Marriage and prenup

[dragonwalker]

My partner and I are both 35. We have been dating a little over a year and have talked about marriage sometime next year. We would like to have children and both feel marriage is the first step. I own a condo valued at about $460K with $260K on the mortgage and all other assets combined including retirements, cash, stock, brokerage of about $650K and no debt. My total income is about $95K from all sources.

My partner is a family practice doctor that makes market rate for her profession. I do not know how much exactly but much more than I do. She owes a significant amount of debt from college and medical school, likely several hundred thousand. She is a homeowner of a $1M home that I believe probably has a loan of $600k+. I'm not sure about her other assets but she does have perhaps under $100K. She has no other consumer debt.

Neither of us have been married before and neither of us have children. The rational side of me says that a pre-nup in this case is advisable. It would make sense that such a pre-nup would be fair to be structured so that in the event of divorce, both of us leave with what we brought to the marriage and split anything held jointly. She's probably more frugal than I am so I don't think she would be upset by the idea. My parents marriage ended in divorce and was messy so I have memories of that which I would like to hopefully never have but minimize if there was no other option. First, does anyone have any thoughts on if a prenup should be done. Next, how soon before an anticipated marriage is it advisable to bring up the subject? Before or after a marriage proposal?   

[charis]

Why haven’t you discussed finances in great detail yet? You are putting the horse well before the cart if you don’t know basic information like each other’s income or debts. My goodness, please have these conversations.

[bougette]

The Money Confidential podcast had an episode on this called, “I want a prenup. How do I ask for one without offending my partner?” (June 12, 2021). I thought they framed the topic really well.

Some people are extremely offended at the suggestion, so it’s probably best to have some more specific conversations on the details of your finances & family history with your partner. I went through several divorces by parents when I was a child, and it definitely left me wary of financial entanglements with partners.

While your partner’s job pays well, it’s also likely demanding. It would also make sense to figure out how ahead of time how student loan payments would be handled if she needs to downshift at work, etc. I have several HCW friends (who were certain they’d work until their 60’s/70’s) make significant career changes after their pandemic experiences of trying to juggle stressful work and family commitments.

[mspym]

Why haven’t you discussed finances in great detail yet? You are putting the horse well before the cart if you don’t know basic information like each other’s income or debts. My goodness, please have these conversations.

This. But also, any state has an existing set of division of property rules for divorce. A potential starting point for a pre-nup conversation would be "does the state's rules seem fair to us? what would seem fair? what if we had children? what if one of us took time off or went part-time?" and so on.

Before my partner and I got married, we checked out the NSW rules and decided they seemed fair to us and we didn't need a pre-nup. But we went into marriage with no debt and an even spread of assets, we have also maintained separate finances. At some point we need to get around to writing wills but that hasn't been urgent because we looked at our state's rules for intestate estate division and thought that was basically how we were going to split things.

So start having some basic conversations about money, learn what the govt's rules are where you live, use that for more conversations and I would raise the topic of a pre-nup if that was a desirable outcome after your conversations before proposing. I wouldn't spring that one afterwards. I saw that go horribly wrong to someone close to me. [The phrase "golddigger" was used with a straight face]

[Notch]

I don't have one, but the best order to me would be after proposal but before marriage.

I'm in Australia, where pre-nups aren't very common, and I don't believe they offer much protection in Family Court, especially once there's kids.  So my fiance and I did a questionaire on the things the would go into a pre-nup (Binding Financial Agreement in Australia).  We answered it separately, then discussed our answers together to see where we agreed and disagreed, and them came up with mutually acceptable answers.  We kept the final document as a soft agreement and reminder of what we were thinking.  Even if the document is legally useless, the discussion was a good way of making sure you're not going into marriage with completely different views on things.

Questions are here:
https://diyfamilylawaustralia.com/pages/binding-financial-agreements/what-can-you-put-in-a-binding-financial-agreement/

[Metalcat]

I agree that you are putting the cart way before the horse on this one. A prenup isn't just a blanket document that protects you from marriage law, it's more like a rider that tries to customize it, but can easily be thrown out if it isn't reasonable. It's more like a request to the courts to respect your past wishes.

To even have a solid prenup crafted that has a chance of holding up in court, you have to truly understand your circumstances, the marriage law as it exists in your jurisdiction, and how and why you would want to modify it as it relates to you.

Well before you get married and even well before you get engaged, I would recommend talking through, in detail, what your financial situations are, what your priorities are, and what your values are.

It's one thing to say you want to keep your finances separate, it's a whole other kettle of fish if, say, one of you gets disabled, which is what happened 5 years into my marriage and we lost the much higher of our two incomes.

Start talking these things through in detail. As some of us have been sharing in another thread, this can actually be a profoundly romantic and bonding process.

My DH and I talked about our finances virtually every single day for a few years in order to truly get on the same page. It was never a dry conversation, personal finance is always fundamentally a conversation about hopes and fears for the future. We still talk about money often, just not daily because we understand each other so well now that we don't have to.

Talking about your future hopes and dreams without including the financial element is talking about those things while avoiding the stakes. That's like in Death of a Salesman when Willy is waxing poetic about his sons' future business goals, but without anchoring it in any kind of economic reality.

So dream building with a partner where you talk about where you might want to live and what kind of lifestyle you want misses a lot when you don't include a detailed discussion about the money. That's like talking about what you want for dinner without understanding what's involved in the cooking.

Remember, money isn't anything in and of itself. Money is a placeholder for time and energy, whose value change over time and depending on context. Money is just the system of exchange, it's how you quantify your time and energy.

If you don't talk about money, you are just making a series of assumptions about your partner.

Say she says she dreams of buying a pied-à-terre in Europe, that dream doesn't just cost some amount of money, it requires some amount of time and energy to achieve. It's not something you "can afford" or not, it's something worth trading time and energy for, or it isn't.

The more you talk this way, the more you intuitively understand each other and what these trade offs mean. My marriage has gone through radical changes in lifestyle a few times in the past 4 years, but making major decisions is so easy for us because after years of money talk, we do intuitively understand what matters and the stakes for each other. We know exactly what things are worth to each other. We're well calibrated to each other's trade-off scales.

If you don't talk about money in detail, you can never become fluent in each other's hopes, fears, needs, and dreams.

[GilesMM]

Sounds like the pre-nup could be mostly protecting your partner given her larger income although that could change if she had kids of course.


Depending on your state, you may already be legally married under common law and, if so, the pre-nup is a legal agreement you could sign now without reference to a wedding event.

[Raenia]

Depending on your state, you may already be legally married under common law and, if so, the pre-nup is a legal agreement you could sign now without reference to a wedding event.

In what state does dating for a year while maintaining separate households qualify as common law marriage? I know common law marriage is still recognized in a few places (though most US states have stopped recognizing it), but I thought you generally had to live together and/or be together for several years.

[Metalcat]

Sounds like the pre-nup could be mostly protecting your partner given her larger income although that could change if she had kids of course.


Depending on your state, you may already be legally married under common law and, if so, the pre-nup is a legal agreement you could sign now without reference to a wedding event.

Not necessarily.

The spouse's debt belongs to them, but not if they end up converting it to a new kind of loan product, then the debt is shared 50/50.

We had this issue when I got rid of my student loan product with my bank in favour of a professional loan product after I was married. That became part of shared property and my husband was suddenly the proud owner of 6 additional figures of unsecured debt and didn't even need to consent to it or even be aware of it for it to happen.

Another issue is if she opens her own practice. Will he be entitled to half of the value?

Marriage law is not well designed for professionals who graduate with huge debt and then own a business. There are big debt and equity numbers involved and their partners should put in an effort to understand fully what a marriage contract would mean for them.

[Bartlebooth]

Why haven’t you discussed finances in great detail yet? You are putting the horse well before the cart if you don’t know basic information like each other’s income or debts. My goodness, please have these conversations.

This. But also, any state has an existing set of division of property rules for divorce. A potential starting point for a pre-nup conversation would be "does the state's rules seem fair to us? what would seem fair? what if we had children? what if one of us took time off or went part-time?" and so on.

Before my partner and I got married, we checked out the NSW rules and decided they seemed fair to us and we didn't need a pre-nup. But we went into marriage with no debt and an even spread of assets, we have also maintained separate finances. At some point we need to get around to writing wills but that hasn't been urgent because we looked at our state's rules for intestate estate division and thought that was basically how we were going to split things.

Same here for prenup and will.

On the morning of our wedding DW texted me and asked if I would like to have her lawyer cousin in the wedding party write up a prenup so we could have one.  I had talked to her about possibly having one many months earlier, then looked into it and decided it wasn't worth the estimated $1,000 to go through (I can't believe I am typing this out...seems like a curse now) and wouldn't really change much.  Anyways, I was pretty sure to be proper that they had to be done, or at least started, many months in advance, and then I guess that was confirmed by the cousin.  Wedding days are funny...

Then immediately after marriage we were talking about wills.  I generally consider the default division by state to be fine but haven't examined it in great detail, so could be wrong.  And my family is not short on resources to keep people off the streets so assets locked up in probate or whatever is not really a concern.  So, in that conversation I described how I didn't feel that 100% of my (our) assets should now be going to my wife, and that I still felt that some (50%?) should go to my parents and/or siblings.  And then over a year or two as our lives combined and babies came into the equation, that such feelings would change.  And they have.  I never got around to documenting that I wanted such a transition.

[Laura33]

Let me jump on the "y'all need to talk" bandwagon here.  It's not just about managing the money part of the assets, it's about figuring out what kind of assets you want.  Right now, you have two very different lifestyles.  So is she going to be happy in a house like yours, or will she want a $1.5M place your combined salaries could afford?  And if the latter, what is she expecting you to contribute?  How do you two anticipate managing the bills -- 50/50?  Not exactly fair if she's making a ton more than you.  All in one pot?  That has its own drawbacks?  And what is going to happen when you have kids?  Are you going to cut back as the lower-earner/one with more flexibility?  Is she going to want to cut back, which would obviously have much more impact on your combined income?

Focusing on a prenup is just the tail wagging the dog.  As noted above, many states will already have rules about how things are managed -- in my state, for ex., any assets that are owned before marriage remain individual assets as long as they are not comingled, while anything earned after marriage is co-owned (except inheritances, which remain separate if not comingled).  So for us, it was just about not comingling anything we wanted separate -- which now, 27 years later, is basically irrelevant.  It's all the other stuff that matters way more.

[Dee18]

This page has a nice discussion of common law marriage in the US as of July 2023:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/common-law-marriage-states

It identifies states that still have common law marriage and notes that several have just recently stopped having it.  The discussion begins with, “Many people believe that a couple that lives together for a set period is considered common-law married. However, this is an inaccurate belief. While common law marriages are recognized in several states, no states recognize a couple living in the same household for a specific number of years as common-law married.”

[Heywood57]

A New York Divorce Attorney's Thoughts On Love and Marriage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5z8-9Op2nM

TL;DW - get a pre-nup

[Villanelle]

I think it is almost never bad idea to get a pre-nup. (Disclaimer: I don't have one though; neither of us had anything when we got married and I don't think the possibility ever occurred to us.)

But depending on the rules of your state and how you structure your finances, it may not actually be necessary.  If the assets truly stay separate, they may continue to be viewed as separate rather than marital property.  It can get complicated when things tart to get mixed.  If your spouse's $1m home needs a new roof and you pay for that out of joint funds, you've muddied the waters, for example. If you sell your condo to help fund the purchase of a joint home, what happens to that $400k, and how would you get it back is you divorce?  As a % of the sale, proportionate to the % of your money that made up the downpayment?  Again, this is a commingling of assets that can blur lines so that even if your prenup says the condo is yours, you may not be protected, or you may have opened yourself up to challenges.

So Before moving to a prenup, it seems you'd be well-served to talk with a family law attorney about your state's rules (and what happens if you change states, for that matter), and also about how you would need to structure your transactions to make sure everything stayed clearly delineated.  Even if you have a prenup that says the house remains hers, for example, that new roof could still complicate things, so regardless of the pre-nup, you'll want to understand how to keep separate things separate. 

And yeah, it sounds like you are nowhere near ready to get married if you don't even know basics like your partner's income.  Start with those conversations, along with financial goals, spending styles, ideas for how finances would be handled if you combine households, etc., before discussing a pre-nup.

[GuitarStv]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

[iris lily]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

[Cassie]

My first 2 marriages we were young and didn’t have anything. My third marriage at 50 I had much more than him and got a prenup. Since we lived together for 6 years before marriage I never thought we would use it. After 23 years together I found out he was a serial cheater. At first he didn’t want to let me take off the top the money I entered the marriage with until I reminded him of the prenup. Once he agreed we could use a paralegal to draw up the paperwork costing us only 500. Our divorce was final in a few days after filing. It was painless because of the prenup.

[iris lily]

My first 2 marriages we were young and didn’t have anything. My third marriage at 50 I had much more than him and got a prenup. Since we lived together for 6 years before marriage I never thought we would use it. After 23 years together I found out he was a serial cheater. At first he didn’t want to let me take off the top the money I entered the marriage with until I reminded him of the prenup. Once he agreed we could use a paralegal to draw up the paperwork costing us only 500. Our divorce was final in a few days after filing. It was painless because of the prenup.

That’s a good example of a practical use for a prenup.

Well, it is true as someone points out of thread that state law will determine in the end how assets are split in the dissolution of marriage, the same thing goes for died without a will – the state will determine, how assets are distributed. But we have more control over assets when we have our own specific contracts like prenups and wills.

[GuitarStv]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

[lifeandlimb]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

That's one very narrow view of looking at it, but prenups can be a wise agreement to terms, especially useful if the stakes are high (lots of complicated assets going in). Isn't marriage a kind of very important contract? People and businesses sign contracts going into work with each other, not expecting or hoping to fail each other, but outlining the terms just in case things go wrong.
For some people it's good to address certain things ahead of time, to minimize some potential complication for themselves later. Clear-eyed risk management does not equate to risk avoidance.

[charis]

A prenup is not a failure of trust, particularly if it’s being suggested by the partner with fewer assets. Almost no one decides to get married with the expensive that it will not work out.  I think you are being disingenuous because posters on this thread have already given examples of changes in life circumstances that occurred regardless of the amount of trust they originally put into another person.  People change. Prenups don’t make sense for a lot of people but it has little to do with trust.

[GuitarStv]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

That's one very narrow view of looking at it, but prenups can be a wise agreement to terms, especially useful if the stakes are high (lots of complicated assets going in). Isn't marriage a kind of very important contract? People and businesses sign contracts going into work with each other, not expecting or hoping to fail each other, but outlining the terms just in case things go wrong.
For some people it's good to address certain things ahead of time, to minimize some potential complication for themselves later. Clear-eyed risk management does not equate to risk avoidance.

The reason that people and businesses enter a contract is the lack of trust for the person/business they're working with.  My suspicion is that the person who views their marriage in a similar manner to a job offer is much more likely to have that marriage fail.  A prenup feels like you're trying to have lifelong commitment without having to commit or risk anything - it's a pretense.

If that's the case, why marry at all?  Just live together.  Get a prenup for your common law cohabitation if you feel it's necessary.  Your options to cut and run will be greater, and you're not lying to yourself or your partner.

[GilesMM]

Depending on your state, you may already be legally married under common law and, if so, the pre-nup is a legal agreement you could sign now without reference to a wedding event.

In what state does dating for a year while maintaining separate households qualify as common law marriage? I know common law marriage is still recognized in a few places (though most US states have stopped recognizing it), but I thought you generally had to live together and/or be together for several years.

I read that they both own property but didn't see where they maintain separate households.  Do they?   Common law applies in about 1/3 of states.

[Laura33]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

Please please please let's not go down this road.  There are many many many reasons why people do/don't want prenups.  Suggesting that wanting a prenup is a sign of a lack of trust so significant as to warrant not marrying is like when my SIL told me that my DH and I must not have been really "committed" to the marriage, since we both kept some money separate.  Not helpful, and patronizing to boot.  (27 years as of 3 months ago, FWIW.  Suck it, SIL).  I mean, I haven't been in a car crash for 35 years (knock on wood), but I still have car insurance in case something happens.  And I sure as hell have homeowners insurance, even though my actions didn't have a damn thing to do with our house fire.

I talk here a lot about CurrentYou and FutureYou, and my advice is always to look out for FutureYou, but to also acknowledge that you don't necessarily know what FutureYou will want.  If you're 30 and can't even know who you will be at 50, how the hell can you possibly know who your spouse will be then?  Hell, even your spouse won't know at 30 who they'll be at 50, so you'd have to be pretty damn near omnipotent to know something that even they can't see.  Sometimes people lie about who they are going into a relationship; sometimes, people are honest but you don't really see issues until you're living together; sometimes, people change over the course of decades.  Acknowledging that I don't know everything about my partner and don't know what will happen to us or who we will be in 10 or 20 or 40 years doesn't mean that I am not committed to the marriage. 

A prenup isn't about how much you love your partner, it's about how much you love yourself.  I love my husband enough to have stuck with him through the very lowest points in my life/our lives.  But there are also things I will not live with, and I love myself enough to be willing to walk if any of those things happen.  Ex:  my DH had anger problems that were not at all evident until we had kids.  The one time I considered divorce was when he was getting inappropriately angry at the kids; instead, he agreed to go to counseling, and I interjected myself to protect the kids, and it got significantly better as they got older.  But if he ever hits me, even one time, I am out the door.  I do not consider this in any way a lack of commitment to my marriage, but instead as a willingness to stand up for myself if he fundamentally changes in a way I cannot live with.* 

So that brings me back to the insurance analogy.  I have insurance not because I expect something bad to happen, but because I am aware that sometimes bad things happen that are beyond my control.  I can be the world's safest driver and still get hit.  Similarly, I can dedicate myself fully to my marriage, love my spouse, do all the right communication and respect and support stuff, and he could still hit a stupid midlife crisis and become a horndog, or develop some major psychological break.  I certainly don't expect it.  But I see nothing wrong with protecting myself from that kind of scenario, even if it is very unlikely.  After all, bad shit doesn't always only happen to other people.

Tangential thought:  isn't marriage itself an evidence of lack of trust?  After all, if your partner tells you they want to spend the rest of their life with you, and you trust them, then wouldn't you just live together?  Make vows together in the back yard, no officiant necessary?  Requiring a piece of paper that creates a whole bunch of hoops to jump through if you want to leave shouldn't be necessary.  (Note:  I get it if you're talking about a religious marriage, where you are taking vows before God.  But for those of us who aren't religious and just got married at the courthouse, that isn't an issue.)

*My other dealbreakers are major substance abuse/addiction and screwing around.  None of which I would ever expect from the man I married, or I wouldn't have married him.  Then again, I sure as hell didn't expect the anger toward the kids, either.

[Kris]

I really hate that "a prenup shows you don't trust your partner" angle. Because at its heart, it is really useful as a bullying technique. If you "really love and trust" your partner, you won't get a prenup, apparently. So, there is enormous pressure not to get one to "prove" you trust your partner. Instead, you set yourself up to be screwed if your trust is misplaced.

I had not a single doubt in my mind that my ex-husband was "the one" and that he would always be faithful and would never hurt me.

3 1/2 years after the date of our marriage, he had become psychologically abusive and had tried to kill me once.

Trust doesn't guarantee anything. And not getting a prenup is not a guarantor of a more solid love and faith in the relationship.

When I married my current husband, I should have gotten a prenup. I didn't. And thankfully, he is a wonderful person so it's okay. But he just as well could have turned out to be an asshole, frankly. I think people who have a single successful marriage think they have figured something out and are smarter than people who have had a marriage fail. But most of us who have had a more complicated path understand the significant roll of, for lack of a better word... luck.

If you think you need a prenup, get a prenup. Don't let people bully you into believing that your love is defective if you want one.

[Sandi_k]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

You know what? I don't trust anyone not to be changed by life. So yeah - if I have a significant net worth, I would recommend that everyone get a prenup.

So maybe that makes me a cynical soul, but I've seen too many people - and too many women - who get messed up by divorce. As someone with significant assets, savings, and net worth, if my DH passed, I would likely not remarry.

Trust isn't the issue - my observation of people's behavior bears out the thesis that people change over time. So....the person who is trustworthy today might not be so in 20 years. That viewpoint isn't specific to one person. It's generally how the world works, IMO.

[GuitarStv]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

Please please please let's not go down this road.  There are many many many reasons why people do/don't want prenups.  Suggesting that wanting a prenup is a sign of a lack of trust so significant as to warrant not marrying is like when my SIL told me that my DH and I must not have been really "committed" to the marriage, since we both kept some money separate.  Not helpful, and patronizing to boot.  (27 years as of 3 months ago, FWIW.  Suck it, SIL).  I mean, I haven't been in a car crash for 35 years (knock on wood), but I still have car insurance in case something happens.  And I sure as hell have homeowners insurance, even though my actions didn't have a damn thing to do with our house fire.

A prenup isn't insurance though.

Is there a reason to be married for someone unwilling to commit to the marriage?  Why not just live together?

It's like having a choice between a car you can drive with no liability for anything ever, and a car where you'll be fully liable for problems.  Rather that take the second car for a spin, why not stick with the first one?

I talk here a lot about CurrentYou and FutureYou, and my advice is always to look out for FutureYou, but to also acknowledge that you don't necessarily know what FutureYou will want.  If you're 30 and can't even know who you will be at 50, how the hell can you possibly know who your spouse will be then?  Hell, even your spouse won't know at 30 who they'll be at 50, so you'd have to be pretty damn near omnipotent to know something that even they can't see.  Sometimes people lie about who they are going into a relationship; sometimes, people are honest but you don't really see issues until you're living together; sometimes, people change over the course of decades.  Acknowledging that I don't know everything about my partner and don't know what will happen to us or who we will be in 10 or 20 or 40 years doesn't mean that I am not committed to the marriage.

Agreed on pretty much all counts.  People aren't who they seem to be.  They change and sometimes drift apart.  That's why divorces happen.

A prenup isn't about how much you love your partner, it's about how much you love yourself.  I love my husband enough to have stuck with him through the very lowest points in my life/our lives.  But there are also things I will not live with, and I love myself enough to be willing to walk if any of those things happen.  Ex:  my DH had anger problems that were not at all evident until we had kids.  The one time I considered divorce was when he was getting inappropriately angry at the kids; instead, he agreed to go to counseling, and I interjected myself to protect the kids, and it got significantly better as they got older.  But if he ever hits me, even one time, I am out the door.  I do not consider this in any way a lack of commitment to my marriage, but instead as a willingness to stand up for myself if he fundamentally changes in a way I cannot live with.* 

Well, if we're going to play worst case scenario here . . . a prenuptial can absolutely be structured to establish power disparity in a relationship that enables spousal abuse and makes it harder for you to get away too.  You're just trading trust in your partner with trust in your contract (or if you're like most people and have trouble understanding contracts then trust in your lawyer) - but both types of trust (when misplaced) can lead to problems.

So that brings me back to the insurance analogy.  I have insurance not because I expect something bad to happen, but because I am aware that sometimes bad things happen that are beyond my control.  I can be the world's safest driver and still get hit.  Similarly, I can dedicate myself fully to my marriage, love my spouse, do all the right communication and respect and support stuff, and he could still hit a stupid midlife crisis and become a horndog, or develop some major psychological break.  I certainly don't expect it.  But I see nothing wrong with protecting myself from that kind of scenario, even if it is very unlikely.  After all, bad shit doesn't always only happen to other people.

And it brings me back to the two cars analogy.  Why get in the second car at all?  What's the draw to marriage?

Tangential thought:  isn't marriage itself an evidence of lack of trust?  After all, if your partner tells you they want to spend the rest of their life with you, and you trust them, then wouldn't you just live together?  Make vows together in the back yard, no officiant necessary?  Requiring a piece of paper that creates a whole bunch of hoops to jump through if you want to leave shouldn't be necessary.  (Note:  I get it if you're talking about a religious marriage, where you are taking vows before God.  But for those of us who aren't religious and just got married at the courthouse, that isn't an issue.)

That's an interesting question.

My wife and I got married after dating for close to ten years and living together for five or six.  I think we both saw it as a public declaration that we were no longer individuals, but were a single unit - and we wanted to have a party with our friends/family to celebrate that.  I guess that fundamentally I felt it showed my love and trust for my wife - and I was fully cognizant and accepting of the potential headaches, difficulties, and costs that would be associated with a future separation and divorce could bring.

Was it necessary?  Hell no.

[Sandi_k]

@Laura33 - love, love, love this post.

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

Please please please let's not go down this road.  There are many many many reasons why people do/don't want prenups.  Suggesting that wanting a prenup is a sign of a lack of trust so significant as to warrant not marrying is like when my SIL told me that my DH and I must not have been really "committed" to the marriage, since we both kept some money separate.  Not helpful, and patronizing to boot.  (27 years as of 3 months ago, FWIW.  Suck it, SIL).  I mean, I haven't been in a car crash for 35 years (knock on wood), but I still have car insurance in case something happens.  And I sure as hell have homeowners insurance, even though my actions didn't have a damn thing to do with our house fire.

I talk here a lot about CurrentYou and FutureYou, and my advice is always to look out for FutureYou, but to also acknowledge that you don't necessarily know what FutureYou will want.  If you're 30 and can't even know who you will be at 50, how the hell can you possibly know who your spouse will be then?  Hell, even your spouse won't know at 30 who they'll be at 50, so you'd have to be pretty damn near omnipotent to know something that even they can't see.  Sometimes people lie about who they are going into a relationship; sometimes, people are honest but you don't really see issues until you're living together; sometimes, people change over the course of decades.  Acknowledging that I don't know everything about my partner and don't know what will happen to us or who we will be in 10 or 20 or 40 years doesn't mean that I am not committed to the marriage. 

A prenup isn't about how much you love your partner, it's about how much you love yourself.  I love my husband enough to have stuck with him through the very lowest points in my life/our lives.  But there are also things I will not live with, and I love myself enough to be willing to walk if any of those things happen.  Ex:  my DH had anger problems that were not at all evident until we had kids.  The one time I considered divorce was when he was getting inappropriately angry at the kids; instead, he agreed to go to counseling, and I interjected myself to protect the kids, and it got significantly better as they got older.  But if he ever hits me, even one time, I am out the door.  I do not consider this in any way a lack of commitment to my marriage, but instead as a willingness to stand up for myself if he fundamentally changes in a way I cannot live with.* 

So that brings me back to the insurance analogy.  I have insurance not because I expect something bad to happen, but because I am aware that sometimes bad things happen that are beyond my control.  I can be the world's safest driver and still get hit.  Similarly, I can dedicate myself fully to my marriage, love my spouse, do all the right communication and respect and support stuff, and he could still hit a stupid midlife crisis and become a horndog, or develop some major psychological break.  I certainly don't expect it.  But I see nothing wrong with protecting myself from that kind of scenario, even if it is very unlikely.  After all, bad shit doesn't always only happen to other people.

Tangential thought:  isn't marriage itself an evidence of lack of trust?  After all, if your partner tells you they want to spend the rest of their life with you, and you trust them, then wouldn't you just live together?  Make vows together in the back yard, no officiant necessary?  Requiring a piece of paper that creates a whole bunch of hoops to jump through if you want to leave shouldn't be necessary.  (Note:  I get it if you're talking about a religious marriage, where you are taking vows before God.  But for those of us who aren't religious and just got married at the courthouse, that isn't an issue.)

*My other dealbreakers are major substance abuse/addiction and screwing around.  None of which I would ever expect from the man I married, or I wouldn't have married him.  Then again, I sure as hell didn't expect the anger toward the kids, either.

[Metalcat]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

This is such a nonsense perspective.

Getting married is a legal agreement, a prenup is nothing other than customization of that legal agreement.

And plenty of people have trusted their partners 110% and would have benefitted from a prenup.

FTR, when I looked into a prenup, it was to protect my DH from my debt, not protect myself, just FY-fucking-I

Seriously dude, you're saying some uncool judgemental shit right now and I'm personally offended and that doesn't happen often.

(Disclaimer, my blood stream is also coarsing with synthetic stress hormones at the moment, so I'm probably a little reactive...but that only means I'm saying what I think instead of not bothering to respond).

[Sandi_k]

@GuitarStv - everyone has different reasons for getting in that second car. Some of ours:

- We wanted a celebration with family.

- We had already bought a house, so it was a furthering of that public commitment.

- It meant something to our families - and to how they treated us. My mom, for the 16 years before marriage, used to regularly try to lure me away from (now)DH at the holidays. She literally couldn't understand how he was my family, if we were not married. And I was absolutely surprised how DIFFERENTLY folks treated us once we were married. No lie.

- Health insurance coverage.

- Legal simplicity.

Marriage does mean something, even if you're not within a community of faith. So telling folks to not get married if they want a prenup is, quite bluntly, not supported by our country's way of handling legal issues, and health coverage.

[Raenia]

Depending on your state, you may already be legally married under common law and, if so, the pre-nup is a legal agreement you could sign now without reference to a wedding event.

In what state does dating for a year while maintaining separate households qualify as common law marriage? I know common law marriage is still recognized in a few places (though most US states have stopped recognizing it), but I thought you generally had to live together and/or be together for several years.

I read that they both own property but didn't see where they maintain separate households.  Do they?   Common law applies in about 1/3 of states.

Per the link given above, 8 US states allow common law marriage, while several others recognize common law marriages that occurred in those 8 states. That's a far cry from 1/3. And while the specifics of qualifying vary between states, the US definition requires that you wish to marry, consider yourselves married, and present yourselves as married to your community, and most also require cohabitation. OP does not specify if they cohabitate all or part of the time (aside from mentioning separate properties), however nothing they said suggests they are presenting themselves as married to the community.

Requirements in Canadian provinces are more specific, and despite small variations between provinces, generally require a specific timeframe of cohabitation (2-3 years in most provinces), or a shorter timeframe plus a child together. Australia doesn't use common law marriage as such, but has a similar concept of "de facto marriage," which also has a list of criteria including the relationship lasting more than 2 years, financial interdependance, children together, etc.

So I'll ask again, in what state does dating for a year make you common law married? Even if you assume they were living together for that whole time, which seems unlikely.

[GuitarStv]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

This is such a nonsense perspective.

Getting married is a legal agreement, a prenup is nothing other than customization of that legal agreement.

And plenty of people have trusted their partners 110% and would have benefitted from a prenup.

FTR, when I looked into a prenup, it was to protect my DH from my debt, not protect myself, just FY-fucking-I

Seriously dude, you're saying some uncool judgemental shit right now and I'm personally offended and that doesn't happen often.

(Disclaimer, my blood stream is also coarsing with synthetic stress hormones at the moment, so I'm probably a little reactive...but that only means I'm saying what I think instead of not bothering to respond).

Does it help any if I preface all of the posts with 'For me personally,' or 'The way it works for me'?  On this matter I have pretty limited experience (my own marriage).  Honestly, the more I've been thinking about it the more I don't really get why marriage is still a thing.  The main real reasons that I can come up with are:
- religion
- bunch of social baggage still attached to it that's a kind of habitual vestigial appendage of religion

Which is kinda making me feel like we should do away with marriage entirely - like you described, it's effectively just a weird legal agreement.

[erp]

I've followed this thread with interest. I think there's a lot of different takes here, but:

Best case -
A prenup lets you and your partner decide what *you both* think is most fair, and provides a structure for you to think out a bunch of different scenarios. It probably also prompts you to re-visit wills/documents/power of attorney/etc. With a prenup you can structure the agreement to get married in a way that makes sense to the relationship you're actually in, rather than just accepting the default legal arrangement in your jurisdiction.
(ex. our relationship agreements have sections on kids and how tax-deferred accounts will be treated. It also includes a lot of language around ensuring that we're committed to the best outcome for both parties, and listing what we want to prioritize - making sure things are fair, mostly)

Worst case -
A prenup allows one wealthy member of the relationship to retain all their power and create an environment where the couple's lifestyle is impossible without the richer person's unilateral say. That's pretty icky, potentially.

---
I tend to think that the best case is much more likely to apply to my situation, and it provides a useful framing device for 'how do we build our lives together'. Basically, it helps us talk better about what's important now, what'll be important in the future, and how we think we'll manage it.

On the other hand, if you think the worst case scenario might apply to you - then the prenup might be worse than nothing.

[curious_george]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

This is such a nonsense perspective.

Getting married is a legal agreement, a prenup is nothing other than customization of that legal agreement.

And plenty of people have trusted their partners 110% and would have benefitted from a prenup.

FTR, when I looked into a prenup, it was to protect my DH from my debt, not protect myself, just FY-fucking-I

Seriously dude, you're saying some uncool judgemental shit right now and I'm personally offended and that doesn't happen often.

(Disclaimer, my blood stream is also coarsing with synthetic stress hormones at the moment, so I'm probably a little reactive...but that only means I'm saying what I think instead of not bothering to respond).

Does it help any if I preface all of the posts with 'For me personally,' or 'The way it works for me'?  On this matter I have pretty limited experience (my own marriage).  Honestly, the more I've been thinking about it the more I don't really get why marriage is still a thing.  The main real reasons that I can come up with are:
- religion
- bunch of social baggage still attached to it that's a kind of habitual vestigial appendage of religion

Which is kinda making me feel like we should do away with marriage entirely - like you described, it's effectively just a weird legal agreement.

Do you have children?

Marriage kind of makes sense to me if I think about it as two people coming together to raise a family for a while.

It's good for children to have the security of two parents. That way, if one parent dies, they have the other one as backup.

[Metalcat]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

This is such a nonsense perspective.

Getting married is a legal agreement, a prenup is nothing other than customization of that legal agreement.

And plenty of people have trusted their partners 110% and would have benefitted from a prenup.

FTR, when I looked into a prenup, it was to protect my DH from my debt, not protect myself, just FY-fucking-I

Seriously dude, you're saying some uncool judgemental shit right now and I'm personally offended and that doesn't happen often.

(Disclaimer, my blood stream is also coarsing with synthetic stress hormones at the moment, so I'm probably a little reactive...but that only means I'm saying what I think instead of not bothering to respond).

Does it help any if I preface all of the posts with 'For me personally,' or 'The way it works for me'?  On this matter I have pretty limited experience (my own marriage).  Honestly, the more I've been thinking about it the more I don't really get why marriage is still a thing.  The main real reasons that I can come up with are:
- religion
- bunch of social baggage still attached to it that's a kind of habitual vestigial appendage of religion

Which is kinda making me feel like we should do away with marriage entirely - like you described, it's effectively just a weird legal agreement.

You were telling other people that if they want a prenup they don't trust their partner enough. If you had said that you would personally feel like a prenup would feel like mistrust

You are entitled to your opinion, but it's a judgemental, offensive, insulting, and incredibly rude opinion and it's not a good look on you.

[dragonwalker]

Ok, so I see I started a lively debate.

Some more information that some of you have wondered about my situation. I consider my partner and I not to be cohabitating together. We maintain separate households and although we visit each other every weekend and sometimes I stay over into the weekday, we are still separate. We are both in CA and for the foreseeable future plan to be in this state. 

My question about the pre-nup was not so much on the principal of having one but more on the technicalities of our situation and if it made sense to have one. On principal, I believe that a pre-nup is not a bad thing and serves to benefit people who have one. 

[mspym]

My question about the pre-nup was not so much on the principal of having one but more on the technicalities of our situation and if it made sense to have one. On principal, I believe that a pre-nup is not a bad thing and serves to benefit people who have one.

Given the differences between the two of you in terms of current assets, potential future assets and debt, a pre-nup wouldn't be a bad idea. It's not wrong to want to protect yourself and the best time to set the rules is when you like each other and want to look out for each other's best interests, rather than during a very stressful and emotional situation. Given California is a community property state, there are some rules about what you can and can't include in a valid pre-nup. They may also not hold once you have children.

https://www.sflg.com/blog/2019/07/how-do-prenups-work-in-california-when-are-they-not-valid/
https://resources.hellodivorce.com/prenuptial-agreement-california

[charis]

Ok, so I see I started a lively debate.

Some more information that some of you have wondered about my situation. I consider my partner and I not to be cohabitating together. We maintain separate households and although we visit each other every weekend and sometimes I stay over into the weekday, we are still separate. We are both in CA and for the foreseeable future plan to be in this state. 

My question about the pre-nup was not so much on the principal of having one but more on the technicalities of our situation and if it made sense to have one. On principal, I believe that a pre-nup is not a bad thing and serves to benefit people who have one.

Before this discussion got completely derailed. several posters questioned why you are talking about marriage without having any detailed discussion about finances.  I think it would make sense for you to speak to that issue.

[dragonwalker]

You're right, for as much as I pay attention to my finances I think it probably made both of us uncomfortable to dive into the details but I'm going to plan to do so this weekend.

[GilesMM]

Ok, so I see I started a lively debate.

Some more information that some of you have wondered about my situation. I consider my partner and I not to be cohabitating together. We maintain separate households and although we visit each other every weekend and sometimes I stay over into the weekday, we are still separate. We are both in CA and for the foreseeable future plan to be in this state. 

My question about the pre-nup was not so much on the principal of having one but more on the technicalities of our situation and if it made sense to have one. On principal, I believe that a pre-nup is not a bad thing and serves to benefit people who have one.

California doesn't observe common law marriage. However, as it is California, it is not unheard for unmarried partners to sue over division of assets following a breakup or death.


A lot of people hear about pre-nups on tv or in the news and wonder if they need one. Pre-nups are ideal when, say, one party has vastly greater assets and is perhaps also a great deal older, perhaps with adult kids.   I would NOT sign a pre-nup if I were you. I would date for another year, seek clarity on finances, and move forward with marriage if warranted.  It's your first marriage and you are both at roughly similar points financially and early in your careers.  There is no way to know where you will be in 30 years.  One could have had a lucrative career while the other raised kids at home.  One currently-owned property may appreciate fabulously while the other lags.  The pre-nup is trying to establish "fairness" with no consideration to the future circumstances which may be in play at divorce time.

[Cassie]

If you don't trust the person you're marrying, why are you marrying them?

Oh please. What do you mean by “Trust? “ so you’re recommending the OP “trust” that he will never ever ever get a divorce ever not in 1 million years?

Alrighty then. But Maybe that’s not what you meant.

Fundamentally, a prenup is a failure of trust.  It's a declaration of an expectation that the marriage won't work out.  If you don't trust the person you're marrying enough to risk the money, then why get married?

This is such a nonsense perspective.

Getting married is a legal agreement, a prenup is nothing other than customization of that legal agreement.

And plenty of people have trusted their partners 110% and would have benefitted from a prenup.

FTR, when I looked into a prenup, it was to protect my DH from my debt, not protect myself, just FY-fucking-I

Seriously dude, you're saying some uncool judgemental shit right now and I'm personally offended and that doesn't happen often.

(Disclaimer, my blood stream is also coarsing with synthetic stress hormones at the moment, so I'm probably a little reactive...but that only means I'm saying what I think instead of not bothering to respond).

Does it help any if I preface all of the posts with 'For me personally,' or 'The way it works for me'?  On this matter I have pretty limited experience (my own marriage).  Honestly, the more I've been thinking about it the more I don't really get why marriage is still a thing.  The main real reasons that I can come up with are:
- religion
- bunch of social baggage still attached to it that's a kind of habitual vestigial appendage of religion

Which is kinda making me feel like we should do away with marriage entirely - like you described, it's effectively just a weird legal agreement.

You were telling other people that if they want a prenup they don't trust their partner enough. If you had said that you would personally feel like a prenup would feel like mistrust

You are entitled to your opinion, but it's a judgemental, offensive, insulting, and incredibly rude opinion and it's not a good look on you.

I agree with you @Metalcat 100%!!  It’s one of the smartest things I’ve done in relationships despite being 100% positive we would be married forever. My kids were grown and we were taking custody of his 13 year old and it didn’t seem right not to be married. Plus my condo was too small because 2 of my kids were finishing college and living with us. We needed to buy a house to fit everyone and I was the only person with real estate and money. I certainly wouldn’t do that if we weren’t married. Lastly we were deeply in love and compatible having lived together for 6 years.

[Metalcat]

You're right, for as much as I pay attention to my finances I think it probably made both of us uncomfortable to dive into the details but I'm going to plan to do so this weekend.

As I said in my initial response to you, personal finance requires more than a talk with your partner, it needs to become part of your entire language.

A good marriage means learning to get comfortable with the uncomfortable.

To put it bluntly, if you can't have uncomfortable conversations with your partner, then you don't actually know who you are marrying or what will come out of them when uncomfortable conversations become unavoidable due to uncomfortable situations.

Marriage doesn't mean choosing someone you like a whole lot to have a great time with. It means choosing the person you face the hardest shit you will ever face by your side, and you with them through theirs.

I was like your girlfriend, I was the much higher earning medical professional, but thanks to life, I had to stop working less than 5 years into our marriage. Instead of living out the dreams we had planned, my spouse had to spend much of this year helping me with bathing and going to the bathroom.

And guess what, we had talked about exactly this kind of scenario before we got engaged. We had talked extensively about how differently our careers would be impacted by disability, what my disability policy looked like, the fact that almost all "own occupation" policies get settled for much less than their face value.

We talked about what our backup careers would be, what lifestyle modifications we were most comfortable with if we had to adapt to one income, what disability supports we each would feel were worth spending on. Etc. Etc.

Which is why despite the fact that famously men leave their wives when they become disabled, my marriage has actually gotten a lot stronger and happier. Seriously, we actually have WAY MORE fun now.

Marriages grow through the challenges you successfully face together. A solid partner is one who you know what you can expect from them in those challenges. Because if they don't grow, they rot.

Who are you two going to be when shit hits the fan?

That's the shit you need to start talking about and never stop talking about if you want the kind of marriage that always improves through difficulty.

The reason the conversation feels uncomfortable is because you don't know the person well enough.

Don't approach financial conversations as a task to check off your list, approach them with genuine curiosity about  understanding this very complex human being that you are attempting to tie yourself to in partnership, forever, through life's varied and powerful hardships.

Financial discussions are not simple discussions of logistics. They are discussions about hopes and fears. You need to understand hers, and she needs to understand yours.

Don't take this lightly.

And to circle back to the details of a prenup, you can't even know what details to include in a prenup unless you thoroughly understand each other.

A prenup doesn't take the pressure OFF of knowing each other's financial situation and values, it actually puts the pressure ON you so that you can craft a useful legal document.

It can't paper over a lack of financial accountability between you.

I worked in a financial firm advising medical professionals on exactly this kind of thing and I can't tell you the number of times I've seen smart people fuck themselves over because they didn't educate themselves enough to advise their lawyers what they wanted a contract to actually do for them, they only had uninformed, vague ideas.

Well that's a great way to screw your shit up. You NEED to understand the financial situation you are in to even be able to guide a lawyer as to what you want in your contract.

So what should you include in your prenup??? I have no idea. You and your partner need to figure that out together.

Start with figuring out what the existing marriage law in your jurisdiction is and what would happen were you to divorce in the next 2,5,10, 20+ years.

Share your gut feelings about what parts you think are fair and what aren't. How does she feel about likely owing you spousal support since she has a higher income? How does she feel about you being entitled to half of the value of her business if she opens a clinic after you get married?

Talk about disability. Talk about how stable each of your careers are and the things that could force you to leave the workforce. Talk about retirement savings and goals. Talk about what lifestyle modifications each of you are comfortable making if for whatever reason you suddenly had to live on less. On the flip side, talk about what lifestyle inflation you would want of you suddenly could spend a lot more.

This is all very, very, very basic getting to you stuff. And you can't possibly guide a lawyer on what kind of prenup contract you want without it. Not if you want a good prenup...

[Omy]

I'm learning so much on this topic. Until this post, I had also been of the opinion that prenups were something the rich partner wanted in order to keep the poorer partner in line...and that prenups implied a lack of trust between partners before the marriage started. So I never bothered to broach the subject with my partners before either of my 2 marriages.

Fortunately, I married good people in both cases. My divorce was amicable. He agreed to give me what I brought into the marriage before dividing by two - even though I had commingled the crapola out of that money (by paying off his student loans and credit card debt) and would not have been entitled to that extra by default.

He was not immediately agreeable until I firmly reminded him that I paid off all his debt with my savings. Had we put a simple prenup in place to cover this (which he would have easily agreed to), I wouldn't have had to remind him and the divorce would have been even more amicable.

In that first marriage we were young and dumb and had very few conversations about money before we got married. It was a regular issue because he was inherently a spender and I am a saver.  He slowly came around to the idea of saving to retire early, but I think that was mostly to appease me. As soon as we divorced he went back to his spendy ways.

In marriage number 2 (current) we had similar net worths coming in (me $300k, him $200k) and neither of us felt the need to get a prenup since we'd had a lot of conversations about finances and goals before we married, and we seemed very aligned after dating/living together for 5 years. He's a generous soul, and I trusted that we would work things out amicably if we didn't make it "until death do us part".

So far so good. But as so many of you pointed out, there are so many things that can go wonky (even after 20 years) and a pre-nup actually can make things simpler and potentially less expensive and messy. Thank you for this insight.

P.S. I won't be asking for a post-nup - dividing by 2 (as is done in my state) would be very much in my favor as he was the higher earner for most of our marriage.

[Villanelle]

This thread makes me think more about it, and how I might have been screwed if I'd signed a prenup (depending on the terms).  When we married DH had higher earning potential, but not by massive amounts.  He had a little debt, I had none.  The plan was to be DINKs forever more.

But due to his job taking us overseas, I had to give up my career.  When we finally got back stateside, it seems I couldn't even get hired back at my old level (which was not all that high), much less regain any of the upward movement I'd have surely seen f I'd been working for the last decade.

So what was fair at year 0 would not have felt fair at year 20, unless the prenup somehow accounted for me becoming a SAH wife (not mother), which neither of us anticipated or really wanted.

If we divorced now, I would get half of everything, and likely significant alimony, which seems entirely fair given our trajectories. 

I'm not anti-prenup but I do think the points about not knowing now what things will look like in 10 or 20 or 40 years is a valid point.

And I also agree with MC that if you think you want to marry this woman, you need to start having multiple uncomfortable conversations before there is any proposal of marriage.  Healthy marriage requires being able and willing to talk about the hard stuff.  And you need to know how your partner handles this discussions and whether that's compatible with how you handle them.   In some ways, the approach to the conversation is more important than the content.  Even if you are eventually in agreement on a prenup, if you aren't able to have an honest, respectful conversation and feel comfortable baring difficult feelings, that doesn't bode well.

Talk about what happens if one person's family asks for money or a place to live.  Talk about what happens if one of you loses your career for whatever reason.  Talk about what happens is one partner gets an amazing job opportunity elsewhere.  (And if you do have a prenup, you may even end up including some of the outcomes of these conversations in it.)  Knowing this stuff is important, and knowing your relationship is strong enough to handle these issues is even moreso. 

 

[Laura33]

Does it help any if I preface all of the posts with 'For me personally,' or 'The way it works for me'?

The problem is the phrase "trust your partner."  I can trust who my partner is implicitly.  I can learn as much as possible about his beliefs, his values, his behavior, and all those other things that make up a personality.  But I cannot "trust" who my partner will be at some unidentified future time, because I cannot possibly know what is going to happen or how he will change over that time.  It's basically saying "I know that who you are now is who you always will be, no matter what happens."  Which is demonstrably wrong on its face, because absolutely none of us are the same person at 50 than we were at 20.  IMO, it's hubris to believe that we can project something like that. 

To flip it around, I'd ask this:  are there any circumstances under which you would divorce?  What if your partner became abusive to you or the kids?  What if your partner became an alcoholic or addict?  What if your partner fell in love with someone else and asked for a divorce?  What if your partner had a schizophrenic break and refused treatment?  What are your theoretical deal-breakers?

Now:  can you see any circumstance in which that kind of thing might happen to your partner?  Not that you believe it will, but that it could? 

I think if you're honest, the answer to both of those questions* has to be yes.  No matter how much you trust your partner today, life experience indicates that bad shit can happen and people can change in ways you can't live with. 

Which brings me to my final question:  if you can foresee a possible situation -- no matter how unlikely -- where your partner might do something you can't live with, why is it unreasonable to protect yourself against that?  Saying you want a prenup is not saying "I think my marriage will fail"; it doesn't mean you think there's a 90% chance it will fail, or a 51% chance -- maybe it's a 1% chance, or a 0.1% chance.  But we don't refuse to plan for bad stuff just because the risk is small; I mean, I had life insurance as a healthy 25-yr-old woman to protect my family, even though my risk of death that year was well under 1%.  (And divorce rates are much, much higher than 1%).

The problem with framing this all up as "trust" is that it adds a hurtful layer of judgmentalism to the discussion, because it basically means that if you divorce, it's your own damn fault, no matter what your partner did.  "Trust" implies some reasonable basis; I mean, you don't "trust" some stranger on the street, right?  So what level of knowledge do you require to establish the level of "trust" you're talking about? 

Well, if prenup = lack of trust, and if it's reasonable to protect yourself against even small risks, then the level of "trust" you're talking about means trusting that even that very small chance won't happen, no matter what life throws at you.  So by saying that a prenup = lack of trust, then what you're really saying is that in order to get married, you need perfect knowledge not just of who your parter is now but of how they will change and who they will be in the future. 

And in that universe, any divorce is by definition your own fault.  I mean, if you trusted someone to always be compatible no matter what, and it turns out they're not, then that must mean that you failed to obtain sufficient knowledge of who that person would become before you married.  So even if your partner becomes abusive or alcoholic, if you'd truly known your partner well enough to trust them, you'd have been able to see that coming, and so it's your fault for marrying in the first place.  And I guarantee that will piss off every single person who has ever been divorced, contemplated divorce, or loved someone who divorced.

IME, people are eminently fallible.  Sure, some people don't do enough work before marrying, but others get hit by stuff they never expected and have to do their best to wade their way through.  Even wonderful people act unreasonably.  And whatever else I may be, I'm neither omniscient nor exempt from bad shit.  I've changed, so it would be rather ridiculous to assume that my DH would not, or that we'd never face any bad shit of the level that could test our marriage.  And in that world, a prenup is a reasonable precaution against the bad shit that always happens, not a sign that you're either not committed to your partner or too lazy to put in the work to learn what you need to know before marrying.



*Unless you belong to a religion that forbids divorce, in which case you'd say no to the first question -- but then we wouldn't be talking about a prenup in the first place.

[Metalcat]

This thread makes me think more about it, and how I might have been screwed if I'd signed a prenup (depending on the terms).  When we married DH had higher earning potential, but not by massive amounts.  He had a little debt, I had none.  The plan was to be DINKs forever more.

But due to his job taking us overseas, I had to give up my career.  When we finally got back stateside, it seems I couldn't even get hired back at my old level (which was not all that high), much less regain any of the upward movement I'd have surely seen f I'd been working for the last decade.

So what was fair at year 0 would not have felt fair at year 20, unless the prenup somehow accounted for me becoming a SAH wife (not mother), which neither of us anticipated or really wanted.

If we divorced now, I would get half of everything, and likely significant alimony, which seems entirely fair given our trajectories. 

I'm not anti-prenup but I do think the points about not knowing now what things will look like in 10 or 20 or 40 years is a valid point.

And I also agree with MC that if you think you want to marry this woman, you need to start having multiple uncomfortable conversations before there is any proposal of marriage.  Healthy marriage requires being able and willing to talk about the hard stuff.  And you need to know how your partner handles this discussions and whether that's compatible with how you handle them.   In some ways, the approach to the conversation is more important than the content.  Even if you are eventually in agreement on a prenup, if you aren't able to have an honest, respectful conversation and feel comfortable baring difficult feelings, that doesn't bode well.

Talk about what happens if one person's family asks for money or a place to live.  Talk about what happens if one of you loses your career for whatever reason.  Talk about what happens is one partner gets an amazing job opportunity elsewhere.  (And if you do have a prenup, you may even end up including some of the outcomes of these conversations in it.)  Knowing this stuff is important, and knowing your relationship is strong enough to handle these issues is even moreso.

You wouldn't be screwed if you revisited your prenup when your circumstances change.

The clients I worked with who had prenups had them as a mandatory part of entering into business partnerships, but they were revisited every time the value or nature of the business changed.

Contracts change and get amended all the time. That's a normal aspect of legal partnerships.

Also, a lot of prenups don't hold up in court if the circumstances of the marriage materially change and the intent of the initial agreement was clearly different than what actually happened.

Courts throw out unfair prenups all the time.

[GilesMM]

This thread makes me think more about it, and how I might have been screwed if I'd signed a prenup (depending on the terms).  When we married DH had higher earning potential, but not by massive amounts.  He had a little debt, I had none.  The plan was to be DINKs forever more.

But due to his job taking us overseas, I had to give up my career.  When we finally got back stateside, it seems I couldn't even get hired back at my old level (which was not all that high), much less regain any of the upward movement I'd have surely seen f I'd been working for the last decade.

So what was fair at year 0 would not have felt fair at year 20, unless the prenup somehow accounted for me becoming a SAH wife (not mother), which neither of us anticipated or really wanted.

If we divorced now, I would get half of everything, and likely significant alimony, which seems entirely fair given our trajectories. 

I'm not anti-prenup but I do think the points about not knowing now what things will look like in 10 or 20 or 40 years is a valid point.

And I also agree with MC that if you think you want to marry this woman, you need to start having multiple uncomfortable conversations before there is any proposal of marriage.  Healthy marriage requires being able and willing to talk about the hard stuff.  And you need to know how your partner handles this discussions and whether that's compatible with how you handle them.   In some ways, the approach to the conversation is more important than the content.  Even if you are eventually in agreement on a prenup, if you aren't able to have an honest, respectful conversation and feel comfortable baring difficult feelings, that doesn't bode well.

Talk about what happens if one person's family asks for money or a place to live.  Talk about what happens if one of you loses your career for whatever reason.  Talk about what happens is one partner gets an amazing job opportunity elsewhere.  (And if you do have a prenup, you may even end up including some of the outcomes of these conversations in it.)  Knowing this stuff is important, and knowing your relationship is strong enough to handle these issues is even moreso.

You wouldn't be screwed if you revisited your prenup when your circumstances change.

The clients I worked with who had prenups had them as a mandatory part of entering into business partnerships, but they were revisited every time the value or nature of the business changed.

Contracts change and get amended all the time. That's a normal aspect of legal partnerships.

Also, a lot of prenups don't hold up in court if the circumstances of the marriage materially change and the intent of the initial agreement was clearly different than what actually happened.

Courts throw out unfair prenups all the time.

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

[Metalcat]

This thread makes me think more about it, and how I might have been screwed if I'd signed a prenup (depending on the terms).  When we married DH had higher earning potential, but not by massive amounts.  He had a little debt, I had none.  The plan was to be DINKs forever more.

But due to his job taking us overseas, I had to give up my career.  When we finally got back stateside, it seems I couldn't even get hired back at my old level (which was not all that high), much less regain any of the upward movement I'd have surely seen f I'd been working for the last decade.

So what was fair at year 0 would not have felt fair at year 20, unless the prenup somehow accounted for me becoming a SAH wife (not mother), which neither of us anticipated or really wanted.

If we divorced now, I would get half of everything, and likely significant alimony, which seems entirely fair given our trajectories. 

I'm not anti-prenup but I do think the points about not knowing now what things will look like in 10 or 20 or 40 years is a valid point.

And I also agree with MC that if you think you want to marry this woman, you need to start having multiple uncomfortable conversations before there is any proposal of marriage.  Healthy marriage requires being able and willing to talk about the hard stuff.  And you need to know how your partner handles this discussions and whether that's compatible with how you handle them.   In some ways, the approach to the conversation is more important than the content.  Even if you are eventually in agreement on a prenup, if you aren't able to have an honest, respectful conversation and feel comfortable baring difficult feelings, that doesn't bode well.

Talk about what happens if one person's family asks for money or a place to live.  Talk about what happens if one of you loses your career for whatever reason.  Talk about what happens is one partner gets an amazing job opportunity elsewhere.  (And if you do have a prenup, you may even end up including some of the outcomes of these conversations in it.)  Knowing this stuff is important, and knowing your relationship is strong enough to handle these issues is even moreso.

You wouldn't be screwed if you revisited your prenup when your circumstances change.

The clients I worked with who had prenups had them as a mandatory part of entering into business partnerships, but they were revisited every time the value or nature of the business changed.

Contracts change and get amended all the time. That's a normal aspect of legal partnerships.

Also, a lot of prenups don't hold up in court if the circumstances of the marriage materially change and the intent of the initial agreement was clearly different than what actually happened.

Courts throw out unfair prenups all the time.

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

Good to know, I'm not in the US and I've certainly seen prenups thrown out over major circumstance changes like health problems.

But yes, if just normal life circumstance changes occur, couples should revisit whatever they've legally agreed to, whether they have a prenup or not.

Way too many people are ignorant of the legal agreements they are even making when they get married. It's kind of insane.

[GuitarStv]

Does it help any if I preface all of the posts with 'For me personally,' or 'The way it works for me'?

The problem is the phrase "trust your partner."  I can trust who my partner is implicitly.  I can learn as much as possible about his beliefs, his values, his behavior, and all those other things that make up a personality.  But I cannot "trust" who my partner will be at some unidentified future time, because I cannot possibly know what is going to happen or how he will change over that time.  It's basically saying "I know that who you are now is who you always will be, no matter what happens."  Which is demonstrably wrong on its face, because absolutely none of us are the same person at 50 than we were at 20.  IMO, it's hubris to believe that we can project something like that. 

To flip it around, I'd ask this:  are there any circumstances under which you would divorce?  What if your partner became abusive to you or the kids?  What if your partner became an alcoholic or addict?  What if your partner fell in love with someone else and asked for a divorce?  What if your partner had a schizophrenic break and refused treatment?  What are your theoretical deal-breakers?

Now:  can you see any circumstance in which that kind of thing might happen to your partner?  Not that you believe it will, but that it could? 

I think if you're honest, the answer to both of those questions* has to be yes.  No matter how much you trust your partner today, life experience indicates that bad shit can happen and people can change in ways you can't live with. 

Which brings me to my final question:  if you can foresee a possible situation -- no matter how unlikely -- where your partner might do something you can't live with, why is it unreasonable to protect yourself against that?  Saying you want a prenup is not saying "I think my marriage will fail"; it doesn't mean you think there's a 90% chance it will fail, or a 51% chance -- maybe it's a 1% chance, or a 0.1% chance.  But we don't refuse to plan for bad stuff just because the risk is small; I mean, I had life insurance as a healthy 25-yr-old woman to protect my family, even though my risk of death that year was well under 1%.  (And divorce rates are much, much higher than 1%).

I think I'm following your logic along to about this final question.  But here's where we see things a bit differently.

Sure, it's possible that the person I love and trust changes.  Sure, it's possible that I'll want (need?) a divorce at some point in the future.  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?

The problem with framing this all up as "trust" is that it adds a hurtful layer of judgmentalism to the discussion, because it basically means that if you divorce, it's your own damn fault, no matter what your partner did.  "Trust" implies some reasonable basis; I mean, you don't "trust" some stranger on the street, right?  So what level of knowledge do you require to establish the level of "trust" you're talking about?

Well, if prenup = lack of trust, and if it's reasonable to protect yourself against even small risks, then the level of "trust" you're talking about means trusting that even that very small chance won't happen, no matter what life throws at you.  So by saying that a prenup = lack of trust, then what you're really saying is that in order to get married, you need perfect knowledge not just of who your parter is now but of how they will change and who they will be in the future.

And in that universe, any divorce is by definition your own fault.  I mean, if you trusted someone to always be compatible no matter what, and it turns out they're not, then that must mean that you failed to obtain sufficient knowledge of who that person would become before you married.  So even if your partner becomes abusive or alcoholic, if you'd truly known your partner well enough to trust them, you'd have been able to see that coming, and so it's your fault for marrying in the first place.  And I guarantee that will piss off every single person who has ever been divorced, contemplated divorce, or loved someone who divorced.

You're right.  Nobody can have perfect knowledge of the future or another person.  But this is separate from the issue of trust.  You're defining divorce as though it's a breaking/violation of trust.  I don't really see it as such.  People grow apart.  People do change over time.  The trust that I'm talking about is different.

We're far from perfect, but 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.  My parents divorced amicably when I was in elementary school, and while they've certainly grown apart (and there is some pain there) they aren't assholes to each other or anyone in our family.  The initial trust between them to not actively try to hurt each other has remained.

I'm not entirely convinced that a prenup will really help to ensure that this happens.  Like . . . is Donald Trump's prenup with Melania ensuring a healthy relationship, or helping the two of them to maintain trust?  It sure doesn't seem like it from the outside . . . 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.

IME, people are eminently fallible.  Sure, some people don't do enough work before marrying, but others get hit by stuff they never expected and have to do their best to wade their way through.  Even wonderful people act unreasonably.  And whatever else I may be, I'm neither omniscient nor exempt from bad shit.  I've changed, so it would be rather ridiculous to assume that my DH would not, or that we'd never face any bad shit of the level that could test our marriage.  And in that world, a prenup is a reasonable precaution against the bad shit that always happens, not a sign that you're either not committed to your partner or too lazy to put in the work to learn what you need to know before marrying.

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?

[Metalcat]

Does it help any if I preface all of the posts with 'For me personally,' or 'The way it works for me'?

The problem is the phrase "trust your partner."  I can trust who my partner is implicitly.  I can learn as much as possible about his beliefs, his values, his behavior, and all those other things that make up a personality.  But I cannot "trust" who my partner will be at some unidentified future time, because I cannot possibly know what is going to happen or how he will change over that time.  It's basically saying "I know that who you are now is who you always will be, no matter what happens."  Which is demonstrably wrong on its face, because absolutely none of us are the same person at 50 than we were at 20.  IMO, it's hubris to believe that we can project something like that. 

To flip it around, I'd ask this:  are there any circumstances under which you would divorce?  What if your partner became abusive to you or the kids?  What if your partner became an alcoholic or addict?  What if your partner fell in love with someone else and asked for a divorce?  What if your partner had a schizophrenic break and refused treatment?  What are your theoretical deal-breakers?

Now:  can you see any circumstance in which that kind of thing might happen to your partner?  Not that you believe it will, but that it could? 

I think if you're honest, the answer to both of those questions* has to be yes.  No matter how much you trust your partner today, life experience indicates that bad shit can happen and people can change in ways you can't live with. 

Which brings me to my final question:  if you can foresee a possible situation -- no matter how unlikely -- where your partner might do something you can't live with, why is it unreasonable to protect yourself against that?  Saying you want a prenup is not saying "I think my marriage will fail"; it doesn't mean you think there's a 90% chance it will fail, or a 51% chance -- maybe it's a 1% chance, or a 0.1% chance.  But we don't refuse to plan for bad stuff just because the risk is small; I mean, I had life insurance as a healthy 25-yr-old woman to protect my family, even though my risk of death that year was well under 1%.  (And divorce rates are much, much higher than 1%).

I think I'm following your logic along to about this final question.  But here's where we see things a bit differently.

Sure, it's possible that the person I love and trust changes.  Sure, it's possible that I'll want (need?) a divorce at some point in the future.  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?

The problem with framing this all up as "trust" is that it adds a hurtful layer of judgmentalism to the discussion, because it basically means that if you divorce, it's your own damn fault, no matter what your partner did.  "Trust" implies some reasonable basis; I mean, you don't "trust" some stranger on the street, right?  So what level of knowledge do you require to establish the level of "trust" you're talking about?

Well, if prenup = lack of trust, and if it's reasonable to protect yourself against even small risks, then the level of "trust" you're talking about means trusting that even that very small chance won't happen, no matter what life throws at you.  So by saying that a prenup = lack of trust, then what you're really saying is that in order to get married, you need perfect knowledge not just of who your parter is now but of how they will change and who they will be in the future.

And in that universe, any divorce is by definition your own fault.  I mean, if you trusted someone to always be compatible no matter what, and it turns out they're not, then that must mean that you failed to obtain sufficient knowledge of who that person would become before you married.  So even if your partner becomes abusive or alcoholic, if you'd truly known your partner well enough to trust them, you'd have been able to see that coming, and so it's your fault for marrying in the first place.  And I guarantee that will piss off every single person who has ever been divorced, contemplated divorce, or loved someone who divorced.

You're right.  Nobody can have perfect knowledge of the future or another person.  But this is separate from the issue of trust.  You're defining divorce as though it's a breaking/violation of trust.  I don't really see it as such.  People grow apart.  People do change over time.  The trust that I'm talking about is different.

We're far from perfect, but 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.  My parents divorced amicably when I was in elementary school, and while they've certainly grown apart (and there is some pain there) they aren't assholes to each other or anyone in our family.  The initial trust between them to not actively try to hurt each other has remained.

I'm not entirely convinced that a prenup will really help to ensure that this happens.  Like . . . is Donald Trump's prenup with Melania ensuring a healthy relationship, or helping the two of them to maintain trust?  It sure doesn't seem like it from the outside . . . 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.

IME, people are eminently fallible.  Sure, some people don't do enough work before marrying, but others get hit by stuff they never expected and have to do their best to wade their way through.  Even wonderful people act unreasonably.  And whatever else I may be, I'm neither omniscient nor exempt from bad shit.  I've changed, so it would be rather ridiculous to assume that my DH would not, or that we'd never face any bad shit of the level that could test our marriage.  And in that world, a prenup is a reasonable precaution against the bad shit that always happens, not a sign that you're either not committed to your partner or too lazy to put in the work to learn what you need to know before marrying.

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?

This is all making it too complicated.

As I said before, a marriage contract is a legal contract. If you look into some of the legalities of that contract and don't consider them fair and reasonable as a couple, then a prenup modifies the terms of the contract.

That's it.

Getting married without a prenup just means that you're cool with the default laws of your jurisdiction.

No matter what, there's a contract involved. The question is whether or not you choose to customize it according to what BOTH partners feel is most fair.