This is an ugly topic that you simply can't extract a solution for by applying cold logic. It involves, emotions, expectations, realities, possibilities, all wrapped up into one document that spells out what will happen if and when your marriage meets it's bitter demise. Read all you want on whether it is right or wrong and postulate as much as you want about it, but when it comes down to it and it's your turn to decide whether you are hedging for or against the success of your marriage, it will be a deeply personal decision that no one will have any right to make calls on.
> How often to prenups give the cheating party a free pass?
In some states, notably including California, infidelity clauses have been held to be unenforceable provisions in prenuptial agreements, as contrary to public policy (specifically, in CA, that policy as expressed in no-fault divorce laws.)
So, if the agreement purports to create penalties for cheating that vary what the distribution of assets would be without it, that provision may not have any legal effect.
Why would those be Daniel's intentions though? What does he have to gain by doing that? Susan obviously has a tremendous to gain by doing that sans prenup, which is precisely why people perceive her reluctance to get one as a red flag, but unless I'm missing something, Daniel wouldn't really gain anything by doing that except a whole bunch of legal fees.
depends on what's in the prenup and who is making what. Maybe the prenup says they spit everything 50-50 and Susan makes more/has a nicer house. Or maybe she's going in to a more lucrative career field. Or, maybe she's just offended at the notion that her future husband is already planning an exit strategy (that last part is mostly my own feelings about prenups coming through)
Yup. Why else would she fight it? It's in her best interest for there not to be one if shit hits the fan, plain and simple.
Hopefully people here will be more levelheaded than other online communities when it comes to gender relations and realize how not having a prenup is insane, and additionally, how absolutely fucked family law is not only in California, but pretty much the entire country.
Hopefully people here will be more levelheaded than other online communities
I wouldn't count on it. We're talking about hedging on trust in a relationship whose primary component is trust. That is a blueprint for an emotional response. (And why shouldn't it be?)
No. In our culture a prenup is a sign of distrust, or that you don't expect a marriage to succeed. Rational or not, people who have no gold-digging intentions can still be extremely opposed to prenups.
But in our culture isn't it also assumed that the marriage will end someday? I once overheard the mother of the groom saying how much she loved her new daughter-in-law and thought that she would make a great first-wife for her son!
> But in our culture isn't it also assumed that the marriage will end someday?
Not in my culture, I don't know about yours.
> I once overheard the mother of the groom saying how much she loved her new daughter-in-law and thought that she would make a great first-wife for her son!
"I once overheard..." is a fairly thin reed to hang an inference of broad cultural expectation on.
> Generally, people assume that a plurality of marriages that aren't theirs will end.
A plurality is the largest individual share where there is no majority. Since marriages have only two outcomes (end by death, end by divorce), there is no room for a plurality, only a majority one way or the other. I don't think people falsely assume other outcomes which reduce the biggest share to a mere plurality.
And there is precious little evidence to support that the biggest share (majority or plurality) is to end in divorce.
Nah. It's entirely possible that Susan's intentions are benevolent here.
Being able to trust that both of you are committed is critical to making a marriage work. While it's possible to trust each other's commitment and have a prenup, in practice it's not that simple. Relationship's have a delicate equilibrium of trust that needs to be maintained— a prenup does make this more complex. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just think being hesitant about a prenup is entirely sensible position.
What is marriage for the vast majority of the population? It's certainly no longer about sex (and less and less about sexual exclusivity). It's not really about children. It's not an economic union. It's certainly not lifelong.
So far as I can tell it's about a big party, and having the rest of society validate one's current relationship. It's not at all clear why we still have a great deal of permanence-presuming civil law covering what's now clearly become a private, temporary matter. What's the point?
Have you been to a wedding recently? Those vows aren't about practical concerns. They're about eternal love, as long as we both shall live, to have and to hold.
You're free to layer whatever you want over top of that promise. But what you explicitly agree to with literal vows is all about the love, man.
I get it if there were children from a previous relationship. Sometimes step- relations can (and do) go sour, and that could guarantee that your children get a fair share.
Aside that, wanting one shows to me that you're not wanting to be a partner. Instead, you want special dispensation as a 'separate-class' in the marriage. Just no, no, no.
It could also indicate that one's personal values do not include a complete melding of finances to be a partner.
It's acceptable in a business arrangement to be partners with unequal stakes.
In my opinion, it's useful to separate the love/trust/bonding from marriage. Marriage is a civil contract that says very little about the relationship.
IANAL, but it depends on the situation. A prenup is a way to protect your spouse's and your respective assets by having a wall in between them. You design the wall. So, let's say, if you do something risky and creditors can come after you, at least your spouse's assets are protected. Often though, creditors will seek collaterals with your spouse as well, but at least it has to be explicit and on a case-by-case basis.
However, the US being a common law country, it's up to the judge to determine how enforceable they are. Apparently, judges are much less likely to enforce them in former spanish/mexican catholic states in the South-West than they are elsewhere in the country. So a prenup in California might be less useful than in New-York.
Lastly, a prenup does not say anything about how much you love your spouse. If you love him/her, you should plan for his/her safety if you engage in activities risking your own assets. Going down together for the sake of it is not a wise display of marital love.
> In case you are curious, Daniel and Susan ended up not having a prenup. Daniel wanted to have a prenup, but Susan fought tooth and nail to keep it out of their marriage. Daniel is now at peace with the fact that he has to share whatever he makes during the marriage with Susan, knowing that the money he brought into the marriage will always be only his. Dear readers, do you think Daniel and Susan should have had a prenup?
Huh, how surprising that the person with significantly less income and assets fought hard to prevent a prenup.
"share whatever he makes during the marriage with Susan" - my understanding is that you need to share not just what you make during marriage but also the assets you had before.
That depends on the jurisdiction -- and, mostly, that's the jurisdiction in which any hypothetical future divorce will occur. In California, pre-marriage assets are separate property, as well as certain things received during marriage (gifts, bequests, etc., as well as earnings such as rents derived from other separate property.)
(California Family Code, Sec. 770.)
Other things gained during the marriage are generally community (or, if gained outside of California, quasi-community, which is treated the same in a divorce) property.
They cover this in the post but it depends on the state. Here is a snippet:
> "Income generated from community property will remain community property, and income generated from separate property will remain separate property. So any investment income earned from Daniel’s savings before the marriage, or gifts or inheritances he receives during the marriage, will remain his separate property, while investment income generated from Daniel’s savings during the marriage will be community property."
If that were the case, marriage rates should asymptotically be approaching zero, unless there was a thriving marriage insurance industry.
But there isn't and they aren't (although they are plummeting for millennials, so maybe that's a start of a long term trend), so clearly there's more going on.
Indeed! There are also people who choose to not get married because of tax reasons. I will write another article on the tax benefits and tax disadvantages on getting married. Stay tuned!
You are right that some prenups are not enforced, for example, if one spouse can show that there is not a full disclosure of the other spouse's assets in the prenup, she was not represented by an attorney in signing the prenup, or she was not given enough time to review the prenup before signing it.
If your spouse has the same amount of assets, and in foreseable future will continue earning about the same as you - maybe not.
If the spouse has less or more seems like a no brainer, why would you want to give her money she hasn't earned or take money you haven't earned in case of a divorce? So in 99% of cases - hell yeah.
My wife and I came into the relationship with wildly different assets and incomes (both never-married, no prior kids, late 30s).
I wouldn't have considered a pre-nup for the simple reason that I'm wagering we'll be together for the duration and if not, I'm willing to share our familial resources amongst the 4 of us. We're together 10+ years now, two kids in elementary school, wife left a nearly 6-figure science job to stay home and raise the kids. Everyone seems happy with that arrangement.
What I brought into the relationship 10-11 years ago has less bearing on our current financial standing than the support and promotions I've earned since and the investments we've made, most of which are made on paper with "my" money and "my" direction, but are nevertheless "ours" in every sense that matters to me/us.
I've seen relationships that my friends have entered though, where my first thought was, "Boy, I hope they have a pre-nup..."
You and your wife fell on the side of the bell curve where its two reasonable people who see their assets as joint. I guess both of you have high risk tolerance as well. Vast majority of people I personally know do not see their assets in the same way.
Well, you're not forced to take your spouse's money in a divorce if you don't want to. Now if there's kids involved things are more complex as the custodial parent has a fiduciary duty to the kids.
If I marry a millionaire, and I earn 50k a year, I'd still want a prenup. What you earnt before has fuck all to do with me. Am I the only one who doesn't take this personally? Would you personally sign one if your spouse earned more?
I'm curious if this is easier to handle with non-liquid assets?
Imagine he has a $100k fishing boat instead of $100k stuffed in a mattress. Is the spouse more willing to sign a prenup if it's easier to make the mental separation between "mine" and "theirs" when it's a physical asset?
If you have illiquid assets, I think it is more important for you to have a prenup. Say if you have a one million dollar house and run a business that is also worth one million, you might want to give your spouse the house and keep the business for yourself in the prenup. After all, you do not want your spouse who knows nothing about your business to have 50% interest in it. And it saves the headache of having to sell the house and split the proceeds in a divorce.
It doesn't surprise me if the person who has less income and fewer assets wouldn't want a prenup. Or people who believe it shows a lack of full commitment, a wrinkle in their Medieval/Disney love story.
Prenups seem like a good idea for the partner with more assets, which is more often than not a male. Women are much more likely to initiate divorce.
"In a survey of 2,262 adults in heterosexual partnerships over the course of five years, Rosenfeld found that women initiate divorces 69 percent of the time.
On the whole, they also reported less satisfaction with their marriages than men."
Well, one could easily say, by the same token, that "it doesn't surprise me that the person with more assets would want a prenup." I'm not sure why one person asserting their interests here is greed but the other person doing the same is prudence.
its not always the case, take the case where someone with relatively little assets but bright career prospects(say a new lawyer at big firm)marries a girl with rich parents, but no job, the the "rich" girl's essentially broke - is hypothetically worth a lot, in this case all of the "poorer" spouses's earnings would be treated as community property despite the other spouse bein far richer and not contributing much to community property
Your comment history looks good otherwise, so we won't ban you for this one, but please don't post anything like it again. The threads here are for civil, substantive discussion.
Divorce is the expected outcome of marriage now, and the man will get nuked in family court. If you have any significant assets you would be foolish not to protect them.
> > Who says divorce is the expected outcome of marriage?
> Statistics.
[citation needed]
> What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?
Probably, the latter. The popular "half of all marriages will end in divorce" was from near the peak in the particular methodology it used, and was based on projecting the then-past trend and making an estimate of lifetime probabilities for new marriages based on that trend extending out into the future, and even then it was a result of second and subsequent marriages having significantly higher divorce rates than earlier marriages, with first marriages, even in the projection, being substantially below 50% probability of ending in divorce.
But its actually really hard to get a good idea of what is more likely when you don't have a way of actually sampling the space of interest (which would take reaching into the future), and various methodologies of estimating divorce risk (and even whether the rate at which marriages end in divorce is really rising or falling) come to different answers.
No, you don't get to ask for a citation when I'm asking you the question. "What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?"
You answered...
> Probably, the latter.
I'd say probably the former. Neither of us has provided any data to back up those opinions but I don't think you can rationally look around you and honestly claim you've seen more people married until death than people who got divorced especially in light of people with multiple marriages. Every divorce counts and I'd certainly wager the number of divorces is greater than the number widows/widowers.
> No, you don't get to ask for a citation when I'm asking you the question.
I didn't ask for a citation in response to your question, I asked that in response to your answer "Statistics" to the grandparent posts question "Who says divorce is the expected outcome of marriage?"
If your claim is that statistics say that, then where are the statistics?
Statistics would be what would answer that question, i.e. it's not a who, it's math; I wasn't claiming to have those statistics. I was trying to discuss what you thought the math was and why.
Last I checked, its not the expected outcome of first marriages; but it is (or, at least, was at the peak; divorce rates have been dropping recently, IIRC) the expected outcome of second or subsequent marriages (with probability of divorce increasing with the number of the marriage.)
Timely post as just today I got engaged to my girlfriend. We will definitely go for a prenup, I want to avoid a 15 year long divorce battle like my parents had at all possible costs.
Hope so! My fiancee is definitely super mature, only 24 years old but had to support her family (while studying) after her father died at 17 years old. She's completely onboard with us deciding what is fair in what scenario rather than outsourcing it to some parliament and court system somewhere.
One instance where I see alot of people sign prenup is in the case where one person is a partner in a business, whether it be a lawyer, doctor, hedge fund, etc.
In these situations its usually the firm that wants the prenup.
The reason is very simple, in the event of the marriage ending they don't want to have the business be put into jeopardy by having an outsider own part of it or by having one of the partners have to sell their stake to fund the divorce proceedings.
It doesn't always firewall off the company from trouble when a divorce happens but it does help.
I've never heard of a spouse balking at the idea of a prenup in these situations. Most people are pretty level headed about this.
The only gotcha is that the spouse has to get something of value for signing the prenup, often the corporation itself will put up the money for this end of the deal.
The last two deals friends have signed have had a clause that the spouse gets the equivalent of the highest 3 years of pay in the event of a divorce where no one is at fault and the marriage lasts 5+ years. This is separate from what ever other assets the couple splits.
If you are a business owner this just makes way to much sense to not consider.
> One instance where I see alot of people sign prenup is in the case where one person is a partner in a business, whether it be a lawyer
IIRC, its a violation of the ABA model rules for a non-lawyer hold a partnership in a law firm (or, more precisely, for a lawyer to be a partner in or work in such a firm, which amounts to the same thing.)
And suddenly, the stereotypes of the high number of divorces of these people becomes crystal clear. I never though of this aspect to those high pressure lives, but now soooooo much makes sense. Thank you!
A friend of mine got married with a pre-nup. He also married a woman with dramatically less assets.
His reasoning was simply that /not/ having a pre-nup introduces a negative incentive to the relationship. Every time they have an argument, his wife could think "If I dump this jerk, I make $X!".
So it's not about planning for disaster, it's about /avoiding/ disaster. That seemed like a reasonable argument to me. His fiancee obviously disagreed, but he wore her down.
The argument, to her, would likely sound like, "I don't think you really want me. So sign this pre-nup and prove it." It displays a lack of trust and faith in the partner. Without that faith, what's the point of getting married?
If both parties has complete faith, then the existence of the pre-nup is irrelevant. it would be like signing a paper in the event that the sun burns out and the earth explodes.
The argument, to him, would sound like "I don't think you expect this marriage to last. Refuse to sign this pre-nup and prove that you intend to issue divorce in a few years".
I agree. IF both parties have faith it's irrelevant.
But when one party is pushing it, it demonstrates a lack of faith. I understand it when your assets are particularly valuable (pre-marriage). I understand that it can be used to ensure an easy (easier) divorce, in the worst case.
But the post I was responding to, the man figured that without the pre-nup she'd always be thinking, "I can leave and take half." That indicates that he has no faith in her, not the other way around. Making that case will ruin her faith in him and will ruin (or has a high likelihood to) the relationship.
My wife and I came from two very different income brackets. My father was a successful businessman and while we were dating sold his company. His share was in the low 8 figure range. He died a year or two later due to a congenital heart defect.
We thought about a prenup for a while, my wife was even on board, but every time we started to actually work on getting it set up, it all felt very weird and unsettling. It's also kind of strange, in that I personally didn't have much in the way of assets, but my mother was left with too much to ever spend, and my father had a generation skipping trust setup that was funded by his life insurance, so that my kids were destined to be multi-millionaires before they were even born (something that we are keeping from them until my mother passes). So, we were kind of planning around the possibility that my mother would die early or that we would divorce after 30 years, and that seemed odd.
9 years ago I got married and got a prenup to protect a trust I had been given from my mother's passing. 2 years ago I got divorced. I got to find out that what the prenup protected was already protected as a matter of law, and that further the language in the prenup implied it protected her contributions to her 401k, but only protected the interest on mine. It was a very badly drafted prenup.
In the end, it involved additional time and expense to get an expert on family law in the state we were married in (got divorced in another state) and mediation to come up with an agreement that was fair.
Those who think that prenups are a smart thing to prevent yourself from getting screwed in a divorce, keep in mind the just add to the complexity of a break up and in many cases end up just getting tossed out.
There are very good reasons why Susan should be against a prenup. Suppose her and Daniel have a child, and they both agree that it makes sense for Susan to quit her job and raise the child at home.
If they have a prenup, a divorce is devastating to Susan. She's made no income and will likely have trouble finding employment since her skills may have atrophied. Does this seem fair?
A perspective from Scandinavia; this sounds absurd and unequal. It's rare for anyone not to have a prenup here. The law also treats both genders equally in divorce (most recently, fathers' rights to their children were improved).
I don't really understand why anyone would even get married in California with laws like that, it sounds like a bad deal, for both you and the relationship.
I find it interesting that many of the comments seem to paint that marriage is about love/trust. This is a relatively modern interpretation of the institution. It has, since the dawn of time, been an institution meant to ensure stability and continual propagation of the species. It was usually a way to improve ones lot in life or ensure their well being. Also until very recently, last 150 years, it was common to have a marriage contract.
To me love has very little to do with marriage, those who seem to think that it does generally find themselves in divorce court. One should focus on having a shared vision of what they want their life to be and be willing to make room for their partners eccentricities. Emotions come and go and are not a great foundation for a relationship. Trust, compromise, hardwork, and support should be the bedrock.
This is a relatively modern interpretation of the institution
Well, sure, and in response to massive societal changes. More people than ever aren't even having children. What need do they have for an institution that assists in that endeavor?
So what is the trust, compromise, and hard work supposed to be in support of?
I do not recall stating it was only about children currently. My stance was there is an over emphasis that marriage is about love or that it should be large component of it. I don't agree with that.
Trust, comprise, and hard work are to be in support of each other in attaining their shared vision of their life, whatever that is.
> This is a relatively modern interpretation of the institution. It has, since the dawn of time, been an institution meant to ensure stability and continual propagation of the species.
Historically it's been about property rights, not about breeding.
> ensure stability and continual propagation of the species
I'm not sure roman legislators had a good concept of human species to begin with. Reproduction commonly happened both inside and outside wedlock. Marriage was first and foremost about property.
The bottom line is that 2 people should educate themselves on the legalities of marriage before they enter into the agreement. Far too often people just jump into legal contracts without understanding what it means to them in the long term. The legal terms of marriage without a contract differ from state to stage and if the wife wants to punish you could always just move into a different state, reside there for the minimum time and then divorce you there to get the rules in her favor. Always try to see it from the good and evil side. The point is that you would not purchase a home or a car without a contract or knowing what the implied contract is before hand. I've personally been burned pretty badly in a past divorce solely because I didn't find out the laws before hand and was tricked into something that I was not educated on.
There are a lot of intangibles values that seem overlooked when it comes to "protecting what's mine". The value of bearing and raising children, if that's how it plays out. Potential career benefits that may come out of doubling your network, etc.
129 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 207 ms ] threadIs this not a huge red flag about Susan's intentions?
This is an ugly topic that you simply can't extract a solution for by applying cold logic. It involves, emotions, expectations, realities, possibilities, all wrapped up into one document that spells out what will happen if and when your marriage meets it's bitter demise. Read all you want on whether it is right or wrong and postulate as much as you want about it, but when it comes down to it and it's your turn to decide whether you are hedging for or against the success of your marriage, it will be a deeply personal decision that no one will have any right to make calls on.
And should he do that, it's hard to argue with a straight face that she deserves half of everything.
> Or to prevent Susan from having an obvious recourse in the event that Daniel commits adultery.
How often to prenups give the cheating party a free pass?
In some states, notably including California, infidelity clauses have been held to be unenforceable provisions in prenuptial agreements, as contrary to public policy (specifically, in CA, that policy as expressed in no-fault divorce laws.)
So, if the agreement purports to create penalties for cheating that vary what the distribution of assets would be without it, that provision may not have any legal effect.
If he wanted to leave her, why marry her?
Hopefully people here will be more levelheaded than other online communities when it comes to gender relations and realize how not having a prenup is insane, and additionally, how absolutely fucked family law is not only in California, but pretty much the entire country.
I wouldn't count on it. We're talking about hedging on trust in a relationship whose primary component is trust. That is a blueprint for an emotional response. (And why shouldn't it be?)
Not in my culture, I don't know about yours.
> I once overheard the mother of the groom saying how much she loved her new daughter-in-law and thought that she would make a great first-wife for her son!
"I once overheard..." is a fairly thin reed to hang an inference of broad cultural expectation on.
Their marriage, of course, isn't like those.
We humans are really bad at seeing our biases.
A plurality is the largest individual share where there is no majority. Since marriages have only two outcomes (end by death, end by divorce), there is no room for a plurality, only a majority one way or the other. I don't think people falsely assume other outcomes which reduce the biggest share to a mere plurality.
And there is precious little evidence to support that the biggest share (majority or plurality) is to end in divorce.
Being able to trust that both of you are committed is critical to making a marriage work. While it's possible to trust each other's commitment and have a prenup, in practice it's not that simple. Relationship's have a delicate equilibrium of trust that needs to be maintained— a prenup does make this more complex. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just think being hesitant about a prenup is entirely sensible position.
I'm actually less conveying my own feelings on marriage than I am describing how everyone around me seems to regard it.
So far as I can tell it's about a big party, and having the rest of society validate one's current relationship. It's not at all clear why we still have a great deal of permanence-presuming civil law covering what's now clearly become a private, temporary matter. What's the point?
Not some disney fairy tale about unmake-able promises.
You're free to layer whatever you want over top of that promise. But what you explicitly agree to with literal vows is all about the love, man.
Religious weddings are exactly that: words, and intentions. What matters is the judge that declares you married and the contract you sign.
If you started to make religious vows enforceable in courts, which they are not, you'd probably see a lot less people interested into it.
I don't plan to need catastrophic health insurance -- I'll work as hard as I can to avoid it -- but I still carry it.
Aside that, wanting one shows to me that you're not wanting to be a partner. Instead, you want special dispensation as a 'separate-class' in the marriage. Just no, no, no.
It's acceptable in a business arrangement to be partners with unequal stakes.
In my opinion, it's useful to separate the love/trust/bonding from marriage. Marriage is a civil contract that says very little about the relationship.
No, it shows that you are rational about who owns what assets.
However, the US being a common law country, it's up to the judge to determine how enforceable they are. Apparently, judges are much less likely to enforce them in former spanish/mexican catholic states in the South-West than they are elsewhere in the country. So a prenup in California might be less useful than in New-York.
Lastly, a prenup does not say anything about how much you love your spouse. If you love him/her, you should plan for his/her safety if you engage in activities risking your own assets. Going down together for the sake of it is not a wise display of marital love.
Again, talk to your lawyer.
Huh, how surprising that the person with significantly less income and assets fought hard to prevent a prenup.
(California Family Code, Sec. 770.)
Other things gained during the marriage are generally community (or, if gained outside of California, quasi-community, which is treated the same in a divorce) property.
> "Income generated from community property will remain community property, and income generated from separate property will remain separate property. So any investment income earned from Daniel’s savings before the marriage, or gifts or inheritances he receives during the marriage, will remain his separate property, while investment income generated from Daniel’s savings during the marriage will be community property."
But there isn't and they aren't (although they are plummeting for millennials, so maybe that's a start of a long term trend), so clearly there's more going on.
If the spouse has less or more seems like a no brainer, why would you want to give her money she hasn't earned or take money you haven't earned in case of a divorce? So in 99% of cases - hell yeah.
I wouldn't have considered a pre-nup for the simple reason that I'm wagering we'll be together for the duration and if not, I'm willing to share our familial resources amongst the 4 of us. We're together 10+ years now, two kids in elementary school, wife left a nearly 6-figure science job to stay home and raise the kids. Everyone seems happy with that arrangement.
What I brought into the relationship 10-11 years ago has less bearing on our current financial standing than the support and promotions I've earned since and the investments we've made, most of which are made on paper with "my" money and "my" direction, but are nevertheless "ours" in every sense that matters to me/us.
I've seen relationships that my friends have entered though, where my first thought was, "Boy, I hope they have a pre-nup..."
I feel like people railing against family law do not adequately consider these kinds of situations.
What people say they will do and what they actually do can vary wildly.
Imagine he has a $100k fishing boat instead of $100k stuffed in a mattress. Is the spouse more willing to sign a prenup if it's easier to make the mental separation between "mine" and "theirs" when it's a physical asset?
Prenups seem like a good idea for the partner with more assets, which is more often than not a male. Women are much more likely to initiate divorce.
"In a survey of 2,262 adults in heterosexual partnerships over the course of five years, Rosenfeld found that women initiate divorces 69 percent of the time.
On the whole, they also reported less satisfaction with their marriages than men."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/08/27/wh...
Oh, what do you know, he caved to her demands!
Your comment history looks good otherwise, so we won't ban you for this one, but please don't post anything like it again. The threads here are for civil, substantive discussion.
Divorce is the expected outcome of marriage now, and the man will get nuked in family court. If you have any significant assets you would be foolish not to protect them.
Statistics. What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?
> Statistics.
[citation needed]
> What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?
Probably, the latter. The popular "half of all marriages will end in divorce" was from near the peak in the particular methodology it used, and was based on projecting the then-past trend and making an estimate of lifetime probabilities for new marriages based on that trend extending out into the future, and even then it was a result of second and subsequent marriages having significantly higher divorce rates than earlier marriages, with first marriages, even in the projection, being substantially below 50% probability of ending in divorce.
But its actually really hard to get a good idea of what is more likely when you don't have a way of actually sampling the space of interest (which would take reaching into the future), and various methodologies of estimating divorce risk (and even whether the rate at which marriages end in divorce is really rising or falling) come to different answers.
No, you don't get to ask for a citation when I'm asking you the question. "What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?"
You answered...
> Probably, the latter.
I'd say probably the former. Neither of us has provided any data to back up those opinions but I don't think you can rationally look around you and honestly claim you've seen more people married until death than people who got divorced especially in light of people with multiple marriages. Every divorce counts and I'd certainly wager the number of divorces is greater than the number widows/widowers.
I didn't ask for a citation in response to your question, I asked that in response to your answer "Statistics" to the grandparent posts question "Who says divorce is the expected outcome of marriage?"
If your claim is that statistics say that, then where are the statistics?
Last I checked, its not the expected outcome of first marriages; but it is (or, at least, was at the peak; divorce rates have been dropping recently, IIRC) the expected outcome of second or subsequent marriages (with probability of divorce increasing with the number of the marriage.)
I have created a subreddit for people interested in discussing prenups: https://www.reddit.com/r/prenup
Maybe the mere fact of having enough trust to do a prenup marks a more mature marriage, more likely to succeed in the longer term?
Has the subject of a prenup come up before? If not, don't assume that conversation will go smoothly...
In these situations its usually the firm that wants the prenup.
The reason is very simple, in the event of the marriage ending they don't want to have the business be put into jeopardy by having an outsider own part of it or by having one of the partners have to sell their stake to fund the divorce proceedings.
It doesn't always firewall off the company from trouble when a divorce happens but it does help.
I've never heard of a spouse balking at the idea of a prenup in these situations. Most people are pretty level headed about this.
The only gotcha is that the spouse has to get something of value for signing the prenup, often the corporation itself will put up the money for this end of the deal.
The last two deals friends have signed have had a clause that the spouse gets the equivalent of the highest 3 years of pay in the event of a divorce where no one is at fault and the marriage lasts 5+ years. This is separate from what ever other assets the couple splits.
If you are a business owner this just makes way to much sense to not consider.
IIRC, its a violation of the ABA model rules for a non-lawyer hold a partnership in a law firm (or, more precisely, for a lawyer to be a partner in or work in such a firm, which amounts to the same thing.)
His reasoning was simply that /not/ having a pre-nup introduces a negative incentive to the relationship. Every time they have an argument, his wife could think "If I dump this jerk, I make $X!".
So it's not about planning for disaster, it's about /avoiding/ disaster. That seemed like a reasonable argument to me. His fiancee obviously disagreed, but he wore her down.
The argument, to him, would sound like "I don't think you expect this marriage to last. Refuse to sign this pre-nup and prove that you intend to issue divorce in a few years".
But when one party is pushing it, it demonstrates a lack of faith. I understand it when your assets are particularly valuable (pre-marriage). I understand that it can be used to ensure an easy (easier) divorce, in the worst case.
But the post I was responding to, the man figured that without the pre-nup she'd always be thinking, "I can leave and take half." That indicates that he has no faith in her, not the other way around. Making that case will ruin her faith in him and will ruin (or has a high likelihood to) the relationship.
That tells us how he thinks, but not much about the thought process of his wife.
We thought about a prenup for a while, my wife was even on board, but every time we started to actually work on getting it set up, it all felt very weird and unsettling. It's also kind of strange, in that I personally didn't have much in the way of assets, but my mother was left with too much to ever spend, and my father had a generation skipping trust setup that was funded by his life insurance, so that my kids were destined to be multi-millionaires before they were even born (something that we are keeping from them until my mother passes). So, we were kind of planning around the possibility that my mother would die early or that we would divorce after 30 years, and that seemed odd.
13 years and two kids later ... shrug
In the end, it involved additional time and expense to get an expert on family law in the state we were married in (got divorced in another state) and mediation to come up with an agreement that was fair.
Those who think that prenups are a smart thing to prevent yourself from getting screwed in a divorce, keep in mind the just add to the complexity of a break up and in many cases end up just getting tossed out.
If they have a prenup, a divorce is devastating to Susan. She's made no income and will likely have trouble finding employment since her skills may have atrophied. Does this seem fair?
Since women are more likely to initiate divorce, it would be in her interest to keep the marriage alive to the best of her ability.
The man bears the higher risk here, so the post-divorce split should represent that accordingly.
I don't really understand why anyone would even get married in California with laws like that, it sounds like a bad deal, for both you and the relationship.
To me love has very little to do with marriage, those who seem to think that it does generally find themselves in divorce court. One should focus on having a shared vision of what they want their life to be and be willing to make room for their partners eccentricities. Emotions come and go and are not a great foundation for a relationship. Trust, compromise, hardwork, and support should be the bedrock.
Well, sure, and in response to massive societal changes. More people than ever aren't even having children. What need do they have for an institution that assists in that endeavor?
So what is the trust, compromise, and hard work supposed to be in support of?
Why does everything have to be about children?
Trust, comprise, and hard work are to be in support of each other in attaining their shared vision of their life, whatever that is.
Historically it's been about property rights, not about breeding.
I'm not sure roman legislators had a good concept of human species to begin with. Reproduction commonly happened both inside and outside wedlock. Marriage was first and foremost about property.