In my opinion, if one party comes into the relationship with no assets (no retirement, property, investments, future inheritences, etc) and the other comes in with assets they want to protect, fair enough, get a pre-nup.

I think that the popularity of a pre-nup has been propelled by the popularity of divorce. Granted, if one party is planning on being a stay at home parent while the other the sole breadwinner, cool, sign one if you want, to each their own really.

In my personal opinion, unless I marry someone with significantly more assets than I have, or unless there are things I want to protect no matter what happens (ie: inheritence, prized possessions) there won't be a pre-nup.

My friend whose parents have built up a multi-million dollar company is having her fiancee sign a pre-nup. He understands why and is very willing to sign it. In other cases, like my friends who just bought a house pre-marriage, or my friends who just had a baby and are now engaged, I don't really see any reason to sign a pre-nup. In one case the house is the asset, in the other the male is the sole breadwinner but the female would gain custody in the case of a divorce (female is staying home becuase she can, she could work but doesn't want to). I can understand the whole CYA concept, but to me, once I make that committment to someone, in my particular situation I don't see the need for a pre-nup. I'm not professing to be right by any means, just the views I've come to develop from my own personal experiences.

 

I'm not a lawyer. Please seek professional legal advice if you need legal advice

While assets are important, what you're not considering is that many states' divorce laws assess spousal support payments based on assets, plus earning potential of the partner, and "quality of life," which can be quite subjective (New York is notorious for this).

The popularity of divorce pre-dates the popularity of the pre-nup. Marriage is a contract (insofar as the State is concerned), and what people are suddenly realizing is that there are considerable amounts of money lost due to the dissolution of The Corporation.

You hinted also at the very reason why pre-nups are increasing: inheritence. In the next 20-30 years, we will see the largest transference of wealth from one generation to the next. Anyone, regardless of income or potential inherited income, has a right to protect that.

The rulings of most divorce courts are still skewed towards women (regardless of income or earning potential) and women as the primary child-rearer (regardless of actualities or fitness of the mother). There are still a few states that have "at-fault" divorces, and punitive rulings can be very subjective and inconsistent in such circumstances.

Presently, one party has more say than the other as to whether there will be children in the household. Child support payments are assessed the same way as spousal support, and often times, unless it is specifically outlined in the pre-nup, with no oversight as to how the money is spent.

So your retirement is up for negotiation? Your % of the home? You're more than happy to put up thousands of YOUR dollars into mediation? Be my guest; let the best attorney win. Here's hoping you DO live in a no-fault, community property state.

Well yes, and in California, after Bonds v. Bonds, he'll be signing it (and should be doing this regardless of state) after a review by his lawyer to make sure that he is granted fair and reasonable access to the means to maintain whatever quality of life the two of them will have.

Willing to gamble on those "no-fault" and "community property" circumstances, eh?

So, even if she gets hooked on drugs, and/or runs off with some guy, and/or endangers the life of the baby, she "would gain custody in the case of divorce"? Sadly, this often happens, because it comes down to his word against hers, and "she" is still winning in court 9 days out of 10 (due to the aforementioned subjectivity of rulings and enforcement).

So, did the man use a condom? If not, he gladly handed over at least $180K to her. If he did use a condom, way to keep those shared financial goals rock solid.

If you had the law on your side as presumptively as she now does, would you choose to work? Many women don't.

You say "commitment," The State says "contract." You may not want or like a pre-nup, but without one, you open yourself up to immense liability. Hardly anyboy goes into marriage looking at divorce, but conversely, hardly anyone enters into a Corporation without assessing liability, AND getting liability insurance.

Do take the notion of Marriage as a Legally Binding Contract seriously, because it is.

 

man, you're really cynical....

 

Keeping my own personal background off this forum as I don't think you all really need to know it, suffice it to say that I know the difference between the religious ideals of marriage and the legal binding contract terms of marriage.

However, while you seem to take a more fact-is-fact legal look at things, if and when I do get married, it will be something that I don't take lightly, nor do I plan on ending. I take the more religious view on marriage, otherwise I'd be married now.

I would assume that whomever I marry would have an opinion about this particular subject and we would come to a mutual agreement about if we want to sign a pre-nup or not.

You've made your case, you have your points and I have mine. I'm not on here for an argument, or even a heavy debate about this subject as quite frankly, it's not something that occupies my mind on a frequent or semi-frequent basis.

With regards to the popularity of pre-nups and divorce, of course divorce came before pre-nup popularity, and you do make a valid point about inheritences.

Bottom line, if you want to protect your shit, cool. Do what you want. In my personal opinion (as stated before) people jump into marriage as "the next logical step" instead of what they really want to do, and use the pre-nups to ensure that even if the relationship fails horribly, they'll be protected. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just how I see it. I think that if people took marriage a bit more seriously then pre-nups would be used a bit less liberally, or perhaps for a more limited application of cases.

 

^ perfectly nutshelled.

 

misskatiemo, do you have a younger sister by chance

 

If you weren't here for a debate you wouldn't have contributed so much to this thread. Your posts have been the longest and have obviously been thought out. The point of an online forum is to debate and argue, among other things...If you weren't here to argue or express your opinions you would have stopped posting in the thread a long time ago.

 

1. Way to stay on-topic.

2. Which, of the statements you quoted, are cynical vs. fact-based?

 

First off, Gotrice pretty much hit one point square on the head: that is, why be so vocal about something that's "'not something that occupies my mind on a frequent or semi-frequent basis?"

Secondly, you're hinting at that, yes, we're seeing different sides of the same coin. I'm not debating you on the points of Women's Rights in the Modern Era. What I will continually take issue is with this notion that pre-nups are for rich people. Most people, and in particular, most men, have NO clue as to what's legally involved in marriage. As such, they have NO clue how much money is at stake, even in the most modest of unions.

Call me cynical if that's what makes you feel good. The Law is only as good as the citizen's right and ability to exercise it.

 

I don't think you're cynical, I just think we have differing opinions. What's cynical would be suggesting a pre-nup is neccessary as you'll only get divorced later-on.

As far as my lengthy posts, I tend to post about what I'm interested in, not just come here to post pad (though the WTB thread in the Carolinas forum is a bit of a different story ).

My point was that I got my opinion across, I understand yours, and that's really as far as I wanted to take it. I could have gone through and responded to all of your points individually, but it seems we understand each other so I didn't feel the need.

However, I am generally a sucker for a good debate, and if asked a question I generally answer. Hence my posts (and continuing posts).

FWIW, I agree that most people have no clue as to what's legally involved in marriage.

@ clawhammer - yes I do have a younger sister, but unless you like a staunch republic rotc-loving (and air force loving) teenage-angst filled teenager (she turns 20 in a month, so almost not) then I'm afraid she's not your 'type'. We're nothing alike