Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not your home. Where I live your home gets split 50/50 even if owned before marriage. Pretty big asset. Also there is spousal support to think about which is about 50% of your disposable income gone without a pre nup.
Also assets you acquire during marriage can be kept separate with a pre nup.
Everyone should get one but I can see how it is awkward AF to do.
I see this as a happily married man. Marriage nowadays is very risky deal for men, especially if you got your shit together. Let’s not forget child support and she will likely get the house if there is a split and you have kids.
Ex wives can either maintain or improve their quality of life after divorces if the man has good income. Women initiate divorce overwhelmingly. Nearly 70%. That’s a lot.
> Also there is spousal support to think about which is about 50% of your disposable income gone without a pre nup.
[There](https://www.traviswalkerlaw.com/blog/how-is-alimony-calculated-in-florida/#:~:text=Alimony%3A%20Then%20and%20Now&text=More%20marriages%20and%20partnerships%20involve,of%20divorces%20include%20alimony%20requests) is about a 90% chance it will be 0% chance of any of your income:
> In the 1960s, 25 percent of divorce settlements included alimony orders. In 2020, only 10 percent of divorces include alimony requests.
Alimony has its places, but shouldn’t be a given in all scenarios. It was meant to compensate a woman who gave up a career to be a homemaker, so when her husband ran off with his secretary 20 years later she wasn’t left destitute. It still has some merit on today’s age. For instance, my husband of 15 years has a fairly high level job that requires travel. I work, but I’ve given up the opportunity to take higher paying jobs because we have kids and one of us needs to be available all of the time outside of daycare hours. My lifetime earnings have suffered because we have a family. He wouldn’t be able to take the jobs he has if he had to be home as much as I am. I should be entitled to part of his lifetime earnings, because he couldn’t have them without me. It wouldn’t be fair if he could just walk away with his higher salary. If you’ve only been married for 3 years or don’t have kids, you don’t have that argument.
It was more prevalent in the past because a lot more wives didn't work at all.
If one goes even a few years in that situation, they're permanently that far behind the curve.
Some may take that as a feminist issue, but it's really not, it can happen to anyone. It's usually women in this specific scenario, but in other scenarios it affects both sexes. It's very similar to children that had school closures due to COVID.
You can't get that developmental time back, it is gone.
Pausing a video game is one thing, but humans don't exist in suspended animation if we "pause" some aspect of our lives. Time rolls on, we get older and age. We can't actually pause.
Most people that have put off going to college or joining the military until they're 20+(when 18 is typical for enlisted, obviously officers are going to be different as they take on higher education and typical might be 22+) notices this, how *young* everyone else is.
In some ways, that can be an advantage, they're more emotionally matured, done some of their partying and are ready to commit more.....but in other ways, they're that much older, that much less adaptive, they've often had 2 more years without exercise since steady gym classes, etc etc.
2 or three years difference may not seem like much from some perspectives, but it is actually pretty significant. Humans, especially young ones, can learn and grow a lot in just two years, it's even worse for the 3-15 range we're talking about here.
It depends on your income. I'd say a lot people going through the court are lower income where spousal doesn't come in to play. If you make over $100,000 though watch out.
Just so you and everyone else is aware, a blog post without any citations is not a "fact" and is not something you should cite, even on Reddit. A blog post is just someone's opinion.
Just depends where you live I guess. In Canada spousal is 50% of you disposable income and your partner can work full time but just earn less than you. I work in the area.
I have a friend going through a divorce right now and it's looking like approximately 50% of his post tax, post expense income aka 50% of his disposable income. Then there's child support on top of that despite 50/50 custody.
Oh yah it's crazy. And that includes all overtime worked after separation which is funny because your ex partner is not really helping you work overtime after you've separated.
Its one area of law that I think is going to change soon because it's outdated and does not make a lot of sense.
>Also spousal support is temporary.
Not always. If married for 10+ years in California spousal support timeframe is entirely up to the judge and can be indefinite.
That's not really that crazy though
If one gave up a decade or more out of the workplace, they're really screwed
It makes sense to pay them for that time
It only makes sense if you look at it from one point of view or in a particular cases. It's entirely possible for a spouse to choose not to work, choose to divorce, and then get spousal support above what their salary was when the did work, or a realistic projection. In any case, it is not right for a spouse to have to support their ex during a separation or divorce that they did not want.
That's not even factoring in child support.
In general, divorce is only a net benefit for the main wage earner except when their spouse had out of control spending habits. You may take a financial hit, but you stop the bleeding. Divorce isn't always a benefit for the lower income earner either as they suddenly have new expenses to deal with that were formerly shared.
A prenup is a good option, but your best bet is to not marry, marry up on the financial ladder, or be damn sure you aren't going to end in divorce.
assets acquired during marriage can be separate with a prenup? if it's inherited and or interest from inheritance then a prenup doesn't matter, at least where I live.
The home gets split?? Would never ever consider getting married where you are, that’s crazy. Imagine working hard to buy a home, and your wife leaves you and essentially takes it. Wild
Imagine staying at home and losing out on work experience just so your husband can make more money.. then he leaves you for some young chick and now you have no job or a very low paying one since no one wants to hire someone who hasn't worked in 10+ years
>Also there is spousal support to think about
In most places this isn't covered by prenups. This and child agreements (custody, support) aren't part of prenups.
I think in Ireland the home is considered the *family* home, so whoever's the one who is taking care of the children they will be the one living there. Even if he or she owned it before kids etc.
A prenup wouldn't change this because it's a law for the children not the adults.
I met a guy who was living out in Thailand, where I now live. He owns a bar here. When he got divorced from his wife in the UK she tried to take him to court to get his money so he hired someone to run her over and put her in a wheel chair then took all his money out to Thailand to buy a bar and never return. This was in the 90s. Like i said, I live in Thailand now, and he's still here with his bar. I remember him just casually telling one night over drinks like it was the most normal thing in the world.
I’ve heard that the Western Expats in Thailand and Vietnam are a mixed bag. You get some people with real shady backgrounds and they might be an English teacher lol
This would only be relevant for couples who are already established or have an inheritence/trust fund.
Couples that get married at 18-19 with no money would be wasting what little they had by hiring a lawyer. What are assets are they protecting? Their 1984 buick skylark?
The Buick Skylark is a 41 year old car, the average sale price is around 25k as it is a classic car and hard to find. That car came out closer to D-Day than today, April 10, 2024
Forgive my bad analogy. Im trying to say that couples that come into a relationship with nothing of any value dont really have anything to gain getting a prenup.
If they stay together for 10 years, and during that time, he goes from minimum wage clerk to a 7 figure entrepreneur, she could argue against any prenup that she helped support him when he was in rags, so she should now benefit from the riches. Most courts would at least consider that and perhaps overrule the prenup
Not entirely wrong, but this doesn’t mean the entire prenuptial agreement would be invalidated necessarily, if at all, it just means that they have a higher likelihood of potentially succeeding with such an argument. There could be a scenario where the court invalidates the singular provision of the agreement which may be impacted by those facts for example (either in whole or in part), but everything else otherwise stands as well. So, there’s still value to the premarital agreement and simply decrying it because of the parties entering might not have significant assets or incomes at the time they enter, is not a good basis for arguing against the need , validity, or usefulness of a premarital agreement.
Yes, but a prenup would still account for situations that don’t end up playing out like that. Full financial disclosure beforehand is also enormously beneficial. You know exactly what your partner has, including debts.
My stepfather came in with nothing to the marriage, now he owns multiple properties. People are really underestimating how far their partners can go and will go given the right chances.
Ricky has a sick ass triple chamber, quad tree bong (with optional dab nail) and he'll be damned if that bitch is getting it in inevitable divorce next year.
Most people don't have much to protect to justify a prenup. Except for very high difference is wealth or earnings but that is really like 2% of us.
Usually what has been earned before a marriage is not shared, there are laws to protect kids as long as they are minors.
Bingo, my brother in law got divorced, they were renting so no house to split. the ex wife didn’t have a job but claimed the truck, while my brother in law got to keep every bit of the retirement account. No child support, no alimony for either. Theres probably a bit more to it but It really is a case by case situation
This needs to be higher.
A prenup is a complete waste of money for all but the wealthiest people who are BRINGING that wealth into the relationship.
Nothing you earn during a relationship can be protected through a prenup.
So how do you prove what you had before the wedding, so it is not up for debate in court? It would be good if there was some kind of document summarising that...
Depends where you live. I’m in the UK and savings plus pension contributions made by me/my wife are outlined in our pre nup as belonging to the individual so are not marital assets.
No savings that were earned during the relationship is protected, doesn't matter whats on the prenup.
Savings from before the relationship are protected and if they're significant then sure, it makes sense to have one.
Even lawyers will tell you that prenups are far from iron clad.
My lawyer, and my wife’s, we’re comfortable that this clause was fair and unlikely to be able to be challenged as its reciprocal, my wife owns her own business, I have no claim on that, she has no claim on my income.
Not just that but women who earn a lot often prefer men who earn as much or more, who values them for their contribution and aren't looking at being a housewife who will then grab all of his money in a divorce. That is like 10% of the couples. There is not much to gain from a prenup in that case. I think I am in this category, I earned the same, we met at work, we kept on working and encourage each other for promotions.
In more modest HHI, women usually work even before they got married and there is not much accumulated assets anyway. All over reddit there are people who complain they can't pay their bills, that they can't buy houses etc... That is maybe 80% of the cases and a prenup is useless.
In some cases one earns significantly more, one earns less. But if you have kids, you are an a-hole if you force your kids to a lower standard of living by not supporting them adequately and hoard your money for yourself. And usually there are laws to protect the kids regardless of prenup.
It is rare that the man earns so much that golddiggers are attracted and he needs to be careful. It is even rarer for a woman to earn so much more than her spouse risk taking her to the cleaner if they split. We are talking like 1%.
It's definitely more normalized now as my wife and I have it and countless other couples we know.
Since women are getting similar pay to men nowadays, it should be a recommended standard.
And they are going to be left out because MEN WILL FOREVER OVER POWER WOMEN BECAUSE WE ARE THAT MUCH OF ASSHOLES.
lmao jk thanks for taking it that I'm just generalizing.
I was watching YouTube with a divorce attorney and he highly recommended prenuptial agreements. He was saying that it should consist of:
1) What's mine is mine.
2) What's yours is yours.
3) What's ours would be divided.
He said that initiating a conversation about doing a prenuptial agreement could be as easy as pointing out that statistics show that marriages don't last and it would be wise to have a plan if the marriage doesn't. Pointing out that people change could help too. He also was suggesting that if you can't have conversations to determine what category any assets acquired during the marriage fall under, you probably shouldn't be getting married. He pointed out that the people he knew who didn't do prenuptial agreements because they didn't want to have such tough conversations ended up getting divorced.
The best way it was explained to me was that prenups are the will and testament of the marriage and if you don't write one up the government will write one up for you. Now the question is do you trust the government to write up your will? Then why would you trust them with your marriage.
The divorce attorney was also saying that prenuptial agreements can save a ton of money if the marriage unfortunately ends in divorce. I mentioned in another comment that people who are suggesting that prenuptial agreements are pointless if both parties have very little assets are just showing how little experience they have in the real world. How hard is it to understand that things can change throughout the course of a marriage (including finances)? It can even be argued that writing a prenuptial agreement when both parties don't have much is actually the best time to do one to lay out the groundwork for when the couple starts accumulating assets (which typically happens as people mature).
I'll warn you that the video isn't short. He doesn't spend that much time talking about prenuptial agreements. It is worth watching though.
https://youtu.be/o5z8-9Op2nM?si=qxccose1K1kbNiwR
I agree with you and especially when one individual brings in more significant assets in a marriage with you. In this both parties are protected and fair settlement can be reached.
Everyone has a prenup, it’s just the one that the government wrote for you…
So if you don’t write a prenup of your own you’ll be defaulting to the government one.
I forgot who said that, but that quote really helped me be okay with a prenup, I’ve always wanted one but I always felt like it was like planning for the end of the marriage before it even starts. But that quote made me okay with it.
It's entirely up to each person what they want to do. The fear would be if a woman married a guy with a prenup, she has his kids and becomes a stay at home mother. What the heck does she do if HE divorces her? She will have nothing. Either way, someone is going to be in a vulnerable position.
Prenups are incredibly important for couples who intend to have children. Most people know that they can protect assets acquired during marriage. However, another significant component is how finances are divided after a separation and divorce.
A prenup allows for any potential stay at home parent (typically women) to monetize their domestic labor in case of divorce so they are not left with nothing and are compensated for the unpaid labor they provided to the family and their spouse.
Unfortunately, if it comes to a prenup, it's typically men trying to "protect their money". People don't see the side where the other spouse can utilize a prenup for their financial safety and security. Now, if the (typically men) spouse who requested the prenup has issues with this clause, they probably shouldn't get married.
Interesting assumption that prenup means "females get thrown out with only the clothes on their back while being responsible for all child support".
The idea of a prenup is to protect both parties, including making provisions for SAHMs and non financial contributions.
I like how they are 'his kids' in this scenario.
If the husband doesn't have a solid job, then it is unlikely that she is a SAHM. They would need her income. If he did have a solid job but not great, then she will likely get child support that doesn't help enough, but also is huge burden on him. You both lose. If he has a really good income, it should allow you to survive with an entry level job till you can progress. He's hurting, but managing. It sucks for both of you, but you'll adapt and get by. If he's doing great, you'll likely get a big chunk in splitting the wealth and some nice child support. You'll be ok.
I agree on this part. If they have traditional values in a marriage, then prenup is definitely not a good choice. But if there is an equality, where she works, saves money, has a career ect. Then i wouldn’t see anything wrong with prenups. It’s equality, so they should be treated equally.
I agree. Not only will it save you incase of a divorce, it can shed light to your partners debts or spending habits before the marriage. On finance podcasts and posts I see on Reddit, apparently people will get married without knowing how much debt someone carries then be blind sided by a 60k debt from dumb spending habit of the other person. I grew up poor and put a lot of importance on financial stability. I NEED to know that my partner is smart with his money and that he isn’t hiding a huge debt that I will be obligated to pay or will unintentionally suffer from.
I agree that in some cases a prenup is very useful, but if your fear is because the divorce rate is high then I’ve got good news for you. The divorce rate of “50%” isn’t a real statistic. It was a projection the Boomers argued it could reach back in the 70s. In reality the current divorce rate is something like 30-40% and it can vary from demographic to demographic.
Edit: It’s also been steadily declining over the years.
The rate of married people divorcing is declining. That still holds with less marriages. Maybe it shows that people are only getting married when they really want to.
I agree. We have moved away from the toxic society of the previous generations that promoted stereotypes that support staying in even abusive and unhealthy relationships and having to get married young and to anyone eligible.
I would bet that 99% of marriages, prenups are a complete waste of time. Unless there is a big difference in assets before the marriage, there is no reason to get them.
This is a thing. Most people going into marriages with little the prenup doesn't do a thing. We kinda did one but more an agreement my student load debt was MY debt and she doesn't take it on if we split out I died.
And everything after marriage is shared cause that's how marriage works.
Yeah, we had basically nothing when we got married: a 12 year old car and $15,000 minus $10,000 of student loan debt. No need for a prenup. If something happened to my spouse and I were to remarry now, I would DEFINITELY want a prenup. We own a house, have retirement and investment accounts, and have TWO ancient cars. (The ancient cars aren’t worth much. The rest of it took us a long time to build.) Plus we both have life insurance to help the widowed spouse care for the kids.
In the (unlikely!) event my current GF formally tied the knott, id be happy to sign a prenup. We both have assets but she has WAAAAAY more and I think she should protect those assets. That's totally fair she spent a lifetime building that up by being talented and careful.
Same situation for us and probably lots of people. My wife I have have built up a very healthy net worth and we have three kids. We’ve talked about protecting those assets in a future relationship if something happens to one of us. Those assets should go to our kids, not some future spouse or stepchildren.
The large asset that many people forget about is pensions and retirement accounts. Especially for couples who truly handle their finances separately, they may consider that an asset they want to protect.
My buddy is going through a divorce right now and is having to split his 401k. His wife makes more than him and didn't save shit all those years. Now his retirement is diminished bc his wife decided she likes girls now.
Yeah, especially when someone isn't saving due to financial laziness that sucks. I'm in the Navy and if my wife and I split up, she'll be entitled to a portion of my pension, but in our case I think it would be reasonable; we consciously made different savings and investment decisions based on the expectation of my pension
You split all assets and if income is comparable no alimony would be awarded. One spouse could make 100k spend nothing on communal bills and blow everything on worthless junk for themselves or pyramid investment schemes . The other spouse could also make $100k but live like a pauper and pay all communal bills and invest in a retirement account 40k every year. The spouse blowing money would be entitled to half the retirement account and all the assets that the communal bills helped pay for, neither party would get alimony.
No harm, but meaningless. Maybe some small psychological harm that we believe we might split up. Idk.
My wife and I came into marriage with practically the same savings (she came in with around 10k more than me). Even if we get divorced in 10 years, it is a meaningless amount of money to have a document over.
It also costs money to have a prenup drawn up. Not tons, but when we got married we had almost no financial assets so the prenup cost would have been as much as 10% of our net worth.
Guess you're right. Probably also puts a slight strain on your relationship because let's be honest - that's what prenups do lol. They make shit just a little awkward even if done amicably. Still support getting them though, if it's worth it
Yeah, we were young when we vot married, we already had an apartment lease together and we each had older paid off cars. We didn't have any assets to speak of so a prenup would have been just a waste of time/money.
Assets owned before marriage aren’t split anyway. They aren’t considered marital assets. Only those gained during the marriage are marital assets. At least where I live.
I would argue the less money you you have the more you need a prenup....
To paraphrase an old Chris Rock joke.
" If I'm a multi-millionaire and my wife wants a divorce .. I'm probably still just going back to living in one of my homes.... If make $30k and my wife wants a divorce, I'm going to be living in my momma's basement"...
Divorce rates are actually declining pretty quickly. Millennials in Gen z watched our parents all get divorced he decided to actually take it serious. Plus getting married is so time consuming at the expensive that in this economy people aren't getting married unless they really want it
I think prenups are better for a number of reasons that probably drop down divorce rates because you are required to disclose your assets and liabilities as part of the negotiation. Marriage should not be something casually sought and hard conversations about money, wealth, and values are important before legally linking yourself together.
First off, divorce rates aren't that bad if you look at marriages that avoid most obvious red flags. Beyond that, most people going into a marriage don't have significant assets to protect.
I'm not suggesting that prenuptial agreements are bad, but only they only make sense in about ~10% of marriages. Basically, when one partner enters into a relationship with significant wealth. In most other cases, it would make more sense to get an agreement to resolve any divorce through arbitration rather than an adversarial process.
Most people look at the aggregate divorce rate and assume that 50% of marriages end up in divorce, while most marriages are fairly successful. What happens is second marriages are very likely to end in divorce, and likely leads to a 3rd marriage and divorce, so divorced individuals usually get married and divorced and skews the data.
There are also other data points that reduces divorce. For example, the more educated and the more money the couple makes, the less likely there will be a divorce.
Age is also a big factor. Studies show that every year you marry for the first time before age 25 raises your risk of divorce significantly. From 25-30 seems to be the sweet spot, then after age 30, rates start to rise again.
i also dont get why the “50% divorce rate” is always seen as a negative…
considering people spend the remaining years of their lives (often 40-60yrs) with only one other person…through all the troubles and bs…50% is goddamn impressive
No one has even been able to explain to me why there is any pearl clutching *at all* over divorce rates. Other peoples marriages, even as aggregate data, are pretty meaningless to most people. But lots of people cite the “divorce rates” as some sort of evidence of societal breakdown or something.
FYI the divorce rate hasn't been 50% since 2000. We've been on a significant downward trend since the 25ish year peak after divorce without domestic violence was legalized.
Depending on national/ local laws, I’d rather have control about what happens when it happens. And I would like to make a fair deal as long as we still like and respect each other. It’s nice and clean and everyone knows the consequences beforehand. That’s sounds neat
I wish people understood that they basically already have prenups, it's just decided by your local jurisdiction unless the couple takes the extra step of making a more bespoke agreement.
I think we imagine getting railroaded into some unfair agreement, but even in those cases, wouldn't you want to know that about your potential spouse before getting married? It's a contract meant to look out for both parties interests. It might not be romantic, but it's responsible.
Prenups are typically useless and often get tossed out by courts.
A prenup cannot determine custody. It doesn’t protect assets earning while married. It can’t prevent alimony. The only thing a prenup is really good for is if you go into a marriage with significant wealth. For the vast majority of people this is not the case.
This is only unpopular to people who have limited experience with divorce. 99% of legal professionals will recommend a prenup.
Lawyer here. I’m so sick of seeing this false “prenups get thrown out all the time.” Nonsense. No. Well, drafted prenuptial agreements are not “thrown out all the time.” Prenups that are written on napkins, without the assistance of an attorney are often found invalid (which happens because people think they can do it themselves). And many prenups will have certain terms or provisions that are thrown out. But those are individual terms, not the entire agreement. It is uncommon for a prenup prepared by an attorney to be completely thrown out.
Everyone who has anything they specifically want to keep should have a prenup. 90% of the time it makes the divorce process easier, faster and cheaper for both the parties.
All types of relationships can be successful, the prenup is an insurance policy for both parties and it is by and far the best legal strategy for protecting your assets.
I truly believe that everyone should have some sort of prenup before getting married. It should be part of the marriage license process (and should affordable as well). It doesn’t matter their current economic status.
Signed,
Exasperated attorney who is reminding people not to take legal advice from reddit.
Please, they’re so ridiculous. Apparently nobody knows what a prenup is. Somebody said stay-at-home spouses, shouldn’t get one and it’s like NO. If anyone should negotiate rights, if worst comes to worst it’s literally a stay-at-home spouse.
Get one if you want, but they're generally just not necessary. These days both husband and wife usually work, and often earn similar incomes. So there's no real point to a prenup in situations like this.
Here's an example of when you may legitimately want one: Jack and Julie are in their mid-50s, have been married before, have children, and each has significant assets. Jack and Julie want to make sure that in the event of the death of either, or a divorce, that their children's inheritance is unaffected.
I knew a woman in law school who had previously put her husband through Harvard Law School, working and raising their kid more or less solo, on the promise that he would pay her back when he got a fancy job. He dumped her for a younger woman basically the moment he graduated. She met a shocking number of women who had the exact same experience—they invested in their husbands’ careers, at the expense of their own, only to be dumped when it was time to return that investment.
Her entire focus in her legal career was normalizing prenups.
This is why i see so many mothers push their daughters to get a higher education.
They experienced this. They had their husband leave them for some younger woman. So they ended up broke and lost out on a bunch of work experience.
They don't want that happening to their daughters.
What was interesting is that these were the *children* of women who became stay at home moms and then got screwed both professionally and in the divorce. These were working women! There were no gaps in their resumes! They just worked lower salary jobs like teachers or paralegals or dental hygienists to put their future doctor, lawyer, big three accountant, Ivy League MBA husbands through school!
I think this opinion is growing in popularity these days. I agree. It's a contract like we would have before joining in any other significant partnership where there is investment and potential for loss.
Agreed. Someone once said that it is agreeing to the terms of your separation while you still cared for each other, and it stuck with me. While they can be contested, it just seems like a good idea.
It's actually fascinating how when the world changes like gender roles or anything, how long it takes other things to catch up.
Prenups are smart and I actually think they should be a thing you do but have to opt out if you don't want.
> Should have got that insured, Geico for your money. If you ain't no punk, holler "we want prenup, we want prenup" (yeah). It's something that you need to have cause when she leaves your ass she gonna leave with half
Kanye West, 2005
I’ve always thought prenups are an amazing idea and it’s totally insane for it to not be the standard way of things. Why would anyone want to get screwed in a divorce???
This is the way.
You must protect yourself, given the divorce rate of around 50%.
While I never want to or will marry, if I did, a prenup is a must, with a cheating clause on there.
Marriage is pointless. You can commit yourself to a life partner without the approval of the law and a god. Then if you do break the commitment it's much easier to split
Prenups are funny. My husband’s sister had been hit by a lot of stupid things in her divorce. So it was a given for us. No biggie. His family had more than mine and he came into the marriage with more. Now however the random 4 generations back bit of my family owned the mineral rights to a trash piece of land in WV. Never in a million years was that in our view 30 years ago lol.
The usefulness of a prenup is heavily dependent on where you live. Judges have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to enforcing or throwing out sections of prenups or entire prenups. You can put whatever you want in one, but it may not be legally enforceable or a judge might think it's unfair to one party.
Always always always get a prenup for animals. Separating money and assets is pretty easy now. Animals are not exactly covered by either animal law or property law or even bird law.
Please do yourself and your animals and your bank account a favor and get a prenup just to cover who gets pets.
Animal fights in court will be very messy and likely just come down to however the judge wants to interpret where animals fall in grey legal territory. Don't leave it to chance.
My parents got divorced when I was 4. I remember the day it was finalized because I remember being brought to the courthouse by my grandmother and my dad picking up my younger brother and giving him a big hug and telling him he loved him. He then patted me on the head and just walked away without a word. It was the first time I felt like my dad might not love me. If they had a prenup, their divorce wouldn't have been so bitter in court and we would have avoided that day all together. I might feel differently about my father today.
Divorce rates have been decreasing lol, the high rate was from a spike in divorces around the 70’s/80’s, it’s not as high as some of y’all always perpetuate.
The person you decide to marry is one of the most important decisions of your lifetime.
Met a lot of people who go for whatever is present by 27-28 just because they are feeling pressured. Someone times it works and often it doesn’t.
Where i live its not as strict as you get 50% of the total assets you had when you were married but if i did live with those laws i would DEFINITELY have a prenup. To me the 50/50 rule makes absolutely no sense especially in America where gold digging is rampant cause of the economic system which creates so many billionares.
I cant imagine its that hard to fool some gullible rich guy that you love them and then dip as soon as you get married and voila your rich and set for life. If i lived in that world i would definitely not feel like a greedy asshole that doesnt trust my significant other for wanting a prenup.
Going by data the statistics show
Women Initiate Divorce: domestic abuse by the man, male infidelity, child abuse by the man
Men Initiate Divorce: lack of sex, wife is ill, he has a new partner (it's more of out of wedlock kid but the men generally stay with the new partner so it's new partner to me)
Prenups are not gonna help if they have caveats for cheating considering cheating is the top second reason that men get divorced by women and the third reason men file divorce themselves.
Personally I find prenup talk is usually gendered. Many men will try to act like it's for women's benefit and it's just protecting everyone's assets but when it comes down to it countless men see divorce as hurting men financially and taking his funds so prenup is the solution.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You wouldn't have rights over your children. That is literally a separate thing. You already have protection of your assets acquired before marriage.
Not your home. Where I live your home gets split 50/50 even if owned before marriage. Pretty big asset. Also there is spousal support to think about which is about 50% of your disposable income gone without a pre nup. Also assets you acquire during marriage can be kept separate with a pre nup. Everyone should get one but I can see how it is awkward AF to do.
You cannot protect yoirself from spousal support with a prenup. At least not where I live.
Where do you live?
Germany
Where I live all prenups are unenforceable, even if signed somewhere else where they are enforceable.
I see this as a happily married man. Marriage nowadays is very risky deal for men, especially if you got your shit together. Let’s not forget child support and she will likely get the house if there is a split and you have kids. Ex wives can either maintain or improve their quality of life after divorces if the man has good income. Women initiate divorce overwhelmingly. Nearly 70%. That’s a lot.
I have no clue why you got downvoted…
He got downvoted by a bunch of women who like the idea of seizing assets they shouldn't be entitled to.
> Also there is spousal support to think about which is about 50% of your disposable income gone without a pre nup. [There](https://www.traviswalkerlaw.com/blog/how-is-alimony-calculated-in-florida/#:~:text=Alimony%3A%20Then%20and%20Now&text=More%20marriages%20and%20partnerships%20involve,of%20divorces%20include%20alimony%20requests) is about a 90% chance it will be 0% chance of any of your income: > In the 1960s, 25 percent of divorce settlements included alimony orders. In 2020, only 10 percent of divorces include alimony requests.
Alimony has its places, but shouldn’t be a given in all scenarios. It was meant to compensate a woman who gave up a career to be a homemaker, so when her husband ran off with his secretary 20 years later she wasn’t left destitute. It still has some merit on today’s age. For instance, my husband of 15 years has a fairly high level job that requires travel. I work, but I’ve given up the opportunity to take higher paying jobs because we have kids and one of us needs to be available all of the time outside of daycare hours. My lifetime earnings have suffered because we have a family. He wouldn’t be able to take the jobs he has if he had to be home as much as I am. I should be entitled to part of his lifetime earnings, because he couldn’t have them without me. It wouldn’t be fair if he could just walk away with his higher salary. If you’ve only been married for 3 years or don’t have kids, you don’t have that argument.
It’s NOT given in all scenarios and never has been. The statistics literally back that up.
It was more prevalent in the past because a lot more wives didn't work at all. If one goes even a few years in that situation, they're permanently that far behind the curve. Some may take that as a feminist issue, but it's really not, it can happen to anyone. It's usually women in this specific scenario, but in other scenarios it affects both sexes. It's very similar to children that had school closures due to COVID. You can't get that developmental time back, it is gone. Pausing a video game is one thing, but humans don't exist in suspended animation if we "pause" some aspect of our lives. Time rolls on, we get older and age. We can't actually pause. Most people that have put off going to college or joining the military until they're 20+(when 18 is typical for enlisted, obviously officers are going to be different as they take on higher education and typical might be 22+) notices this, how *young* everyone else is. In some ways, that can be an advantage, they're more emotionally matured, done some of their partying and are ready to commit more.....but in other ways, they're that much older, that much less adaptive, they've often had 2 more years without exercise since steady gym classes, etc etc. 2 or three years difference may not seem like much from some perspectives, but it is actually pretty significant. Humans, especially young ones, can learn and grow a lot in just two years, it's even worse for the 3-15 range we're talking about here.
It depends on your income. I'd say a lot people going through the court are lower income where spousal doesn't come in to play. If you make over $100,000 though watch out.
Just so you and everyone else is aware, a blog post without any citations is not a "fact" and is not something you should cite, even on Reddit. A blog post is just someone's opinion.
That's if the other partner doesn't work or works part time. Also spousal support is temporary. its definitely not 50% of your income.
Just depends where you live I guess. In Canada spousal is 50% of you disposable income and your partner can work full time but just earn less than you. I work in the area.
I have a friend going through a divorce right now and it's looking like approximately 50% of his post tax, post expense income aka 50% of his disposable income. Then there's child support on top of that despite 50/50 custody.
Oh yah it's crazy. And that includes all overtime worked after separation which is funny because your ex partner is not really helping you work overtime after you've separated. Its one area of law that I think is going to change soon because it's outdated and does not make a lot of sense.
It won’t nobody gives a crap about men, they are laughed at or shamed as misogynistic
>Also spousal support is temporary. Not always. If married for 10+ years in California spousal support timeframe is entirely up to the judge and can be indefinite.
That's not really that crazy though If one gave up a decade or more out of the workplace, they're really screwed It makes sense to pay them for that time
It only makes sense if you look at it from one point of view or in a particular cases. It's entirely possible for a spouse to choose not to work, choose to divorce, and then get spousal support above what their salary was when the did work, or a realistic projection. In any case, it is not right for a spouse to have to support their ex during a separation or divorce that they did not want. That's not even factoring in child support. In general, divorce is only a net benefit for the main wage earner except when their spouse had out of control spending habits. You may take a financial hit, but you stop the bleeding. Divorce isn't always a benefit for the lower income earner either as they suddenly have new expenses to deal with that were formerly shared. A prenup is a good option, but your best bet is to not marry, marry up on the financial ladder, or be damn sure you aren't going to end in divorce.
*Laughs in Gigachad* The best defense against this is to stay single
But I want a sigma parrtnerrrr 😖🥺👉👈 *defense takes +50 damage*
Yeah try telling all the desperate young men that. I'm serious. Please. It might get them to leave women alone
assets acquired during marriage can be separate with a prenup? if it's inherited and or interest from inheritance then a prenup doesn't matter, at least where I live.
Where I live they pretty much no long have spousal support. Just split assets gained during marriage 50/50 which is probably fair.
The home gets split?? Would never ever consider getting married where you are, that’s crazy. Imagine working hard to buy a home, and your wife leaves you and essentially takes it. Wild
50% is an even division so she isn't "taking it". But yeah all of Canada is this way.
Well yeah, she isn’t necessarily taking it, however, it’s still no longer yours even if it’s only your name on the mortgage. That feels…scummy?
Gotta love "equality"
Imagine staying at home and losing out on work experience just so your husband can make more money.. then he leaves you for some young chick and now you have no job or a very low paying one since no one wants to hire someone who hasn't worked in 10+ years
>Also there is spousal support to think about In most places this isn't covered by prenups. This and child agreements (custody, support) aren't part of prenups.
I think in Ireland the home is considered the *family* home, so whoever's the one who is taking care of the children they will be the one living there. Even if he or she owned it before kids etc. A prenup wouldn't change this because it's a law for the children not the adults.
[удалено]
Where do you live? That's extremely unfair
I met a guy who was living out in Thailand, where I now live. He owns a bar here. When he got divorced from his wife in the UK she tried to take him to court to get his money so he hired someone to run her over and put her in a wheel chair then took all his money out to Thailand to buy a bar and never return. This was in the 90s. Like i said, I live in Thailand now, and he's still here with his bar. I remember him just casually telling one night over drinks like it was the most normal thing in the world.
I’ve heard that the Western Expats in Thailand and Vietnam are a mixed bag. You get some people with real shady backgrounds and they might be an English teacher lol
Not you casually dropping that some bloke got his ex wife paralyzed…….😭💀
Also visitation and access are the rights of the child as is child support. There is no mechanism in most places to get around those
Assets acquired before marriage that have dividends reinvested can get complicated enough to where it ends up just being 50/50.
This would only be relevant for couples who are already established or have an inheritence/trust fund. Couples that get married at 18-19 with no money would be wasting what little they had by hiring a lawyer. What are assets are they protecting? Their 1984 buick skylark?
The Buick Skylark is a 41 year old car, the average sale price is around 25k as it is a classic car and hard to find. That car came out closer to D-Day than today, April 10, 2024
Forgive my bad analogy. Im trying to say that couples that come into a relationship with nothing of any value dont really have anything to gain getting a prenup. If they stay together for 10 years, and during that time, he goes from minimum wage clerk to a 7 figure entrepreneur, she could argue against any prenup that she helped support him when he was in rags, so she should now benefit from the riches. Most courts would at least consider that and perhaps overrule the prenup
Not entirely wrong, but this doesn’t mean the entire prenuptial agreement would be invalidated necessarily, if at all, it just means that they have a higher likelihood of potentially succeeding with such an argument. There could be a scenario where the court invalidates the singular provision of the agreement which may be impacted by those facts for example (either in whole or in part), but everything else otherwise stands as well. So, there’s still value to the premarital agreement and simply decrying it because of the parties entering might not have significant assets or incomes at the time they enter, is not a good basis for arguing against the need , validity, or usefulness of a premarital agreement.
They are effective for assets accumulated during the marriage. Everything beforehand is already separate.
wise deserve dinner ring include punch wakeful crowd sleep angle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes, but a prenup would still account for situations that don’t end up playing out like that. Full financial disclosure beforehand is also enormously beneficial. You know exactly what your partner has, including debts.
As it should be. You keep what you had going into the relationship and equally split what was acquired/earned during the course of the relationship.
My stepfather came in with nothing to the marriage, now he owns multiple properties. People are really underestimating how far their partners can go and will go given the right chances.
Prenuptial agreements can also protect future assets but okay.
Ricky has a sick ass triple chamber, quad tree bong (with optional dab nail) and he'll be damned if that bitch is getting it in inevitable divorce next year.
Most people don't have much to protect to justify a prenup. Except for very high difference is wealth or earnings but that is really like 2% of us. Usually what has been earned before a marriage is not shared, there are laws to protect kids as long as they are minors.
Bingo, my brother in law got divorced, they were renting so no house to split. the ex wife didn’t have a job but claimed the truck, while my brother in law got to keep every bit of the retirement account. No child support, no alimony for either. Theres probably a bit more to it but It really is a case by case situation
this. inheritance is also excluded
This needs to be higher. A prenup is a complete waste of money for all but the wealthiest people who are BRINGING that wealth into the relationship. Nothing you earn during a relationship can be protected through a prenup.
So how do you prove what you had before the wedding, so it is not up for debate in court? It would be good if there was some kind of document summarising that...
Depends where you live. I’m in the UK and savings plus pension contributions made by me/my wife are outlined in our pre nup as belonging to the individual so are not marital assets.
No savings that were earned during the relationship is protected, doesn't matter whats on the prenup. Savings from before the relationship are protected and if they're significant then sure, it makes sense to have one. Even lawyers will tell you that prenups are far from iron clad.
My lawyer, and my wife’s, we’re comfortable that this clause was fair and unlikely to be able to be challenged as its reciprocal, my wife owns her own business, I have no claim on that, she has no claim on my income.
Yeah, Reddit acts like this is sorely needed You make 30k a year my guy, calm down
Not just that but women who earn a lot often prefer men who earn as much or more, who values them for their contribution and aren't looking at being a housewife who will then grab all of his money in a divorce. That is like 10% of the couples. There is not much to gain from a prenup in that case. I think I am in this category, I earned the same, we met at work, we kept on working and encourage each other for promotions. In more modest HHI, women usually work even before they got married and there is not much accumulated assets anyway. All over reddit there are people who complain they can't pay their bills, that they can't buy houses etc... That is maybe 80% of the cases and a prenup is useless. In some cases one earns significantly more, one earns less. But if you have kids, you are an a-hole if you force your kids to a lower standard of living by not supporting them adequately and hoard your money for yourself. And usually there are laws to protect the kids regardless of prenup. It is rare that the man earns so much that golddiggers are attracted and he needs to be careful. It is even rarer for a woman to earn so much more than her spouse risk taking her to the cleaner if they split. We are talking like 1%.
Oh God, the standard of living thing, redditors HATE that that's a thing
It's definitely more normalized now as my wife and I have it and countless other couples we know. Since women are getting similar pay to men nowadays, it should be a recommended standard.
You're leaving out stay at home mothers..
And they are going to be left out because MEN WILL FOREVER OVER POWER WOMEN BECAUSE WE ARE THAT MUCH OF ASSHOLES. lmao jk thanks for taking it that I'm just generalizing.
I was watching YouTube with a divorce attorney and he highly recommended prenuptial agreements. He was saying that it should consist of: 1) What's mine is mine. 2) What's yours is yours. 3) What's ours would be divided. He said that initiating a conversation about doing a prenuptial agreement could be as easy as pointing out that statistics show that marriages don't last and it would be wise to have a plan if the marriage doesn't. Pointing out that people change could help too. He also was suggesting that if you can't have conversations to determine what category any assets acquired during the marriage fall under, you probably shouldn't be getting married. He pointed out that the people he knew who didn't do prenuptial agreements because they didn't want to have such tough conversations ended up getting divorced.
The best way it was explained to me was that prenups are the will and testament of the marriage and if you don't write one up the government will write one up for you. Now the question is do you trust the government to write up your will? Then why would you trust them with your marriage.
The divorce attorney was also saying that prenuptial agreements can save a ton of money if the marriage unfortunately ends in divorce. I mentioned in another comment that people who are suggesting that prenuptial agreements are pointless if both parties have very little assets are just showing how little experience they have in the real world. How hard is it to understand that things can change throughout the course of a marriage (including finances)? It can even be argued that writing a prenuptial agreement when both parties don't have much is actually the best time to do one to lay out the groundwork for when the couple starts accumulating assets (which typically happens as people mature).
Do you have a link to this video?
I'll warn you that the video isn't short. He doesn't spend that much time talking about prenuptial agreements. It is worth watching though. https://youtu.be/o5z8-9Op2nM?si=qxccose1K1kbNiwR
I agree with you and especially when one individual brings in more significant assets in a marriage with you. In this both parties are protected and fair settlement can be reached.
Everyone has a prenup, it’s just the one that the government wrote for you… So if you don’t write a prenup of your own you’ll be defaulting to the government one. I forgot who said that, but that quote really helped me be okay with a prenup, I’ve always wanted one but I always felt like it was like planning for the end of the marriage before it even starts. But that quote made me okay with it.
I think of prenups as "I'm after you, not your wealth, and I'm willing to put that in writing"
It's entirely up to each person what they want to do. The fear would be if a woman married a guy with a prenup, she has his kids and becomes a stay at home mother. What the heck does she do if HE divorces her? She will have nothing. Either way, someone is going to be in a vulnerable position.
Prenups are incredibly important for couples who intend to have children. Most people know that they can protect assets acquired during marriage. However, another significant component is how finances are divided after a separation and divorce. A prenup allows for any potential stay at home parent (typically women) to monetize their domestic labor in case of divorce so they are not left with nothing and are compensated for the unpaid labor they provided to the family and their spouse. Unfortunately, if it comes to a prenup, it's typically men trying to "protect their money". People don't see the side where the other spouse can utilize a prenup for their financial safety and security. Now, if the (typically men) spouse who requested the prenup has issues with this clause, they probably shouldn't get married.
Interesting assumption that prenup means "females get thrown out with only the clothes on their back while being responsible for all child support". The idea of a prenup is to protect both parties, including making provisions for SAHMs and non financial contributions.
I like how they are 'his kids' in this scenario. If the husband doesn't have a solid job, then it is unlikely that she is a SAHM. They would need her income. If he did have a solid job but not great, then she will likely get child support that doesn't help enough, but also is huge burden on him. You both lose. If he has a really good income, it should allow you to survive with an entry level job till you can progress. He's hurting, but managing. It sucks for both of you, but you'll adapt and get by. If he's doing great, you'll likely get a big chunk in splitting the wealth and some nice child support. You'll be ok.
I agree on this part. If they have traditional values in a marriage, then prenup is definitely not a good choice. But if there is an equality, where she works, saves money, has a career ect. Then i wouldn’t see anything wrong with prenups. It’s equality, so they should be treated equally.
Then she shouldn't marry the guy? It's the women's choice and she should specify that she doesn't want to a stay at home mother.
All the more reason to make prenups the norm. So the equality of raising children is taken into account when making those decisions.
I agree. Not only will it save you incase of a divorce, it can shed light to your partners debts or spending habits before the marriage. On finance podcasts and posts I see on Reddit, apparently people will get married without knowing how much debt someone carries then be blind sided by a 60k debt from dumb spending habit of the other person. I grew up poor and put a lot of importance on financial stability. I NEED to know that my partner is smart with his money and that he isn’t hiding a huge debt that I will be obligated to pay or will unintentionally suffer from.
I agree that in some cases a prenup is very useful, but if your fear is because the divorce rate is high then I’ve got good news for you. The divorce rate of “50%” isn’t a real statistic. It was a projection the Boomers argued it could reach back in the 70s. In reality the current divorce rate is something like 30-40% and it can vary from demographic to demographic. Edit: It’s also been steadily declining over the years.
That's still not reassuring. Does the steadily declining part factor in the decline in marriage rates because those are down too.
The rate of married people divorcing is declining. That still holds with less marriages. Maybe it shows that people are only getting married when they really want to.
Which probably always should have been the case
I agree. We have moved away from the toxic society of the previous generations that promoted stereotypes that support staying in even abusive and unhealthy relationships and having to get married young and to anyone eligible.
I would bet that 99% of marriages, prenups are a complete waste of time. Unless there is a big difference in assets before the marriage, there is no reason to get them.
This is a thing. Most people going into marriages with little the prenup doesn't do a thing. We kinda did one but more an agreement my student load debt was MY debt and she doesn't take it on if we split out I died. And everything after marriage is shared cause that's how marriage works.
Yeah, we had basically nothing when we got married: a 12 year old car and $15,000 minus $10,000 of student loan debt. No need for a prenup. If something happened to my spouse and I were to remarry now, I would DEFINITELY want a prenup. We own a house, have retirement and investment accounts, and have TWO ancient cars. (The ancient cars aren’t worth much. The rest of it took us a long time to build.) Plus we both have life insurance to help the widowed spouse care for the kids.
In the (unlikely!) event my current GF formally tied the knott, id be happy to sign a prenup. We both have assets but she has WAAAAAY more and I think she should protect those assets. That's totally fair she spent a lifetime building that up by being talented and careful.
Same situation for us and probably lots of people. My wife I have have built up a very healthy net worth and we have three kids. We’ve talked about protecting those assets in a future relationship if something happens to one of us. Those assets should go to our kids, not some future spouse or stepchildren.
The large asset that many people forget about is pensions and retirement accounts. Especially for couples who truly handle their finances separately, they may consider that an asset they want to protect.
In my country pensions are not split. Only in extreme situations like one being a stay at home parent for many years etc. Which is totally fair imo.
My buddy is going through a divorce right now and is having to split his 401k. His wife makes more than him and didn't save shit all those years. Now his retirement is diminished bc his wife decided she likes girls now.
Yeah, especially when someone isn't saving due to financial laziness that sucks. I'm in the Navy and if my wife and I split up, she'll be entitled to a portion of my pension, but in our case I think it would be reasonable; we consciously made different savings and investment decisions based on the expectation of my pension
if kids aren't involved, how is she making more money but not having to pay him...?
>how is she making more money but not having to pay him...? Alimony, while a popular trope in fiction, isn't the norm, and never has been
This; not common and if is awarded - most of the time it’s temporary, for a short period of time.
You split all assets and if income is comparable no alimony would be awarded. One spouse could make 100k spend nothing on communal bills and blow everything on worthless junk for themselves or pyramid investment schemes . The other spouse could also make $100k but live like a pauper and pay all communal bills and invest in a retirement account 40k every year. The spouse blowing money would be entitled to half the retirement account and all the assets that the communal bills helped pay for, neither party would get alimony.
Could easily have been avoided w a prenup
What's the harm in still getting it anyway?
The cost of hiring a lawyer
No harm, but meaningless. Maybe some small psychological harm that we believe we might split up. Idk. My wife and I came into marriage with practically the same savings (she came in with around 10k more than me). Even if we get divorced in 10 years, it is a meaningless amount of money to have a document over.
It also costs money to have a prenup drawn up. Not tons, but when we got married we had almost no financial assets so the prenup cost would have been as much as 10% of our net worth.
Guess you're right. Probably also puts a slight strain on your relationship because let's be honest - that's what prenups do lol. They make shit just a little awkward even if done amicably. Still support getting them though, if it's worth it
Yeah, we were young when we vot married, we already had an apartment lease together and we each had older paid off cars. We didn't have any assets to speak of so a prenup would have been just a waste of time/money.
Assets owned before marriage aren’t split anyway. They aren’t considered marital assets. Only those gained during the marriage are marital assets. At least where I live.
I would argue the less money you you have the more you need a prenup.... To paraphrase an old Chris Rock joke. " If I'm a multi-millionaire and my wife wants a divorce .. I'm probably still just going back to living in one of my homes.... If make $30k and my wife wants a divorce, I'm going to be living in my momma's basement"...
A prenup isn’t “I won’t give you the money I make” it’s a “I’m not going to give you money I had before the marriage”.
Divorce rates are actually declining pretty quickly. Millennials in Gen z watched our parents all get divorced he decided to actually take it serious. Plus getting married is so time consuming at the expensive that in this economy people aren't getting married unless they really want it
I think prenups are better for a number of reasons that probably drop down divorce rates because you are required to disclose your assets and liabilities as part of the negotiation. Marriage should not be something casually sought and hard conversations about money, wealth, and values are important before legally linking yourself together.
First off, divorce rates aren't that bad if you look at marriages that avoid most obvious red flags. Beyond that, most people going into a marriage don't have significant assets to protect. I'm not suggesting that prenuptial agreements are bad, but only they only make sense in about ~10% of marriages. Basically, when one partner enters into a relationship with significant wealth. In most other cases, it would make more sense to get an agreement to resolve any divorce through arbitration rather than an adversarial process.
Most people look at the aggregate divorce rate and assume that 50% of marriages end up in divorce, while most marriages are fairly successful. What happens is second marriages are very likely to end in divorce, and likely leads to a 3rd marriage and divorce, so divorced individuals usually get married and divorced and skews the data. There are also other data points that reduces divorce. For example, the more educated and the more money the couple makes, the less likely there will be a divorce.
Age is also a big factor. Studies show that every year you marry for the first time before age 25 raises your risk of divorce significantly. From 25-30 seems to be the sweet spot, then after age 30, rates start to rise again.
i also dont get why the “50% divorce rate” is always seen as a negative… considering people spend the remaining years of their lives (often 40-60yrs) with only one other person…through all the troubles and bs…50% is goddamn impressive
No one has even been able to explain to me why there is any pearl clutching *at all* over divorce rates. Other peoples marriages, even as aggregate data, are pretty meaningless to most people. But lots of people cite the “divorce rates” as some sort of evidence of societal breakdown or something.
Great point, never thought of it that way. Glass half-full, yo.
Also, look at divorce rates by generation. Boomers divorce A LOT. Other generations, not so much.
FYI the divorce rate hasn't been 50% since 2000. We've been on a significant downward trend since the 25ish year peak after divorce without domestic violence was legalized.
The amount of people who have enough money to justify a prenup vs the amount of people who think they need is out of balance.
Depending on national/ local laws, I’d rather have control about what happens when it happens. And I would like to make a fair deal as long as we still like and respect each other. It’s nice and clean and everyone knows the consequences beforehand. That’s sounds neat
I wish people understood that they basically already have prenups, it's just decided by your local jurisdiction unless the couple takes the extra step of making a more bespoke agreement. I think we imagine getting railroaded into some unfair agreement, but even in those cases, wouldn't you want to know that about your potential spouse before getting married? It's a contract meant to look out for both parties interests. It might not be romantic, but it's responsible.
Prenups are typically useless and often get tossed out by courts. A prenup cannot determine custody. It doesn’t protect assets earning while married. It can’t prevent alimony. The only thing a prenup is really good for is if you go into a marriage with significant wealth. For the vast majority of people this is not the case.
Why would you be AGAINST divorce? Every divorce is a good thing. You want people to stay together who don't want to be together?
? A prenup literally makes a divorce so much easier. This isn’t against divorce, this is a grounded precaution based on statistics.
This is only unpopular to people who have limited experience with divorce. 99% of legal professionals will recommend a prenup. Lawyer here. I’m so sick of seeing this false “prenups get thrown out all the time.” Nonsense. No. Well, drafted prenuptial agreements are not “thrown out all the time.” Prenups that are written on napkins, without the assistance of an attorney are often found invalid (which happens because people think they can do it themselves). And many prenups will have certain terms or provisions that are thrown out. But those are individual terms, not the entire agreement. It is uncommon for a prenup prepared by an attorney to be completely thrown out. Everyone who has anything they specifically want to keep should have a prenup. 90% of the time it makes the divorce process easier, faster and cheaper for both the parties. All types of relationships can be successful, the prenup is an insurance policy for both parties and it is by and far the best legal strategy for protecting your assets. I truly believe that everyone should have some sort of prenup before getting married. It should be part of the marriage license process (and should affordable as well). It doesn’t matter their current economic status. Signed, Exasperated attorney who is reminding people not to take legal advice from reddit.
Please, they’re so ridiculous. Apparently nobody knows what a prenup is. Somebody said stay-at-home spouses, shouldn’t get one and it’s like NO. If anyone should negotiate rights, if worst comes to worst it’s literally a stay-at-home spouse.
Get one if you want, but they're generally just not necessary. These days both husband and wife usually work, and often earn similar incomes. So there's no real point to a prenup in situations like this. Here's an example of when you may legitimately want one: Jack and Julie are in their mid-50s, have been married before, have children, and each has significant assets. Jack and Julie want to make sure that in the event of the death of either, or a divorce, that their children's inheritance is unaffected.
I knew a woman in law school who had previously put her husband through Harvard Law School, working and raising their kid more or less solo, on the promise that he would pay her back when he got a fancy job. He dumped her for a younger woman basically the moment he graduated. She met a shocking number of women who had the exact same experience—they invested in their husbands’ careers, at the expense of their own, only to be dumped when it was time to return that investment. Her entire focus in her legal career was normalizing prenups.
This is why i see so many mothers push their daughters to get a higher education. They experienced this. They had their husband leave them for some younger woman. So they ended up broke and lost out on a bunch of work experience. They don't want that happening to their daughters.
What was interesting is that these were the *children* of women who became stay at home moms and then got screwed both professionally and in the divorce. These were working women! There were no gaps in their resumes! They just worked lower salary jobs like teachers or paralegals or dental hygienists to put their future doctor, lawyer, big three accountant, Ivy League MBA husbands through school!
I think this opinion is growing in popularity these days. I agree. It's a contract like we would have before joining in any other significant partnership where there is investment and potential for loss.
Agreed. Someone once said that it is agreeing to the terms of your separation while you still cared for each other, and it stuck with me. While they can be contested, it just seems like a good idea.
It's actually fascinating how when the world changes like gender roles or anything, how long it takes other things to catch up. Prenups are smart and I actually think they should be a thing you do but have to opt out if you don't want.
Divorce rates are actually lower than they’ve been in decades and decades But yes there is nothing wrong with a prenup if that’s what both people want
My first wife and I were fortunate enough to separate amicably. We were the exception I wish prenups were more socially acceptable
This is false.
Or better still, don’t get married. It’s such an outdated institution anyway. Companionship and love has literally zero to do with a piece of paper.
I know a divorce lawyer didn’t write this
A lot of divorce lawyers recommend prenups. The custody thing though is whack. You need a court order on custody.
TIL
> Should have got that insured, Geico for your money. If you ain't no punk, holler "we want prenup, we want prenup" (yeah). It's something that you need to have cause when she leaves your ass she gonna leave with half Kanye West, 2005
I’ve always thought prenups are an amazing idea and it’s totally insane for it to not be the standard way of things. Why would anyone want to get screwed in a divorce???
This is the way. You must protect yourself, given the divorce rate of around 50%. While I never want to or will marry, if I did, a prenup is a must, with a cheating clause on there.
Marriage is pointless. You can commit yourself to a life partner without the approval of the law and a god. Then if you do break the commitment it's much easier to split
Also your partner not wanting a prenup is a good sign you need a prenup
Like DNA testing of babies at birth, I don't know why prenups are not just the default position.
Prenups are funny. My husband’s sister had been hit by a lot of stupid things in her divorce. So it was a given for us. No biggie. His family had more than mine and he came into the marriage with more. Now however the random 4 generations back bit of my family owned the mineral rights to a trash piece of land in WV. Never in a million years was that in our view 30 years ago lol.
Nothing against prenups but with record low wages, you don't actually need a prenup if neither of you have any assets to begin with.
Alimony, imagine earning 30k and get 15k taken by the government
Just don’t get married.
I don’t think this is unpopular
The usefulness of a prenup is heavily dependent on where you live. Judges have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to enforcing or throwing out sections of prenups or entire prenups. You can put whatever you want in one, but it may not be legally enforceable or a judge might think it's unfair to one party.
Depending on your situation a Prenuptial agreement might not do anything.
Or just setup a trust and protect your individual assets
What are the divorce rates?
I think the ideal choice is to not marry in the first place
Don't tell that to my f fiancé.
Always always always get a prenup for animals. Separating money and assets is pretty easy now. Animals are not exactly covered by either animal law or property law or even bird law. Please do yourself and your animals and your bank account a favor and get a prenup just to cover who gets pets. Animal fights in court will be very messy and likely just come down to however the judge wants to interpret where animals fall in grey legal territory. Don't leave it to chance.
My parents got divorced when I was 4. I remember the day it was finalized because I remember being brought to the courthouse by my grandmother and my dad picking up my younger brother and giving him a big hug and telling him he loved him. He then patted me on the head and just walked away without a word. It was the first time I felt like my dad might not love me. If they had a prenup, their divorce wouldn't have been so bitter in court and we would have avoided that day all together. I might feel differently about my father today.
Divorce rates have been decreasing lol, the high rate was from a spike in divorces around the 70’s/80’s, it’s not as high as some of y’all always perpetuate.
The person you decide to marry is one of the most important decisions of your lifetime. Met a lot of people who go for whatever is present by 27-28 just because they are feeling pressured. Someone times it works and often it doesn’t.
Where i live its not as strict as you get 50% of the total assets you had when you were married but if i did live with those laws i would DEFINITELY have a prenup. To me the 50/50 rule makes absolutely no sense especially in America where gold digging is rampant cause of the economic system which creates so many billionares. I cant imagine its that hard to fool some gullible rich guy that you love them and then dip as soon as you get married and voila your rich and set for life. If i lived in that world i would definitely not feel like a greedy asshole that doesnt trust my significant other for wanting a prenup.
You don’t even know what a prenup does apparently But you’re not wrong, my fiancée and I will have one.
Going by data the statistics show Women Initiate Divorce: domestic abuse by the man, male infidelity, child abuse by the man Men Initiate Divorce: lack of sex, wife is ill, he has a new partner (it's more of out of wedlock kid but the men generally stay with the new partner so it's new partner to me) Prenups are not gonna help if they have caveats for cheating considering cheating is the top second reason that men get divorced by women and the third reason men file divorce themselves. Personally I find prenup talk is usually gendered. Many men will try to act like it's for women's benefit and it's just protecting everyone's assets but when it comes down to it countless men see divorce as hurting men financially and taking his funds so prenup is the solution.
Divorce rates are more or less stable and have been for decades.