Protected from the one you love and want to spend the rest of your life with? The best protection is not marrying any person not totally committed to you and the 2nd best protection is not to be a jackass to the one you love. The 3rd best protection is a secret bank account in another country that she doesn't know about.
People change over time, and people are not always infallible judges of character. You have no way of guaranteeing that the person you marry is actually totally committed to you and you have no way of guaranteeing that that won't change over time.
Seeking protection from unforeseen changes is a prudent thing to do.
> Seeking protection from unforeseen changes is a prudent thing to do.
Since it is unlikely that unless there is a huge benefit to signing a prenuptial agreement a woman isn't likely going to an alternative is to trick her by getting married in a state with laws that are beneficial to the income earner and not the spouse. You promise a nice wedding at a country club in xyz state, she thinks it is sooo romantic and that you are awsome.
In reality when you dump her for a newer skinnier model she finds out that she has spent the last xx years with you for nothing because the state laws don't provide for an equal split of the assets. Out of kindness you buy her a used cheap RV so she isn't homeless and give her $200 so she can eat for a little bit while she signs up for welfare.
Interesting idea but I don't think you have to trick a girl into anything.
Since it is unlikely that unless there is a huge benefit to signing a prenuptial agreement a woman isn't likely going to
Then you don't marry her. Really, if someone isn't willing to sign a fair agreement for your (and her) protection before the relationship then you don't want to be with them.
she finds out that she has spent the last xx years with you for nothing
Apart from the enjoyment, the love, the emotional support and all of the other things that long term relationships are supposed to provide. If she's staying with you because she thinks there's going to be some financial payoff then there's something gravely wrong with the relationship.
> "If she's staying with you because she thinks there's going to be some financial payoff then there's something gravely wrong with the relationship."
exactly. instead, just leave the cash on a bureau top or bedside table where she can find it easily. the exchange is still implied on both parts, and you both still win because she gets her money reward earlier and the man doesn't have to worry about being destroyed financially 10 years down the line.
I have been married for 15 years, if I am ever to be successful I want to share that with my wife who has had our two children and provides me company. I am surprised others wouldn't share the same view. Being married is not like hiring someone.
Thats a different thing - what I am primarily trying to avoid is the case where you end up broken, hateful of your former lover and have to waste a ton of money in court to be allowed to see your children.
I doubt a prenup would prevent you from sharing your wealth with your wife though.
It's not the "sentimental" part that's objectionable, it's the "bullshit" part. Marry someone you love, marry someone you trust, of course. But understand that the future is unpredictable and forever is a long time -- there's nothing wrong with being prepared.
IANAL, but this is how one explained it to me: Varies by state in the U.S., but basically, the longer you are married, the less binding the prenup. Married for 8 years with two kids and the judge can just ignore the prenup. Married 1 year, no kids, prenup matters.
Whether a prenup can withstand a challenge depends on the circumstances surrounding the creation and execution of the prenup. State laws vary on what is necessary for a valid prenup.
The length of marriage is irrelevant to the viability of the prenup. The existence of offspring is likewise irrelevant. A judge cannot ignore a prenup for circumstances that come about after the prenup is signed.
However, judges can and do use any technical or substantive problems with the prenup, however small, to justify striking down inequitable prenups. The usual problem: the wealthier spouse did not disclose all financial assets and liabilities. Something as simple as not disclosing a checking account with a $0.01 balance can invalidate a prenup protecting millions.
People can claim that they were deceived when the prenup was signed. "He didn't tell me about his extra bank account when we were married. If I knew about that I would have insisted on a different prenup"
Thinking that marriage would work out is probably right thing to do in most cases:
- There is no additional legal effort up front.
- There is no emotional toll of dealing with the prenup.
- There is a good chance that divorce would not happen.
- If divorce does happen -- standard divorce rules most likely would not be too different from prenup terms.
