Marriage and prenup

[Laura33]

A prenup doesn't protect you from that possibility.  It isn't like insurance.  It doesn't provide you with additional funds to deal with an unexpected problem.  A prenup is a pre-determined agreement of what you're going to run off with when your relationship fails.  It depends on you foreseeing what will be important to you when that happens.  And be honest - can you really do that without at least some knowledge of the future?

. . . .

I can honestly say that I don't see any reasonable future scenario where we split up and my wife actively seeks to hurt me.  I believe that we would amicably part.  This can certainly be done without a prenup. 

. . . .

Maybe I've been soured on prenups from discussions with folks of the men's rights persuasion who are 100% always vocally for them all the time (because women are money grubbin' whores who are always going to screw you donchaknow).  I guess that the request can come from a good place.

At their best prenuptials between two people who trust and love each other, both want prenups, both fully understand and agree to the contracts, where no power imbalance in the relationship is enforced, and where the prenuptials are regularly updated as circumstances change over the course of the relationship . . . they have the potential to do less harm than good.  Is this the way they're usually done though?  It doesn't seem that way from my limited world view.

. . . .

The omniscience kinda has to work from the start with a prenup too though.  Otherwise you won't be able to plan for and account for the many ways that your partner could screw you.  You're still depending on your current trust of the person.  Doesn't seem better - maybe just different?

Well, a prenup doesn't provide additional money, or guarantee your partner won't turn into a dick.  But it does smooth the path to a divorce in that scenario by establishing a baseline right to XYZ.  I've known two situations over the past, say, 25 years where the husband turned out to be a controlling asshole who decided to try to bankrupt the wife as a way to force her to accept a poor settlement (in both cases draining the joint accounts on the way out the door).  They both spent a shit-ton of money on lawyers, going before the judge over every single little thing.  I think if they had things laid out like "I brought $XX into this marriage and I get it back if the marriage dissolves," that would very much have simplified things before the judge -- at least enough to manage an initial distribution of assets. 

(Also I can also guarantee that neither woman thought her husband would turn out to be a controlling asshole in a divorce.  Turns out the hidden personality traits that led to the demand for a divorce after 20+ years of marriage also led to a massively unpleasant divorce process.  Go figure.)

I can totally agree that many prenups can be used to reinforce a power imbalance, and that that is damaging.  But we were talking more generally -- and more specifically here, the OP as the lower-earner was considering asking for a prenup even though that might not actually benefit him. 

tl;dr:  they're not a panacea, and they can be used for evil, but they also can be useful, even for people who trust their partners. So please don't say that asking for a prenup means you don't trust your partner enough to get married.

Oh, also:  many business contracts are written down not because of a lack of trust, but for clarity.  I trusted my current contractor enough to give him a $1M contract to rebuild my house post-fire without even getting competitive bids, because I've worked with him twice before and know how he operates.  But you'd better believe that contract still specified exactly what we were getting for each line item, so there'd be no confusion and disappointment down the road if it turns out we both assumed different things.

[Just Joe]

All the wiser people have chimed in but count me into the "start having tough conversations" crew. I don't know if a pre-nup is the right solution but the conversation about one with your girlfriend is very necessary.

I was serious about a young woman once upon a time. Thought I was. Then when we began to talk about "adulting" I realized that we did not communicate well. We could not discuss "adulting topics" like adults. In the end I realized we were on different trajectories. And we broke up. Otherwise we were pretty good together I thought. Since then I occasionally imagine what it would have been like raising kids or trying to build wealth with her if we couldn't communicate as well as we should have. 

Then I met DW and we really hit it off. My time with her really made it clear all the ways the previous relationship couldn't last much longer than it did. DW and I have been a solid team and proper friends going on 25+ years now. We can talk about anything and we do.

Best of luck to you.

Edited for typos.

[GuitarStv]

All the wiser people have chimed in but count me into the "start having tough conversations" crew. I don't know if a pre-nup is the right solution but the conversation about one with your girlfriend is very necessary.

+1 on this advice.


My wife and I were married in the Catholic church.  Part of doing that was a requirement that we do pre-marriage classes through the church.  I'm not a particularly religious person, but thought that on the whole the process was worthwhile.  Required things to talk about were our views on children, the role of family in our lives, money and finances, sex/fidelity/sexual history, housework and chore division, and a whole bunch of other stuff*.  We had talked about much of it, but not in as structured a way and not as much in depth.  It's a very good idea to have these (sometimes uncomfortable) conversations prior to getting married.




*(There was also a 'sex ed' part where they told us that pull n'pray and calculating a woman's fertile time was every bit as effective as condoms or the pill, but that was the only major misstep/unhelpful part of the whole thing that I remember.)

[Metalcat]

Changing circumstances is NOT a valid legal basis for overturning a pre-nup, at least in most US states.

Coming back to this, evidently it's not just a Canada thing, here's a legal website from New Jersey that confirms what I was saying. If circumstances change to render the original prenup unfair, the courts can overrule it.

"New Jersey courts will examine first and foremost whether the agreement is valid (both parties reviewed and properly signed, no one was pressured or threatened, etc.). Beyond that, the court will consider whether the agreement was fundamentally fair and reasonable – both when it was first executed as at the time of the divorce. What was fair several years ago at the time of the marriage may now be deeply unfair."

This is always how I've understood the law with respect to prenups in my various jurisdictions I've lived on through the 3 times I was engaged.

Family lawyers have always told me that a prenup isn't worth the paper it's signed on unless it was fair when it was signed AND fair when the divorce took place.

[GilesMM]

Changing circumstances is NOT a valid legal basis for overturning a pre-nup, at least in most US states.

Coming back to this, evidently it's not just a Canada thing, here's a legal website from New Jersey that confirms what I was saying. If circumstances change to render the original prenup unfair, the courts can overrule it.

"New Jersey courts will examine first and foremost whether the agreement is valid (both parties reviewed and properly signed, no one was pressured or threatened, etc.). Beyond that, the court will consider whether the agreement was fundamentally fair and reasonable – both when it was first executed as at the time of the divorce. What was fair several years ago at the time of the marriage may now be deeply unfair."

This is always how I've understood the law with respect to prenups in my various jurisdictions I've lived on through the 3 times I was engaged.

Family lawyers have always told me that a prenup isn't worth the paper it's signed on unless it was fair when it was signed AND fair when the divorce took place.

You didn't read all the way to the end (past the speculative case study where someone turned out to be a billionaire): "The bottom line is that prenuptial agreements are binding agreements, but they are not written in stone. They can be reassessed later by the courts, though there must be a truly compelling reason to deny enforcement of one."    You are taking quite a risk signing one hoping that a sympathetic judge will overturn it later.

[Metalcat]

Changing circumstances is NOT a valid legal basis for overturning a pre-nup, at least in most US states.

Coming back to this, evidently it's not just a Canada thing, here's a legal website from New Jersey that confirms what I was saying. If circumstances change to render the original prenup unfair, the courts can overrule it.

"New Jersey courts will examine first and foremost whether the agreement is valid (both parties reviewed and properly signed, no one was pressured or threatened, etc.). Beyond that, the court will consider whether the agreement was fundamentally fair and reasonable – both when it was first executed as at the time of the divorce. What was fair several years ago at the time of the marriage may now be deeply unfair."

This is always how I've understood the law with respect to prenups in my various jurisdictions I've lived on through the 3 times I was engaged.

Family lawyers have always told me that a prenup isn't worth the paper it's signed on unless it was fair when it was signed AND fair when the divorce took place.

You didn't read all the way to the end (past the speculative case study where someone turned out to be a billionaire): "The bottom line is that prenuptial agreements are binding agreements, but they are not written in stone. They can be reassessed later by the courts, though there must be a truly compelling reason to deny enforcement of one."    You are taking quite a risk signing one hoping that a sympathetic judge will overturn it later.

I don't believe that's what I said though, and I'm very happy to clear up the misconception that that's what I'm saying.

I already specified that if circumstances change that contracts, including prenups, should be revisited.

Some people in this thread were talking about prenups as if they were carved in stone and you have to try and predict the future to even sign one.

Well that's not at all true. The courts have an obligation to enforce fairness, not whatever contract the couple walks in with.

Of course no one should walk into court with a signed contract that they don't want enforced. I would think that's common sense.

I'm speaking from the perspective of having advised many wealthy clients with prenups that the contract they signed 15 years ago, under very different circumstances doesn't magically protect their business from their spouse upon divorce.

I cannot tell you how many people think prenups are ironclad.

But this comes back to my whole point. Most people aren't very educated about the contracts they are signing when they get married.

[RetiredAt63]

As someone who went through a messy divorce, after marrying young, I have to totally endorse this.  Our divorce took years, and the full property settlement even longer, even though our finances were very straightforward.  Laura33 is so right.

(Also I can also guarantee that neither woman thought her husband would turn out to be a controlling asshole in a divorce.  Turns out the hidden personality traits that led to the demand for a divorce after 20+ years of marriage also led to a massively unpleasant divorce process.  Go figure.)

And yes, different approaches to money were also a major contributing factor.  And the man I divorced was very different from the young man I married.


Basically MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL CONTRACT.  The contract is defined by the state.  Historically people with assets always had marriage contracts, the more assets the more carefully the contract was drawn up.  Where do you think all those marriage portions and widow's portions in Regency fiction come from?  And those marriage portions for a wealthy daughter were not so that her husband would have her money, they were so that she would have her own money - helping balance the power imbalance.

So the difference between marrying with or without a prenup is the difference between agreeing to the state's terms or wanting your terms.

But as others have said, talk about money.  Talk a lot about money.  Talk about things related to money (like her starting her own clinic).  It turns out the seeds of my Ex's money behaviours were there all along, they just didn't show because we were poor broke students about to be poor broke grad students.  We did marriage prep too, through the Anglican Church, but I don't think it really touched on money. 

[dragonwalker]

Again, very lively discussion. I've read some of the comments and personally I do believe that there could be circumstances in the future that could lead me to divorce. I agree that I can not predict who my partner might become or for that matter who I may become. I fully believe it's possible that as much as I would like to think that I am fair minded that I may change or even that my definition of fair doesn't fit the legal definition.

I did have a talk with my partner where we laid it all out. For those interested, her income is $250K, home loan balance of about $720K and $300K in student loans, $30K in savings, commercial property of value $250-$300K. She's probably net $300K. I'm at $95K per year $260K home loan and about $750K in cash, stocks, and retirement. I'm probably net $750K. Interestingly, if I were looking at the math in this situation my initial sense is she is financially much better off despite over $1M in debt.

We've had other talks about plans in the future as well related to finances and one of them is the idea of taking time off when she has kids and then returning back to work part time. The life of a doctor is exhausting, working perhaps 55-60 hours a week and she is exhausted by it. Ironically, in many ways she's more frugal with her money than I am. However, strictly speaking the purchase of her home soon after she finished residency seemed to be a big stretch.

Anyway, something else as well seems to be that she's essentially combined her finances with her mother. Her parents once owned and used the commercial property as a clinic but now my partner states it's in her name. Her mother is essentially non working but teaches piano on occasion and effectively lives in her home now. I'm not sure if this changes anything. It does strongly appear that should we marry than I would be living in her home and likely renting out mine (another interesting story which I may post about).     

[Metalcat]

This sounds like a good start.

Now have detailed conversations about every single detail that you have written about ;)

[CurledMoss]

I'm 37. It's something I would bring up as soon as exclusively dating as to not waste each others time. I've had women bring it up on the 2nd or 3rd date even.