Pre-nup

[andex23]

What are your thoughts on Prenuptial agreements and what do you put in the agreement? FI wants to get a prenup. I don''t necessarily mind but am confused as to what exactly goes in one.

If it is just a general, "on X date, Groom had x dollars, $x debt, and owned these 12 expensive items and on X date Bride had x dollars, $x debt, and owned these 7 expensive items and upon the unfortunate event that they decide to dissolve their marriage, they each get what they came in with" then why do you need a lawyer?

 

[mrowmrowsmom]

You need a lawyer to make sure that you understand exactly what you''re signing and to represent your interests. The law is full of "terms of art" that non-lawyers don''t necessarily understand, so a few words here or there can change the whole meaning of a document. Also, an attorney will make sure that you take the required steps to be sure that the prenup has legal effect. In some states, not taking formalities will render the agreement a nullity.

You should each get your own attorney, or, if you choose to use just one, you should make sure that that attorney is actually representing both of you.

A standard prenup is generally pretty painless, and it shouldn''t cost a ton to get one done. I''m sure you''ll never have to use it, but the fact that you two are open enough to get one and that you can talk about these things shows that you''re a practical couple. Good luck with the wedding!

 

[zipzapgirl]

From what I''ve always read, it doesn''t make much sense to get a prenuptual agreement unless one party is coming into the marriage with significantly greater assets, or if there are complicated incoming situations like children from a previous marriage, previous bankruptcies, or significant property that will not be shared. Otherwise the laws of your state will govern any kind of division of property in the case of divorce. Even if you have a prenup, it''s not as easy as going back to the date you signed and dividing the assets as they were at that point. Once married, the courts assume that finances are mixed and to the benefit of both partners and it will be hard to disprove this (maybe if you had absolutely seperate accounts, tax filings, residences, etc.--but then, what''s the point?

). Divorce would be carried out under the state''s laws, which may be community property laws.

Here''s a link discussing the difference between a community property state and a non-community property state.

http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/wdget.html


A prenup might make it easier to prove what you came in with, but anything that subsequently happened, was purchased, spent, bought, earned or inherited is ultimately going to come into the divorce court mix.

 

[andex23]

Zipzap: Thanks so much for the weblink. It''s awesome. I think that every bride (and groom) should look at it because it brings up great questions that each person needs to ask him/herself. I''ve already spent a few minutes looking at it and I intend to spend a LOT more time.

Thanks again.

 

[Yimmers]

If you get a prenup, I would recommend retaining separate counsel from your fiance''s. Although one attorney can represent both of you, generally it will be a conflict of interest for the attorney. You will probably be better off with someone who can explain and answer any of your questions under complete attorney client privilege. If you were to use only one attorney, either of you may disclose information to the attorney which will put him/her in conflict; in that case, you would be forced to seek separate counsel anyways.

 

[musey]

Well, the reason you need a lawyer is to answer questions like being confused over what does into a prenup!

We chose not to have one, for a great variety of reasons (none of which being that prenups are not "romantic"

). I think they make all the sense in the world for many, possibly most, couples... but for us it didn''t at all.

 

[Londongirl1]

Date: 8/5/2009 2:28:51 PM
Author: andex23
Zipzap: Thanks so much for the weblink. It''s awesome. I think that every bride (and groom) should look at it because it brings up great questions that each person needs to ask him/herself. I''ve already spent a few minutes looking at it and I intend to spend a LOT more time.

Thanks again.

I agree - I don''t have a problem with pre-nups aand don''t see them as ''unromantic. If I had substantial assets I might consider one. I may be in love but I''m not insane

 

[katamari]

Everyone who has or is marrying someone with a significant amount of debt (especially student loan debt, as it is unforgivable) should have a pre-nup. They really aren''t to protect assets anymore as much as they are to avoid assuming your spouse''s debt. It is also a good chance for the two of you to seriously talk about debt and repayment and come up with a plan for repayment (i.e. are you each responsible for your own debt only, splitting the debt evenly, paying off aggressively or not, etc.). I cannot imagine why anyone would marry someone in debt without a pre-nup.

Law never has anything to do with romance.

 

[SeattleSweetheart]

I would not marry my current husband without a pre-nup. I am planning on going to grad school in the next 2 years and I will be paying for it with an inheritance that I received from my dad when he died. I wanted to protect my interests that if my marriage didn''t survive (God forbid) that I would not have to pay any part of my income earned from my degree to my, at that point, ex-husband because without a pre-nup my degree and income from my degree could be considered mutual property and therefor owned by both people in the marriage.

I also wanted to protect my husband from my future school debt. I wanted to assure him that I was not expecting him to put me through grad school and then if our marriage didn''t survive that he would not have to take half the school debt that was accrued during the marriage.

I''ve already been through one divorce and it was terrifying because my ex-husband was very financially irresponsible and I could have ended up having to give him half my retirement and taking 10K of his debt. Luckily he didn''t fight me on the terms and I didn''t get stuck with his debt or have to give him any of my hard earned retirement.

A state issued marriage license is a business contract but unfortunately in our culture us women get distracted by white dresses and forget that we are entering into a legally binding financial contract that could really screw us if we''re not smart. By the way, I loved the white dress I wore down the aisle. There is more paperwork for buying a house than getting married. Unfortunately, marriage can be a moneypit, just like a house. I feel so lucky I didn''t have to learn the really hard way. And now I never will because I picked a much better man to marry this time and I have an iron-clad pre-nup.

 

[Patchee]

You may as well keep your maiden name too. Why go through all the paper work of changing it as you and FI will always live by what the pre nup states.

Prenups are great for celebrities or people with a ton of money. BUT, whatever is yours BEFORE the marriage stays YOURS should you divorce - debt and all. So Seattle - your school debt & inheritance would be yours whether or not you got a prenup.

I think some get prenups confused. You will not inherit your FI debt if it's your debt before you marry. Whatever you do together in marriage without a prenup (buying.selling etc.) different story, that's mutual debt.

Me and my husband discussed this. He owns outright 4 houses I own outright a 22 acre farm. We do not have a prenup, what's mine is mine and his is him since we had this before marriage. The only questionable would be the "marriage house" - which should we divorce it's his, I would not fight him on it.

I changed my name only on my marriage license.

 

[hisdiamondgirl]

Date: 8/13/2009 2:49:30 PM
Author: katamari
Everyone who has or is marrying someone with a significant amount of debt (especially student loan debt, as it is unforgivable) should have a pre-nup. They really aren''t to protect assets anymore as much as they are to avoid assuming your spouse''s debt. It is also a good chance for the two of you to seriously talk about debt and repayment and come up with a plan for repayment (i.e. are you each responsible for your own debt only, splitting the debt evenly, paying off aggressively or not, etc.). I cannot imagine why anyone would marry someone in debt without a pre-nup.

Law never has anything to do with romance.

I am pretty sure that this is not true. Debt incurred before the marriage remains with the person who incurred it, only debt racked up during the marriage would be considered joint debt.

 

[mayachel]

my understanding about the risk of assuming debt through marriage, is that if you and df comingle money, that is then used to pay some of that debt, it creates confusion legally as to if the marriage had decided to assume responsibility. This may also happen if you were to take out a student loan, and put money from the loan into a joint account.

 

[purselover]

Date: 8/13/2009 2:49:30 PM
Author: katamari
Everyone who has or is marrying someone with a significant amount of debt (especially student loan debt, as it is unforgivable) should have a pre-nup. They really aren''t to protect assets anymore as much as they are to avoid assuming your spouse''s debt. It is also a good chance for the two of you to seriously talk about debt and repayment and come up with a plan for repayment (i.e. are you each responsible for your own debt only, splitting the debt evenly, paying off aggressively or not, etc.). I cannot imagine why anyone would marry someone in debt without a pre-nup.

Law never has anything to do with romance.

I''m marrying FI without a prenup while he is still in law school so he will have before marriage debt and after marriage debt, if we were to divorce before it is paid off sure I could end up responsible for the loans .....on the flip side I could also be entitled to his future earnings for supporting him through school. I''m sure lots of people will think I''m stupid, but honestly it''s a chance I''m willing to take.

 

[neatfreak]

n/m

 

[andex23]

I guess I''m confused...maybe I should google my question....

Say my dear boyfriend buys me a ring...Let''s call it $100 for easy math.
We get engaged, but he bought the ring and put it on his CC so this is now "credit card debt."
We get married. He has $100 in credit card debt. Is that debt now mine now that we are married, or is it his debt only?
We pay off $40 of the credit card debt as we commingle finances and go on with married life.
We get divorced. (I told him to put the seat down and he didn''t.)
How much of the remaining $60 is my debt? Does it all belong to the (now) ex? Do I have to split it so now I owe $30 because we paid off the first $40 from a commingled financial account?

 

[zipzapgirl]

I understand your example, but I think the devil is really in the details here. This debt could relate to one or more of the following types of debt, which all have different treatments in debtor/bankruptcy law as well as divorce court law.

Real Property (real estate)
Collateralized debt (debt backed by a non real property asset, like a car)
Student loans
Unsecured debt
Credit card debt

When there is an asset, the debt will more likely be assigned to the person holding the asset/deed. When there was a benefit to one party, such as student loans, it would be more likely to be assigned to the one benefitting, the one who got the degree. BUT, there is a lot of lee-way in this, such as when one spouse took loans to get a degree and then both parties subsequently lived on the proceeds of that much higher salary. So it''s really hard to say how things would be treated definitively unless you know which state you''re in, length of marriage, and the details of the assets and liabilities, and what tradeoffs each party would be able to claim in court. That''s why the details are so important.

In the example, you are worried about the $60 debt that remains after the divorce, but I think the bigger question is really what about the $40 YOU AND MR. ANDEX paid off together? Obviously in marriages the couples have to make priorities and sometimes paying off Debt A can be more beneficial than paying off Debt B for various reasons. Now what if Debt A is DH''s and Debt B on the backburner was joint, like for a house that you would then have greater equity in? See where I''m going with this--it''s a simple question until real life happens

 

[honey22]

I absolutely 100% don''t agree with them! If you don''t trust another person enough to do the right thing financially, then don''t marry them. A good person will do the right thing, even if you break up. If you can''t trust them, why on earth would you marry them?

 

[Elmorton]

I think a prenup is a smart move if done with the right motives - if it''s there to protect the spouses from each other (such as debt), to protect children from a previous marriage or other dependents, or to protect a family business - then it''s a good thing. But I think the couple needs to figure out what assets it is that they''re actually protecting/who they''re protecting with the agreement before going in.

 

[Yimmers]

Okay everyone, there''s some confusion going on here.

First, there are community property states and non community property states. If you are in a community property state (and there are only nine: CA, WA, ID, LA, NM, TX, NV, WI, and AZ. PR and AK are states that allow property to be characterized as community property), then each spouse has a mutual interest in that property. This does not apply to separate property acquired during the marriage by gift or inheritance. Each community property state also has different rules about the characterization of income earned from separate property acquired prior to the marriage.

As I do not live in a separate property state, I cannot tell you what happens in a separate property state.

Debt that each person acquired PRIOR to the marriage is that person''s debt. However, you can become responsible for the debt. For example, if you become a joint account holder on a credit card, you may become responsible for the past debt. Also, comingling assets may also allow creditors access to your property.

If you are asked to get a prenup, you need to retain a lawyer to explain the laws to you in that jurisdiction. A good portion of our business as lawyers is getting people out of situations that would not have occurred if they retained a good lawyer in the first place.

 

[PilsnPinkysMom]

Date: 8/13/2009 2:49:30 PM
Author: katamari
Everyone who has or is marrying someone with a significant amount of debt (especially student loan debt, as it is unforgivable) should have a pre-nup. They really aren''t to protect assets anymore as much as they are to avoid assuming your spouse''s debt. It is also a good chance for the two of you to seriously talk about debt and repayment and come up with a plan for repayment (i.e. are you each responsible for your own debt only, splitting the debt evenly, paying off aggressively or not, etc.). I cannot imagine why anyone would marry someone in debt without a pre-nup.


Law never has anything to do with romance.

I concur

I believe that FI and I will love each other for ever, and I trust and respect him... But I''m not foolish. Even if a couple doesn''t ever divorce, a prenup may be helpful during the estate planning process, especially if there are children from previous relationships.

There''s no harm in having a prenup. None. At. All.

 

[ksluice]

Having just gone through the pre-nup process, I would just want to add that while it was awkward as a**, it had a certain ability to clean the air. We committed to a certain approach to saving for our possible-kids'' education and discussed how property would be settled in case of death as well as dissolution. Believe me when I say the conversations were painful to get through, not because we were warring about our property rights or debt obligations, but because it made us air out all those things about money and power and relationships that normally don''t get brought out so directly. In that sense, it was kind of a interesting pre-marriage tool. Not romantic really, and very anxiety inducing, but now that it''s over I feel closer to my FI.

 

[Iowa Lizzy]

What an appropriate time for this topic for me as I''m just now speaking with an attorney regarding a pre-nup for S and I.

We will be getting one. My lawyer explained it simple as "what was yours going in will be yours going out." I disagree that having one is unromantic or pointless because you''re not planning on marrying someone who would ever try to take what was yours. That''s like saying you don''t need car insurance because you''re a good driver and your car is reliable. Sh*t happens. I don''t think everybody needs one, but I also definitely don''t think they''re reserved for celebrities or untrusting couples.

Andex23, I would just ask around for a referral to an attorney in your area and ask him to send you a generic copy of a pre-nup. That way you can read through it and get a feel for what it entails.

 

[makemepretty]

Well, I think people who need prenups aren''t in it for the long haul. A prenup is only beneficial if you are going to get divorced, what a nice way to start a marriage.

I''m old fashioned. Think ''50''s housewife in a 38 year old body. You only marry someone because you LOVE them. Marriage is HARD and a lot of people getting married don''t expect it to be. When you keep your maiden name you''re not really committing to the marriage either. It''s hard on children too, plus it p*sses me off when I''m doing Christmas cards and I can''t put Mr. & Mrs. Last Name. ;0)

 

[PilsnPinkysMom]

N/M. Deleted. I'm a little too fired up over this thread

Thanks for some great discussion, though!

 

[rainwood]

Different people have different opinions about pre-nups as shown by the comments on this thread. Whether a pre-nup makes sense for you and what it should address depends on the specifics of you and your FI''s respective situations and the specifics of the laws of the state in which you live. That''s why you need to talk to a lawyer about this and not a bunch of strangers on the internet. Seriously. If your FI wants a pre-nup, both you and he should know why and then you need to hire your own lawyer to get your questions answered and to make sure that any pre-nup fairly protects your interests too.

 

[Clairitek]

Date: 8/17/2009 7:42:29 AM
Author: makemepretty
Well, I think people who need prenups aren''t in it for the long haul. A prenup is only beneficial if you are going to get divorced, what a nice way to start a marriage.

I''m old fashioned. Think ''50''s housewife in a 38 year old body. You only marry someone because you LOVE them. Marriage is HARD and a lot of people getting married don''t expect it to be. When you keep your maiden name you''re not really committing to the marriage either. It''s hard on children too, plus it p*sses me off when I''m doing Christmas cards and I can''t put Mr. & Mrs. Last Name. ;0)

Based on what you''ve written I am sort of confused about where I stand.

We didn''t get a pre-nuptial agreement but I am thinking about only hyphenating my name and not changing it all the way. Does this make me only 1/2 or 3/4 committed to my marriage?

 

[stephbolt]

Date: 8/17/2009 7:42:29 AM
Author: makemepretty
Well, I think people who need prenups aren''t in it for the long haul. A prenup is only beneficial if you are going to get divorced, what a nice way to start a marriage.

I''m old fashioned. Think ''50''s housewife in a 38 year old body. You only marry someone because you LOVE them. Marriage is HARD and a lot of people getting married don''t expect it to be. When you keep your maiden name you''re not really committing to the marriage either. It''s hard on children too, plus it p*sses me off when I''m doing Christmas cards and I can''t put Mr. & Mrs. Last Name. ;0)

I think there''s a big difference between protecting your assets in the event that something does go wrong and expecting to get divorced. I don''t think anyone who has a pre-nup is looking forward to using it one day, but it some situations it''s a wise move for the individuals involved. FI and I are discussing whether we need one - I have a nest egg left to me by my grandfather, and he has a significant amount of law school debt.

I also don''t think love alone is a reason to get married. I''ve loved several men. In addition to loving my FI, we share common life goals and values, and are both at a point in our life where we are ready to embark on marriage together. Our marriage where we haven''t decided what my last name will be yet, despite the inconvienece to our future children and people who send us christmas cards.

 

[monarch64]

Date: 8/17/2009 7:42:29 AM
Author: makemepretty
Well, I think people who need prenups aren''t in it for the long haul. A prenup is only beneficial if you are going to get divorced, what a nice way to start a marriage.

I''m old fashioned. Think ''50''s housewife in a 38 year old body. You only marry someone because you LOVE them. Marriage is HARD and a lot of people getting married don''t expect it to be. When you keep your maiden name you''re not really committing to the marriage either. It''s hard on children too, plus it p*sses me off when I''m doing Christmas cards and I can''t put Mr. & Mrs. Last Name. ;0)

You might as well just banish the people who aren''t committed to their marriages from your Christmas card list. They probably have pre-nups and are planning to divorce anyway, so why bother sending them a card?

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 8/17/2009 7:42:29 AM
Author: makemepretty
Well, I think people who need prenups aren''t in it for the long haul. A prenup is only beneficial if you are going to get divorced, what a nice way to start a marriage.

I''m old fashioned. Think ''50''s housewife in a 38 year old body. You only marry someone because you LOVE them. Marriage is HARD and a lot of people getting married don''t expect it to be. When you keep your maiden name you''re not really committing to the marriage either. It''s hard on children too, plus it p*sses me off when I''m doing Christmas cards and I can''t put Mr. & Mrs. Last Name. ;0)

That''s great. FOR YOU.

Why would we get a pre-nup? Because my FI wants to protect me from any chance of me incurring his almost unbelievable amount of student loan debt. And he wants to protect me in the event that my inheritance would be divided between us. He doesn''t want that. And in the event of divorce, people change and do really stupid things and make decisions based on fear or vengeance. It happens.

Does that mean I don''t love my FI? Does it mean that he doesn''t love me? Does the fact that my father is a divorce attorney mean that I''m going to get divorced or think of divorce as an out? Oh, and I''m going to be Liz MiddleMaiden HisLast. Does that mean I''m not committing to my marriage?

I don''t think any of the women here are marrying their fiances because they don''t love them. BUT, things change, things happen, people change, and poo hits the fan. There are circumstances in every woman''s life that would cause her to consider divorce. You have them too, you just probably don''t want to admit it because of your idea that marriage is forever.

BTW, I am marrying forever. But I''m not so idealistic that I think there is NOTHING could ever happen that would rip apart our marriage. It could happen. We are both going to go to the absolute ends of the earth to make sure that that doesn''t happen, but we can only do so much. You can''t control everything.

 

[ChargerGrrl]

oops

N/M