a settlement that was as fair as either of us had a right to expect, I think, which is to say that neither of us was really happy with it but no one was utterly devastated, and the lawyers didn't litigate until we were destitute. I count that as lucky under the circumstances. So we didn't NEED a prenuptial agreement, actually. But knowing what I know now, I would never marry again without one. Of course, I'm not likely to marry again in any event, but I'm just sayin'.

on edit-- remember, many marriage laws and much of the tradition surrounding marriage dates from the days when it was simply assumed that women would give up most of their individual rights when they married, and although many of those laws-- and the courts-- have changed, the institution still bears remnants of its evolution from those roots. Community property was simply an effort to redress the injustice by applying it evenly to both parties.

[wellstone dem]

12. They are necessary in a few cases

where, for example, there are two established families which are joined, and the couple wants to preserve the inheritance rights of the kids of each partner. Without this, if one partner dies, the other can chose to elect an inheritance under the statute which would defy the wishes of a will.

[MazeRat7]

13. We have one. It was the only way I would consent to this marriage.

Bottom line, I didn't like the "states contract" in my state (a community property state). I brought all the assets into the marriage and on the remote chance it were to end abruptly (like in under 10 years) I plan to take them with me. I will add that over time (beyond 10 years), the pre-nuptial grants certain assets, like stock appreciation, home equity appreciation, etc, as "community property" and it has clauses that lets us grant acquired assets as community property whenever we want.

That of course is the high-level overview, but bottom line, don't be fooled into thinking love and property rights are related.

MZr7

[joeunderdog]

14. The asset assumptions of marriage should be changed to reflect today's

marriages. Men and women both work, aquire assets long before getting married (later in life) and don't come in at ground zero in most cases. The assumption should be that what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine for a certain period of time, perhaps relative to the ages of those getting married. Asset accumulation during marriage is one thing, but before...no way.

[dorktv]

27. People have always come into marriages with assets though.

Back in the 1500s women and men would work until they were in their 20s to raise the money they needed to settle down. The notion that someone got hitched at 13 was only for the rich who also had complex legal agreements with dowries and bride prices to cover what would happen if either partner died.

The poor would marry without the jewelencrusted wedding frou frou that the rich had but they still had assets like clothing, furniture and other things.

[elocs]

15. I bet that Paul McCartney wished he would have had one with Heather.

It looks like she turned out just to be a money whore. She could have still walked away with millions for her short marriage to Sir Paul. Instead she is greedy and wants much, much more and will undoubtedly be reviled by millions of McCartney fans.

[Maccagirl]

26. Reviled-and deservedly so.

No class.

[Vidar]

16. Necessary evil.

[Sir Jeffrey]

17. Necessary...

It is better to agree to be civil beforehand.

[pitohui]

18. in my extended family's experience not worth the paper they're written on

insert horror story here, several actually, but it would take too much typing

they're worthless

if you have assets, don't marry someone w.out equivalent assets

[BlooInBloo]

19. What do I think about adults' freedom to enter into contracts?

I'm just fine with it.

[BuyingThyme]

20. I can tell you all EVERYTHING you need to know about pre-nups.

Everybody who gets married in this country signs (or otherwise agrees to) a pre-nuptial agreement.

The only question is to whether the agreement should be written by politicians and religious nuts, or by the loving couple.

Should you let your relationship be defined by the Bushes and Dobsons of the world? Or should you define your own relationship?

Most people are lazy, and settle for the former. Most of the paperwork has already been done for you.

[Deja Q]

21. If I ever find Ms Right, I'll let you know.

Right now, I'm tempted to ditch everything and be free of material possessions. Then I won't have to worry about being like every other adult/toddler, shrieking "MINE! MINE! MINE!"

[OldSiouxWarrior]

22. Have you seen the movie, "Intolerable Cruelty" ?

It is a hilarious comedy that revolves around divorce and pre-nups.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138524 /

[Mz Pip]

25. "War of the Roses" is another one.

I didn't have one 31 years ago. Neither one of us had anything much to speak of. But after nearly a lifetime together, if hubby got hit by a truck, there is no way I would go into another marriage without a pre-nup. I would want to be sure that my kids got what their father worked for.

I do find it hard to fathom how anyone would somehow feel entitled to a huge chunk of spouses assets after a brief marriage. And that goes for Anna Nicole Smith and Heather Mills.

Mz Pip

[OldSiouxWarrior]

28. "Laws of Attraction" is great too.

It is about a male and a female divorce lawyer who are always on the other side from each other on cases.

Danny DeVito was good in "War of the Roses". The ending was pretty sad. Did you see Danny DeVito in "Other People's Money"? Penelope Ann Miller played well off of each other.

[Mz Pip]

31. I'll rent it

I don't think I've seen it or if I have I don't remember. Middle age does that. I like Danny DeVito.

Yeah, the end of "War of the Roses" was sad, but I suspect that level of hatred and contempt and stubborness that borders on the irrational is not that uncommon in ugly divorces. Maybe not taken to that last step, but over the top none the less.

Mz Pip

[OldSiouxWarrior]

33. You would remember it.

"Other People's Money" is a funny comedy, and a serious movie at the same time. It deals with some big economic issues and with politics. It is a thinking movie. If you watch it, don't sell Penelope's character short. She gives a real surprise ending, at the very end. But I won't tell you what - it would spoil it. Danny DeVito is amazingly convincing as his character.

[liberalhistorian]

29. I think they're absolutely necessary,

especially in states with community property laws (which I personally think are extremely outdated and unfair).

And they're not just for those with a lot of money and property, either. Everyone over the age of 30 should have one before marrying. The great thing about them is that the couple can customize the agreement to fit their own beliefs, desires and circumstances. They are especially important in second marriages (or third, fourth, pick the number) if children from first marriages are involved. And as a paralegal who's drafted prenups, I cannot emphasize their importance enough. I've seen cases of divorce where there was no prenup, and it usually ended up being grossly unfair for the husband. Particularly if he owned a business or had substantial personal property/assets. No one should have automatic rights to a spouse's property/income/assets just by virtue of being married. That's outdated and unfair, to both parties. Then again, when I talk like this my friends and family (almost all married, btw) like to point out that I've never been married so I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Maybe not, but I do know what's fair and what's right and prenups help to ensure justice.

Also, marriage isn't just a romantic, personal relationship, it's also a business relationship, whether people like to think of it that way or not.

And I'll bet Paul McCartney is now desperately wishing he'd followed the advice of his attorneys and his children and friends by signing a prenup. He is now in danger of losing at least a quarter of his net worth to that gold-digging bitch he was only married to for four years, all because he didn't have a prenup. She should NOT be entitled to that, that's ridiculous, and he should also get full custody of their young daughter.

[Ilsa]

30. This was ours:

Give everything to the lawyers.

The End.

[SheilaT]

32. You don't have to be

wealthy or one of you to be part of an "established family" for a pre-nup to be a good idea. Especially if it's a second marriage for either one of you and there are children involved. Or if there's a great disparity in assets.

It's probably not necessary for everyone to have one, but more should than currently do. Divorce tends to bring out the worst in people, sadly, and good pre-nups could avoid some of the horror stories we've all heard.

[Shine]

34. In certain situations they could be useful, I suppose.

I'd imagine it would take a lot of clear and thoughtful communication to work it all out, however. Therein lies the rub....

[Cleita]

35. I would never marry anyone who wanted me to sign one, but

I can understand how really rich people might want to filter out the gold diggers. It seems sort of wrong to me though. I mean rich guys like Donald Trump marry trophy wives deliberately and of course they will most likely be gold diggers. Donald without his money just isn't the most attractive guy out there.

[AZBlue]

36. If you're planning the divorce already, why get married??

eom

[RB TexLa]

40. They aren't just for divorce

They protect your right to own property as an individual during your marriage. They can also spell out agreements during the marriage.

[AZBlue]

45. Again, if you need all that, perhaps you should reconsider the marriage.

eom

[RB TexLa]

48. So anyone who wants to own property in their own name without

community property laws applying should not get married? So no one that lives in a non-community property state should get married?

[AZBlue]

56. Why do they need or want it in their own name? eom

[RB TexLa]

58. I own several pieces of property jointly with my mother and brother

And there is income from many of them. There are lines of inheritance that are in place on some that would be complicated by acceptance of a state's community property laws.

Of course the simple answer is I and my wife are free human beings, why would you think being able to own property and assets as individuals cause someone to reconsider marriage? There are many states where you need no contract to be able to do such as a married person, if they aren't willing to have some type of "reverse prenuptial" agreement they should reconsider marriage by your logic?

[GeorgeGist]

37. You shouldn't need one /nt

[sendero]

38. They are the only way..

... to take money out of the equation. And if taking money out is a deal killer, it wasn't love to begin with.

[aikoaiko]

39. Everyone who marries should have one.

Half of them will actually need it.

If it kills the marriage, then its done its job exceedingly well.

If it causes people to think through their finances and be held responsible for their choices, thats good too.

[Horse with no Name]

41. I don't believe in mixing business with pleasure

Business is business. If you have numerous assets that need to be protected, then you should have a pre-nup.
Marrying well shouldn't be a ticket to wealth.

[qwlauren35]

42. I Have One

I think it was just one more way of securing my belief that I wasn't being married for money.

[noonwitch]

43. I hope my mom makes her creepy boyfriend sign one if they get married!

My mom is dating a leech. He has little money of his own (she has plenty), and has a history of suing his own mother and sister over his dad's will in the past.

Now, I don't care if I inherit a dime of my mom's money. My dad has insured that each of his kids will get a decent nest egg when he dies, plus, I have a pension. I don't want her stuck living with me because some idiot left her penniless, she needs enough that my sister and I can stick her in Henry Ford Village when she can't take care of herself anymore. That's what she told us to do, although she only said that because she wanted assurances that we wouldn't.

I love my mom, but I can't stand to see her let a man take advantage of her, which is what is happening.

He won't propose as long as my grandpa is alive, because grandpa will make him sign a prenup.

[SmokingJacket]

44. Bad idea.

I mean, obviously everyone is different, but I wouldn't do it.

If you have a lot of money, and you're scared the person you're marrying is going to rip it off... don't get married.

And if you're the person who doesn't have any money -- cripes, if the person you're marrying is already planning how he's going to keep his/her riches when you're yesterday's news, forget it!

[slackmaster]

47. At my age (48) I'd seriously consider one

It was hard enough to recover financially from an easy divorce at age 40. I don't know if I could accept the risk of financial ruin at a late stage in life.

[WinkyDink]

49. That people would please stop saying "nuptUal".

Other than that, who cares?

[Raine]

50. ABSOLUTELY necessary

I would NEVER enter a marriage without one. If it kills the relationship than just thank God you didn't go ahead and marry them without one!

[ecstatic]

52. Both, unfortunately

It comes across as an exit strategy; at the same time, if a divorce happens that protection might be necessary.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Neither Really. It's Up To The Couple And Individual Circumstances.

I see nothing wrong with them whatsoever under certain circumstances. And besides, that's really for the two involved to communicate about.

[loyalsister]

55. Usually a good idea

Most divorces are about money.
With a pre-nup you don't necessarily take on the other person's financial assets OR burdens.

[lostnfound]

57. Okay except for the 'nuptials' part..

Marriage holds little appeal, IMO. But each to their own.

[cynatnite]

59. Only necessary when the couple thinks it's necessary...

To me it sounds like they expect to split up down the road.

[hyphenate]

60. I say it depends on

the reasons someone is marrying, and how much either the groom or bride is worth.

I could have seen, for example, that Paul McCartney would have been better off with a pre-nup with Heather because of how much he was worth, and who he was. However, I know he had been madly in love with Linda, and thought that Heather would be the second and last wife in his life, so I can understand why he didn't do a pre-nup.

I pretty much think that if you are very rich, or if you have something worth a great deal, that a pre-nup should be drafted regardless. If someone is truly in love with you, and wants to be with you til the end of both your lives, then signing a pre-nup is not going to damage that relationship. It's only those who have something to hide who are most likely to balk at signing such a document.