Prenuptial Agreements

[Butterbean]

My feelings are if either party has children from a prior relationship a Prenup may be in order.  Otherwise, no Prenup 

What are your thoughts on Prenups?

[michael arvilla]

It's not about children................ .it's about money
how to keep yours if you get divorced

[Butterbean]

It's not about children................ .it's about money
how to keep yours if you get divorced

What I mean by bringing up children is that their specific parent may want to make sure the children are provided for in the parent's eventual death (that the new spouse doesn't snag their possible inheritance).

[Laura Lee]

I agree with Prenup's for those with a lot of money and assets.  Unfortunately there are far too many people looking for a sugar-daddy or sugar-mama.  But I do believe there should be certain clauses regarding infidelity and/or abuse.

[Playboy]

I agree with Prenup's for those with a lot of money and assets.  Unfortunately there are far too many people looking for a sugar-daddy or sugar-mama.  But I do believe there should be certain clauses regarding infidelity and/or abuse.

Agreed 100%

[beatmaster]

I agree with Prenup's for those with a lot of money and assets.  Unfortunately there are far too many people looking for a sugar-daddy or sugar-mama.  But I do believe there should be certain clauses regarding infidelity and/or abuse.

exactly............ everybody knows when someones got money, they don't go after them because they look good........ money = security

[24KT]

Prenups are for those not just with money & assets, but also protect the less wealthy spouse as well.
It's simply a contingency plan for the division of assets in the event the marriage fails.

If you have money, a pre-nup can protect your bottom line ...aka Donald Trump's divorces 1 & 2
If you have no money, a pre-nup can protect your bottom line, ...aka Jean Strahan divorce from her husband NY Giant's player Michael Strahan.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=161847.0

It's just a contract that specifys the allocation and division of assets in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, and sometime the conditions under which certain provisions in that contract come into effect.

Then too there are post-nups that do the same thing.

Donald & Ivana had a pre-nup. Then after a few years of marriage and their financial situation changing, they would regularly go in and update a post-nup agreement. By the time they did divorce, donald's financial condition had changed so drastically, Ivana didn't hold him to the post-nup.

Then he married Marla, at such a low point for him, ...by the time he divorced her, his casinos were paying off for him, and he made out like a bandit because of a pre-nup that was never updated with a post-nup.

In the case of michael Strahan, the NY Giants player, his pre-nup agreement had certain provisions that would penalize him for doing certain things within their marriage. He broke those conditions, and got took to the cleaners when the judge uphelp his pre-nup agreement. His ex Jean emerged from the courthouse with a HUGE smile saying "I'm going to Disneyland"   

[DIVISION]

My feelings are if either party has children from a prior relationship a Prenup may be in order.  Otherwise, no Prenup 

What are your thoughts on Prenups?

Pre-nups are smart for anyone with assets, regardless of kids.

If kids are the issue, I wonder why someone would even consider marriage.

Just because you marry someone doesn't mean you marry their kids.

Whoever their father/mother is, is responsible for them.



DIV

[~flower~]

Pre-nups are smart for anyone with assets, regardless of kids.

If kids are the issue, I wonder why someone would even consider marriage.

Just because you marry someone doesn't mean you marry their kids.

Whoever their father/mother is, is responsible for them.



DIV

I think STella is meaning that in the case of a divorce the kids don't lose because their parent's ex got 1/2 of everything and their parent was the one with the $$.

[Butterbean]

I think STella is meaning that in the case of a divorce the kids don't lose because their parent's ex got 1/2 of everything and their parent was the one with the $$.

Yes. Thanks I wasn't being clear   

[CQ]

I think pre-nups although they sound tacky at first, are wise for people getting married if larger assets are involved, or if one party brings substantially more assets in the union.

[drkaje]

Prenup 100%

I wouldn't consider considering marriage without one.

[~flower~]

Yes. Thanks I wasn't being clear   

Sometimes you have to 'splain things slowly to the menfolk    

[kolja]

I read an article that said you should also have one if it's the second marriage for either partner, or if there is a significant disparity in assets between the two partners.

If I ever get married again there will DEFINITELY be one... I had a job and was making money, the ex-wife didn't, and wasn't, so I was lucky not to get taken to the cleaners (though in the final hearing the judge told her even if she was asking for support he wouldn't give it to her because we hadn't been together long enough before she left).  But, it was a pretty clear warning to me and I don't want to repeat the experience of being at risk of getting hosed just because the other party didn't want to be married anymore.

[24KT]

I think pre-nups although they sound tacky at first, are wise for people getting married if larger assets are involved, or if one party brings substantially more assets in the union.

Exactly, ...they protect everyone, ...not just the party with more assets (which btw can do a complete 180)
I know many people, ...women especially who didn't want to do a pre-nup... and they were marrying spouses with substantially more assets. Well their financial situations changed, ...and the lack of a pre-nup saw them paying through the nose. Just look at Jessica Simpson. When she married Lahey, he was the big breadwinner in the family, ...but that all sure changed pretty quickly. 

I heard Paul McCartney was canoodling with Christie Brinkley recently. If they get together and decided to marry... dju think he might say "I don't think there is anything romantic about a pre-nup" ...or do you think he might decide to do one this time around? 

[kolja]

Exactly, ...they protect everyone, ...not just the party with more assets (which btw can do a complete 180)
I know many people, ...women especially who didn't want to do a pre-nup... and they were marrying spouses with substantially more assets. Well their financial situations changed, ...and the lack of a pre-nup saw them paying through the nose. Just look at Jessica Simpson. When she married Lahey, he was the big breadwinner in the family, ...but that all sure changed pretty quickly. 

I heard Paul McCartney was canoodling with Christie Brinkley recently. If they get together and decided to marry... dju think he might say "I don't think there is anything romantic about a pre-nup" ...or do you think he might decide to do one this time around? 

The best comparison i heard was to insurance.  You don't get a prenuo because you're PLANNING to get a divorce any more than you get insurance because you're PLANNING on having an accident. (I guess it wouldn't be an accident then).  **** happens - it's wise to be prepared for it.

[Tre]

Gotta have pre-nup...but even then, it's virtually impossible to stipulate to all 'situations' which might arise during a marriage.

[drkaje]

Gotta have pre-nup...but even then, it's virtually impossible to stipulate to all 'situations' which might arise during a marriage.

Many 'situations' are forseeable based upon how they act prior to marriage.

[Butterbean]

  But then why bother being with someone if it's just going to be about the benjamins?

so true!!!

[24KT]

I've seen some pre-nups that say X amount if the marriage lasts 3 yrs, ...then X amount if the marriage lasts 3 - 6 yrs, X amount if 6- 8yrs, X amount if 8-10 yrs. Then after 10 yrs of marriage 50% of all marital assets. That's the CA version.  

I've heard of some pre-nups that say the wife is required to spend at least 3 days out of each month with her husband, and actually specifies the number of conjugal visitations per month. That would be the Jackie & Ari O version  

When there are kids involved, it is incumbent on the parent entering into the new marriage to protect the inheritance of their kids ahead of time in a prenup, or with a trust. I've seen some horror stories. It also works the other way around too, in that some people with kids can marry someone without kids, and next thing you know... all their assets are going to supporting kids from someone elses previous marriage.

That was a concern of mine when my sister married. Her husband was divorced with 2 tween aged daughters, ...and she bought the house and moved hubby and the girls in. I can understand them wanting to have the girls living in a better neighbourhood, and going to a better school, as well as bonding with their new step mom, ...but I was still concerned, ...especially since she was also bringing a bunch of other assets into that marriage. I think a married couple need time to themselves as a married couple BEFORE an instant family. I had my suspicions about him from the start. She went to him to buy a piece of property and in the process disclosed all her financials... then the next thing you know... they're dating, ...and then getting married.    So far, it's looking real good, but after 2 new borns, and raising 2 others, my sister decided she couldn't handle everything and be a Supermom who had it all, husband, career, family etc., so she decided to leave her job (same employer for the past 28 yrs) and remain a stay at home Mom.    That scares the bejeebers out of me 'cause he's a real estate broker and I know there's gonna be a mighty real estate crash coming soon. Oh well... she's  big girl and she's made her decisions. The chips will fall wherever they fall. If worse comes to worse... Crystal and Candice will always have a home here... her... I'd have to think about.  

[24KT]

I think it all depends on the individuals involved.  Some folks should have pre-nups to avoid blood and tears later on. 
I do see how it could be an incentive for most people.  But then why bother being with someone if it's just going to be about the benjamins?

Because sadly... for some people it is not about 'matrimony', it is about 'match the money'.

Marriage has always been about money from the start. Money, power, inheritance, and political alignment etc.,
It is only recently that "marrying for love" a custom previously only enjoyed by the poor, has become popularized throughout all echelons of society. For the upper crust, it has always been about money & politics.

Speaking of upcoming nuptials... guess which self-righteous, family values, born again Christian conservative politician's daughter has a little bundle baking in the oven? She'll be marrying soon. I hope his base can't add, because those numbers won't add up, ...but I'm sure they'll overlook it because even though she's a sinful fornicator, ...her father has been 'called by God', ...either that or they might just proclaim it to be a virgin birth. 

I wonder if she'll have a pre-nup? There's no question about who will cater her wedding though...
I hear Halliburton got the no bid contract on that one. {giggle} 

[swv8199]

Because sadly... for some people it is not about 'matrimony', it is about 'match the money'.

Marriage has always been about money from the start. Money, power, inheritance, and political alignment etc.,
It is only recently that "marrying for love" a custom previously only enjoyed by the poor, has become popularized throughout all echelons of society. For the upper crust, it has always been about money & politics.

Yeah, you have a point about people wanting power and wealth no matter what.  I still think there is always room for love and that if two people work hard towards goals then they can achieve that wealth together. 
Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.

[Laura Lee]

Yeah, you have a point about people wanting power and wealth no matter what.  I still think there is always room for love and that if two people work hard towards goals then they can achieve that wealth together. 
Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.

Well Oneida, if I'm going to marry you...I want you to sign a Pre-nup.   

[24KT]

Yeah, you have a point about people wanting power and wealth no matter what.  I still think there is always room for love and that if two people work hard towards goals then they can achieve that wealth together. 
Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.

I agree with you, it's not just wishful thinking. 'cause the botton line is you still have to face the person everyday.
Love without money is hard, ...but it's doable. Money without love is a frikkin nightmare.
That's why I always say "Any woman person who marries for money deserves every red cent s/he gets"
They've earned it! {LOL}

[swv8199]

Well Oneida, if I'm going to marry you...I want you to sign a Pre-nup.   

Why?  You don't want me taking Rocky away from you?