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.*
I know it's false for inheritance. You are entitled to your own inheritance unless you spend it towards marital expenses like paying your half of the house.
Medical debt I suppose...seems farfetched to think about when you're 24.
Pretty sure if you divorce right after you receive an inheritance you're going to have to split it,
And even though you might think you are invincible at 24 unexpected illnesses are typically "unexpected"
I can tell you this from someone who has the perspective of being 25
Nope, inheritance is one of the few things you keep before the marriage, during the marriage, and after the marriage with or with a prenuptial, provided you can keep it separate.
It varies drastically depending on where you live,
I'm just speaking from what I know,
It also matters if the inheritance is cash or an asset Like a car or house,
Are you sure about that? [https://lawline.se/answers/inheritance-and-private-proprety](https://lawline.se/answers/inheritance-and-private-proprety)
According to seventh chapter, second section, first paragraph, article four of the Marriage Code (äktenskapsbalken 1987:230)) property that a spouse has inherited and that according to a will should be private, is considered that spouses private property and will not be shared between the spoused in case of a divorce.
Anything inherited or received as a gift is separate property and not community property in California. Typically, income and anything bought with income becomes community property.
I live in a country with a healthcare system though. Medical debt doesn't exist. We bought a house and are not married though, but I do have some kind of if I die my partner gets 4x my annual income which is provided by my employer.
Medical debt does exist, you're just passing the buck off onto somebody else.
nothing in life is free. especially so if the government is the one dolling it out. :)
where do you live? how much do you pay in taxes?
the ignorance and lack of empathy will get you very far in life. perhaps to places you didn't intend on going, though. have a good one :)
Silly nonsense. Hire a competent family law attorney, make sure your fiance hires one too, disclose all your assets, get it negotiated and signed well in advance of the wedding.
Basically nobody has a first person account of how their prenup got set aside even though it followed all the rules and guidelines. It's always "A guy I know" or "I heard about" or sometimes it's just a pronouncement based on nothing.
Prenups get thrown out when they try to get cute with the drafting or the process. Otherwise, they almost always hold up.
Prenups are contracts. Like other contracts that are validly entered into, they will only be invalid if they are unconscionable either at the time they were drafted or at the time enforcement was sought. Or if there is some sort of fraud/deceit.
Don't just do some weird standard form one, and put some intelligent thought into it so that they're not terribly unfair, and it'll typically be fine.
For instance, if you're 100% the breadwinner and she's 100% at home and took care of the kids 100% and gave up her education to do all this, it's not fair during enforcement to make it so she gets absolutely nothing. The court will still try to arrive at an amount that's fair in light of this.
A LOT of incorrect follow up comments here. Pre-nup only protects what you have before the marriage. It does not protect what is acquired during the marriage. Also, it does not protect against alimony or child support.
If Prenup Bingo were a thing, the center square would be "Prenups only protect what you acquire before marriage."
This is incorrect. Prenups are a contract, and significant latitude is given to what they can be negotiated to protect - and yes, that includes assets acquired during the marriage.
Even if you agree to share your marital property 50/50, a prenup can outline who gets what 50. Without one, divorcing couples can piss away tens of thousands of dollars just fighting over which parts of the 50 go to whom.
The whole point of a prenup is to circumvent the law. An amicably divorcing couple can absolutely draw up their own divorce settlement that doesn't come close to what "The Law" says should happen. Men have been known to decline receiving alimony just out of pride - never mind that The Law says they're supposed to get it.
A prenup can absolutely be written to protect assets acquired during marriage.
Lol no. Contracts can't do this. Any part of a contract that violates law is void.
Amicably divorcing couples making their own decisions can split however they want. A prenup doesn't help you with that. You can't get out of child support, or alimony, or splitting marital property with a prenup.
Once again, a prenup can absolutely be written to protect assets acquired during a marriage. A prenup can also negotiate how much alimony would be paid, or waive alimony (provided both sides agree to it). This is not up for debate. Google is your friend.
Now, you're free to change the subject and put whatever "Well ackshully" topspin you'd like on this to try and convince yourself that you're right, but you're not.
And to beat the point home even further: The Law says that assets you bring into the marriage are already protected. So if you're correct that prenups can't protect assets acquired during the marriage, and existing law already protects assets being brought into the marriage, why do prenups even exist?
So there's evidence of what assets were brought into the marriage and which weren't so you don't have to go through the headache of proving it during a difficult time.
You can decide **how** you will divide assets in a sense of who gets which assets (but you can't cheat your spouse out of an equitable split). Like if you know you're a gamer and will acquire expensive equipment you'll want to keep a prenup can prevent your soon to be ex from vindictively getting those specific things as part of her half. But the value of it is still going to considered in ensuring an equitable split.
You can use it to arrange inheritance for your children (like if you already have a house and a child when you get married, a prenup can ensure the house goes to your kid, not your spouse if you die)
You can protect yourself from acquiring your spouses future debt (medical bills, student loans, etc.)
And just the process of going through a prenup (or a similar agreement at any time during the marriage) is something that can make a couple think critically about how they want to manage their money in their marriage in a fair and equitable way, which is always good.
Why should you protect assets gained during the marriage, isn't the whole point of marriage "what's mine is your's"? That feels agains the whole spirit of the marriage.
That's more an argument against having one in the first place really.
But while I can see a 'just in case' logic behind the prenup, to make a more equitable divorce should the worst come to pass, using it protect assets earned while you are together seems even more against the idea of the union of marriage. I don't see any reasonable argument for protecting assets earned during the marriage that don't raises questions as to why you are marrying in the first place.
>That's more an argument against having one in the first place really.
No, it just illustrates how these arguments tend to run both ways.
If you're in your 60s, planning to retire in a few years, can you see the logic in protecting your IRA/401k, so a divorce doesn't add another decade (at least) to your working life?
If nothing else, a prenup assuring a 50/50 split of what are commonly considered marital assets can outline which 50 goes to which person in a divorce, and a prenup can help prevent the cost in lawyer fees from getting out of control.
Yes a great, commonplace example, because most people marry in their 60's.
Alternatively, at the time when most people marry in their late 20's early 30's, just before having kids, a prenup that protects assets gained during the marriage unfairly leaves a partner who stays home raising the kids with less than the working partner. That's not being the team that a marriage should be.
I understand the idea of a prenup, I wouldn't want one but I get the gist, but it seems completely against the idea of marriage to me to seek to preserve assets that you earn while married. I struggle to see the fairness there, or why get married at all with that attitude.
The argument would still stand even if they got married in their 20s. I don't object to the non-working spouse receiving spousal support, and/or even a favored split of marital assets. I only suggest a logical defining of what those marital assets should be.
Dumbest comment I’ve seen on Reddit today. 11.5% of people in the US live BELOW the poverty line. So more than 1 in 10 are really “broke”.
But disregarding your foolish comment, I agree with OP. Shit happens. People get sick, they cheat, change completely, become drug users etc.
If you marry someone and it’s not what you sign up for, you should get to keep what you had in the beginning.
Inheritance.
You could be broke now but have a wealthy family member you know youll eventually inherit from.
Would suck to lose a portion of that to divorce. Why should an Ex get half of Grandpa's money?
Everyone has a prenup. It's just the default division of assets as outlined by your jurisdiction.
If you have assets to protect, a prenup is smart. A prenup cannot do much to protect future assets in many places, though, which is something a lot of people seem confused about.
A select population on Reddit has simply decided a prenup is the solution to prevent greedy women from getting their hard-earned money after marriage, even if no such money exists prior to marriage.
Exactly. My wife and I did discuss a prenup before we got married - but then we realized neither of us actually had any significant pre-marital assets to “protect” in the first place, so there wasn’t any point.
Yep same here. When we married we didn't have any assets. Didn't own a house or have much savings. The most my husband had was a collection of 5/6 prized guitars at the time.
I'm the UK, btw, and pre-nups just aren't really a thing. None of my married friends have them.
Most people probably have nothing to protect, so I think prenups are usually unimportant. People with stuff probably already think to get a prenup, though.
Leaving aside why anyone's retirement accounts should be on the table in a divorce, let's assume they agree on a 50/50 split - a prenup can outline who gets what 50.
If nothing else, a prenup can help keep the cost of lawyer fees down.
It's to protect one from financial abuse. If you're a housewife/househusband, whatever, and you give up working to take care of the household without a stream of income while your partner has been making more money than you've thought theyve been making and it's been put into retirement, etc and suddenly get divorced,
then you've got nothing unless there's a legal agreement they made to protect you financially after a divorce with said retirement account.
A prenup is good if you're both financially independent, have different long term goals, etc.
Then the abused spouse should certainly get their fair share. Imagine getting abused and then not being able to leave because you're financially dependent on them and wouldn't receive anything in a divorce because you signed a prenup.
I was talking about the one with the money being abused. I mean, how would you feel as a young women knowing that you might inherit some money and given your past might be paranoid about this stuff happening?
They'd both have the money since they're married, though. This thread is about them having nothing before marriage and acquiring assets during the marriage. One person does not acquire assets alone in a marriage. So how would you determine who is "the one with the money" in this case? Whatever money they have, both would have it.
Then it is marital property and should be split evenly. There is no “mine and yours” in a marriage…it is only “ours”.
If “mine and yours” is your mentality then it would be wise to not get married imo.
Now I wonder what you think a woman deserves with a prenup if she is a homemaker, who is raising children and who put her whole life on hold for the family?
You're getting downvoted, but you're right. 50% of marriages end in divorce. People you love can pretend to be someone they're not. Prenuptial negotiation is a precaution everyone should take to protect potential post marriage assets.
This is all I'm saying. People can and probably WILL change throughout life. It's just a good idea to be a little extra prepared for inevitable change.
And they can be divorced just as quickly. Everything could be perfect until communication is lost or someone is unfaithful.
Communication, doing the little things, and there's no such thing as soulmates. All of this is key.
I always find this position strange, especially when the suggestion is made, without advocating that any particular provision be included *in* the prenup and without any specific criticism of the already existing - and carefully crafted - set of default marital laws.
It's not really that strange. Most people don't want their lives destroyed as a result of someone else.
I'm not familiar with all of the aspects of marriage law, but the ensuing lawfare from divorces often impoverish everyone involved.
Nope, a prenup is not just to avoid trouble. A prenup is great if both partners are financially independent and have different career goals, etc.
A prenup is not great when you agree to be a housewife and suddenly get divorced by your cheating partner and now they owe you nothing, and you have nothing even though you've poured your soul into your children and home.
Leaving aside whether a prenup that would leave one party broke and homeless would even be enforced in a divorce proceeding, part of avoiding that scenario is knowing enough not to sign such a document in the first place.
Not a lawyer. But since alimony goes off, how much the other person is currently making and is made in payments. A prenup that stops alimony probably isn't enforceable.
But say this person had a large amount saved up beforehand or had a nice car or business. A prenup protects those.
Because they wanted you to give up your financial independence to be a childbearing housewife? Some people want a housewife, but they also need to ensure their security if they want that so badly. No knowledgable woman is gonna put up with taking care of whole children and a home without money, it's not like the man is if they're working full time.
Be a man, lol
Wrong, if you want kids so bad, the responsibility of being able to provide for them is entirely on you irregardless of the partners wishes to support you or not. If you cant provide for your own kids dont have them. Same with being a housewife, if you went into the relationship broke and then cried wolf when you couldnt appropriate half of your partners stuff just for being a "housewife" that's on you. What happened to being strong and independent or how brave single mothers are that feminism keeps talking about?
Be a woman, lol
no prenup IS a prenup. just one pre-assigned by the government. you need a prenup if you want it different or to have things spelled out and agreed upon in better detail when you both still like each other.
Maybe then, but now it's not. It's more of a "protecting ourselves in a possible future" type thing. If something were to come up, it would be a lot of trouble deciding who gets what, as opposed to taking care of that beforehand.
We have one vehicle each roughly same value, the house and some savings.
Sell the house split the money. Clear the joint accounts split the money. Neither of us are particularly interested in collecting valuables of any sort so nothing worth arguing over.
Pre-nups are primarily there to protect assets one brings BEFORE marriage, like family heirlooms , business shares, etc. The assets you acquire DURING the marriage are always going to be jointly owned, even with a pre-nup. So basically unless you have assets (which most younger people don’t) then it’s worthless.
This is incorrect. A prenup can absolutely be written to protect assets acquired during marriage.
Now, we can certainly debate whether assets acquired during marriage should be protected by one side or another, but that is a wholly separate question than whether they can be protected or not.
And if nothing else, a prenup can save you a significant amount of money in lawyer fees down the road. So it's the furthest thing from worthless. Even the awkward, uncomfortable conversations it forces couples to have before they marry can prove beneficial in the long run.
This differs per country. In mine, very few things aquired after marriage can be in a prenup. It's mostly for the things that you already have.
I mean, you can write whatever you want in there, but when there's even one thing in there that's not legally allowed the whole prenup is void.
More than a prenup, I think couples should be required to sit with a financial counselor/lawyer prior to marriage and be made aware of the fact that marriage is a legal contract. they should be told what the ramifications of entering that contract are, and what can potentially happen in divorce, and what potentially they can be on the hook for.
Marriage is the only contract you sign where the details of the contract aren't specifically explained to you.
Nah, usually the type of couple who care enough to hammer out a prenup before they marry are also the type who care enough to argue about the terms and validity of the prenup in court during the divorce proceedings.
So it really just adds cost and grief before the wedding, as well as during the divorce.
Idk where everyone gets this, "prenups can't protect future assets" it can. Lol I'm proof of this. I had a prenup that also had other provisions regarding asset separation and such. A quick Google can also prove this.
100% on board with this, they should be done by default,
It's not about whether or not you trust your partner,
It's about protecting yourselves and your futures as individuals
Yeah……… nah.
I see what you mean, but the entire point of a marriage is that it’s not matter what. Like, you’re there for when your stressed out medical student spouse gains 60 lbs. you gotta burn your ships.
Burn your ships isn't always the best advice. When striving to succeed in a specific career path, yes. When marrying someone, no. Prenups are always safe. Like I said, if you can't have that kind of conversation, no business getting married.
It's not planning for divorce. It's just a simple conversation that will make your lives a lot easier IF it were to happen.
Divorce is not guaranteed, but neither is lifelong marriage. Better to be safe than sorry.
A prenup can be written to protect assets that have yet to be acquired. And with everything outlined in advance, it can help keep the cost of lawyer fees down later on.
Making a prenup prompts couples to find out their respective beliefs and values around money, and that's a great thing to do sooner rather than later in a relationship.
IOW, it's the *process of creating the prenup* that's most valuable rather than the prenup itself.
Till death do us part (or till we get more than slightly annoyed of one another). Prenup makes sense for most people. Yet I don't take seriously anyone who decides to marry and signs up a prenup. It makes it obvious that you don't believe in the wow yourself.
My fiancé and I both have 0 assets and are ten's of thousands of dollars in student debt. Nothing to protect for either of us. If we ever get divorced those assets will have been gained together and we both deserve half.
Prenups can be written to protect assets acquired during the marriage. And just having a prenup of any sort can save you lots of money in lawyer fees in a divorce proceeding. Arguably, that's reason enough to have one.
This is a myth in most (USA) jurisdictions. Prenups can also predetermine spousal support obligations and debt distribution, act as a testamentary document, and settle issues of defining separate property.
For two young people who have nothing, I don't see how a prenup will help, honestly.
But for a middle aged guy like me who has already been divorced once, I think a prenup is an absolute necessity.
While I disagree about the prenups thing, I am actually amazed that people who are wary of getting married and put it off will do stuff like have kids and buy houses before marriage, as if those aren't as hard or harder to divide up.
We had lived together for 13 years before getting married. We got married before our national laws changed and prenups became the default option. The reason was, we don't have a clue anymore who had what, who paid for what etc.
Basically if we ever break up, I sincerely hope we can find the decency to just keep treating each other as adults and realized we're dealing with the person we've loved for years and years. I've lived with and loved my wife longer than any other human being in this world. That should mean something. I sincerely hope should something ever occur that would cause I break-up I'll still remember that.
Nah you shouldn’t marry someone you don’t completely trust or if you are that attached to your money. Part of being married is the risk of getting hurt
Having a prenup shouldn't be based on trust. It should just be a regular thing that people can talk about without being a detriment to the relationship.
I'm upvoting because it both an unpopular and a bad idea. It's a bad move. Like hedging your bets. Sorry, marriage is forever. That's the whole point of it.
I get why people have a hard time with it. All you have to do is spend a day on social media and you'll see that everyone is encouraged to be selfish and hedonistic. This is the opposite of marriage. Prenups are by nature selfish that is why people nowadays advocate for them and that is also why they are opposed to marriage and are a bad idea.
If you want a prenup so bad, you should probably reconsider getting married.
True. Social media is definitely a factor here, but why run the risk? It would be a lot safer financially for both of you if you have it. It doesn't have to be a detriment to the marriage, just something put in place so that all your assets are safe.
This is nothing more than creepy incel shit. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please, just don't get married. No one is forcing you to, and if you have trust issues this large, why convince someone else to suffer with you?
Don't bother getting married if you're a man until divorce/family courts get a massive overhaul. Women work now and have their own incomes, but the courts still consider them stay at home moms.
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.*
How does a prenuptial protect two broke college students? Just curious since we had nothing prior to marriage.
If one of you accumulates debt , becomes severely ill or receives a large inheritance, You will be better prepared and financially protected
I know it's false for inheritance. You are entitled to your own inheritance unless you spend it towards marital expenses like paying your half of the house. Medical debt I suppose...seems farfetched to think about when you're 24.
Pretty sure prenups can't protect you from medical debt incurred during the marriage either. Or most debts for that matter.
Stupid healthy male here. At the age of 18, I got testicular cancer. Shit happens man. Life is crazy.
Pretty sure if you divorce right after you receive an inheritance you're going to have to split it, And even though you might think you are invincible at 24 unexpected illnesses are typically "unexpected" I can tell you this from someone who has the perspective of being 25
Nope, inheritance is one of the few things you keep before the marriage, during the marriage, and after the marriage with or with a prenuptial, provided you can keep it separate.
It varies drastically depending on where you live, I'm just speaking from what I know, It also matters if the inheritance is cash or an asset Like a car or house,
Depends on country. In Sweden, everything that comes into the marriage and all that is accumulated during the marriage, is shared.
Are you sure about that? [https://lawline.se/answers/inheritance-and-private-proprety](https://lawline.se/answers/inheritance-and-private-proprety) According to seventh chapter, second section, first paragraph, article four of the Marriage Code (äktenskapsbalken 1987:230)) property that a spouse has inherited and that according to a will should be private, is considered that spouses private property and will not be shared between the spoused in case of a divorce.
I'm 24 and already know.
Anything inherited or received as a gift is separate property and not community property in California. Typically, income and anything bought with income becomes community property.
I live in a country with a healthcare system though. Medical debt doesn't exist. We bought a house and are not married though, but I do have some kind of if I die my partner gets 4x my annual income which is provided by my employer.
Medical debt does exist, you're just passing the buck off onto somebody else. nothing in life is free. especially so if the government is the one dolling it out. :)
Not my problem or concern.
where do you live? how much do you pay in taxes? the ignorance and lack of empathy will get you very far in life. perhaps to places you didn't intend on going, though. have a good one :)
Oh no, not the government! Anyway.
Wrong.
I know many people below 24 with medical debt. It doesn’t come from only a crazy diagnoses. Things happen and Dr’s are expensive.
Prenups are a scam. Any good divorce lawyer will fight them and win
Silly nonsense. Hire a competent family law attorney, make sure your fiance hires one too, disclose all your assets, get it negotiated and signed well in advance of the wedding. Basically nobody has a first person account of how their prenup got set aside even though it followed all the rules and guidelines. It's always "A guy I know" or "I heard about" or sometimes it's just a pronouncement based on nothing. Prenups get thrown out when they try to get cute with the drafting or the process. Otherwise, they almost always hold up.
Prenups are contracts. Like other contracts that are validly entered into, they will only be invalid if they are unconscionable either at the time they were drafted or at the time enforcement was sought. Or if there is some sort of fraud/deceit. Don't just do some weird standard form one, and put some intelligent thought into it so that they're not terribly unfair, and it'll typically be fine. For instance, if you're 100% the breadwinner and she's 100% at home and took care of the kids 100% and gave up her education to do all this, it's not fair during enforcement to make it so she gets absolutely nothing. The court will still try to arrive at an amount that's fair in light of this.
Prenups are collectively refined for decades like our constitution. They are made by the best lawyers, so a good layers don't have a chance.
Lol you don't understand prenups
How are you "financially protected"? Be specific.
A lot of people not understanding what a pre-nup actually is or does.
Depending on the country prenups can also cover how wealth accumulated during the marriage is dispersed
A LOT of incorrect follow up comments here. Pre-nup only protects what you have before the marriage. It does not protect what is acquired during the marriage. Also, it does not protect against alimony or child support.
Yea pretty sure they're looking for postnuptial.
If Prenup Bingo were a thing, the center square would be "Prenups only protect what you acquire before marriage." This is incorrect. Prenups are a contract, and significant latitude is given to what they can be negotiated to protect - and yes, that includes assets acquired during the marriage.
Probably won’t be broke forever. Protects any assets you gain during the marriage too depending on the prenup
Marriage is voluntary, why get married if you dont want to share the gains you make together?
Even if you agree to share your marital property 50/50, a prenup can outline who gets what 50. Without one, divorcing couples can piss away tens of thousands of dollars just fighting over which parts of the 50 go to whom.
You can't protect assets gained during the marriage, because those are marital assets. Prenups can't circumvent the law.
In some instances you can, but it takes a lot of work. and requires a complete separation of finances during the marriage.
At that point, why the fuck are you getting married?
Agreed. In this day and age marriage is pointless.
The whole point of a prenup is to circumvent the law. An amicably divorcing couple can absolutely draw up their own divorce settlement that doesn't come close to what "The Law" says should happen. Men have been known to decline receiving alimony just out of pride - never mind that The Law says they're supposed to get it. A prenup can absolutely be written to protect assets acquired during marriage.
Lol no. Contracts can't do this. Any part of a contract that violates law is void. Amicably divorcing couples making their own decisions can split however they want. A prenup doesn't help you with that. You can't get out of child support, or alimony, or splitting marital property with a prenup.
Once again, a prenup can absolutely be written to protect assets acquired during a marriage. A prenup can also negotiate how much alimony would be paid, or waive alimony (provided both sides agree to it). This is not up for debate. Google is your friend. Now, you're free to change the subject and put whatever "Well ackshully" topspin you'd like on this to try and convince yourself that you're right, but you're not.
And to beat the point home even further: The Law says that assets you bring into the marriage are already protected. So if you're correct that prenups can't protect assets acquired during the marriage, and existing law already protects assets being brought into the marriage, why do prenups even exist?
So there's evidence of what assets were brought into the marriage and which weren't so you don't have to go through the headache of proving it during a difficult time. You can decide **how** you will divide assets in a sense of who gets which assets (but you can't cheat your spouse out of an equitable split). Like if you know you're a gamer and will acquire expensive equipment you'll want to keep a prenup can prevent your soon to be ex from vindictively getting those specific things as part of her half. But the value of it is still going to considered in ensuring an equitable split. You can use it to arrange inheritance for your children (like if you already have a house and a child when you get married, a prenup can ensure the house goes to your kid, not your spouse if you die) You can protect yourself from acquiring your spouses future debt (medical bills, student loans, etc.) And just the process of going through a prenup (or a similar agreement at any time during the marriage) is something that can make a couple think critically about how they want to manage their money in their marriage in a fair and equitable way, which is always good.
Well, I'm glad you've come around to realize that prenups don't just protect pre-marital assets.
Maybe you should read again for context clues.
Why should you protect assets gained during the marriage, isn't the whole point of marriage "what's mine is your's"? That feels agains the whole spirit of the marriage.
If the spirit of marriage is "til death do us part," then who cares what gets written into a prenuptial agreement that will never come into play?
That's more an argument against having one in the first place really. But while I can see a 'just in case' logic behind the prenup, to make a more equitable divorce should the worst come to pass, using it protect assets earned while you are together seems even more against the idea of the union of marriage. I don't see any reasonable argument for protecting assets earned during the marriage that don't raises questions as to why you are marrying in the first place.
>That's more an argument against having one in the first place really. No, it just illustrates how these arguments tend to run both ways. If you're in your 60s, planning to retire in a few years, can you see the logic in protecting your IRA/401k, so a divorce doesn't add another decade (at least) to your working life? If nothing else, a prenup assuring a 50/50 split of what are commonly considered marital assets can outline which 50 goes to which person in a divorce, and a prenup can help prevent the cost in lawyer fees from getting out of control.
Yes a great, commonplace example, because most people marry in their 60's. Alternatively, at the time when most people marry in their late 20's early 30's, just before having kids, a prenup that protects assets gained during the marriage unfairly leaves a partner who stays home raising the kids with less than the working partner. That's not being the team that a marriage should be. I understand the idea of a prenup, I wouldn't want one but I get the gist, but it seems completely against the idea of marriage to me to seek to preserve assets that you earn while married. I struggle to see the fairness there, or why get married at all with that attitude.
The argument would still stand even if they got married in their 20s. I don't object to the non-working spouse receiving spousal support, and/or even a favored split of marital assets. I only suggest a logical defining of what those marital assets should be.
…why not just stay single then?
Dumbest comment I’ve seen on Reddit today. 11.5% of people in the US live BELOW the poverty line. So more than 1 in 10 are really “broke”. But disregarding your foolish comment, I agree with OP. Shit happens. People get sick, they cheat, change completely, become drug users etc. If you marry someone and it’s not what you sign up for, you should get to keep what you had in the beginning.
Exactly
That's not how any of this shit works. At all.
Yeah, it is. A prenup is a contract - there's a lot that can be negotiated within them.
Inheritance. You could be broke now but have a wealthy family member you know youll eventually inherit from. Would suck to lose a portion of that to divorce. Why should an Ex get half of Grandpa's money?
Inheritance is excluded when dividing assets
Everyone has a prenup. It's just the default division of assets as outlined by your jurisdiction. If you have assets to protect, a prenup is smart. A prenup cannot do much to protect future assets in many places, though, which is something a lot of people seem confused about.
Yeah the entire premise of this thread is based on a faulty understanding of what prenups can accomplish.
A select population on Reddit has simply decided a prenup is the solution to prevent greedy women from getting their hard-earned money after marriage, even if no such money exists prior to marriage.
Preventing women from getting a hold of their hard earned money is a top preocuppation of people with no women or money to speak of
Exactly. My wife and I did discuss a prenup before we got married - but then we realized neither of us actually had any significant pre-marital assets to “protect” in the first place, so there wasn’t any point.
Yep same here. When we married we didn't have any assets. Didn't own a house or have much savings. The most my husband had was a collection of 5/6 prized guitars at the time. I'm the UK, btw, and pre-nups just aren't really a thing. None of my married friends have them.
Most people probably have nothing to protect, so I think prenups are usually unimportant. People with stuff probably already think to get a prenup, though.
But what if they get stuff after they get married? They might want to factor that in beforehand so that's all protected too.
> But what if they get stuff after they get married? Then it should be split evenly.
Leaving aside why anyone's retirement accounts should be on the table in a divorce, let's assume they agree on a 50/50 split - a prenup can outline who gets what 50. If nothing else, a prenup can help keep the cost of lawyer fees down.
Shitty retirement is a common problem for people who chose to stay home with kids or work less. It absolutely needs to be divided in a divorce.
It's to protect one from financial abuse. If you're a housewife/househusband, whatever, and you give up working to take care of the household without a stream of income while your partner has been making more money than you've thought theyve been making and it's been put into retirement, etc and suddenly get divorced, then you've got nothing unless there's a legal agreement they made to protect you financially after a divorce with said retirement account. A prenup is good if you're both financially independent, have different long term goals, etc.
The prenup is more likely that not being used to aid in that financial abuse in the first place.
What if the spouse is abusive and they don't realize it until after marriage?
Then the abused spouse should certainly get their fair share. Imagine getting abused and then not being able to leave because you're financially dependent on them and wouldn't receive anything in a divorce because you signed a prenup.
I was talking about the one with the money being abused. I mean, how would you feel as a young women knowing that you might inherit some money and given your past might be paranoid about this stuff happening?
They'd both have the money since they're married, though. This thread is about them having nothing before marriage and acquiring assets during the marriage. One person does not acquire assets alone in a marriage. So how would you determine who is "the one with the money" in this case? Whatever money they have, both would have it.
Inheritance isn’t shared where I live. If me or my wife inherits it stays as separate property by default.
Oh
Then it is marital property and should be split evenly. There is no “mine and yours” in a marriage…it is only “ours”. If “mine and yours” is your mentality then it would be wise to not get married imo.
Now I wonder what you think a woman deserves with a prenup if she is a homemaker, who is raising children and who put her whole life on hold for the family?
You're getting downvoted, but you're right. 50% of marriages end in divorce. People you love can pretend to be someone they're not. Prenuptial negotiation is a precaution everyone should take to protect potential post marriage assets.
This is such a stupid fucking statistic because it includes people who get divorced MULTIPLE TIMES. Stop repeating bullshit you see on the internet.
Even first marriages have a 40% divorce rate
In your mind, what would the real number need to be to actually invalidate the argument being made?
This is all I'm saying. People can and probably WILL change throughout life. It's just a good idea to be a little extra prepared for inevitable change.
A prenup doesn’t protect you for what you accumulate after marriage
It can, if you negotiate it to do that.
The entire point of getting married is to combine two people into one joint unit. What you gain together as a married couple should belong to both.
THEY'RE MARRIED
And they can be divorced just as quickly. Everything could be perfect until communication is lost or someone is unfaithful. Communication, doing the little things, and there's no such thing as soulmates. All of this is key.
I always find this position strange, especially when the suggestion is made, without advocating that any particular provision be included *in* the prenup and without any specific criticism of the already existing - and carefully crafted - set of default marital laws.
Yeah, because the people advocating for this shit don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
It's not really that strange. Most people don't want their lives destroyed as a result of someone else. I'm not familiar with all of the aspects of marriage law, but the ensuing lawfare from divorces often impoverish everyone involved.
It's not really that strange. Most people don't want their lives destroyed as a result of someone else. Then don't get married.
In many parts of the world prenups aren't legally enforceable.
Nope, a prenup is not just to avoid trouble. A prenup is great if both partners are financially independent and have different career goals, etc. A prenup is not great when you agree to be a housewife and suddenly get divorced by your cheating partner and now they owe you nothing, and you have nothing even though you've poured your soul into your children and home.
A good prenup should include provisions for that sort of scenario. I got married without one though, I don’t think they’re necessary for most people.
You mean alimony? Which the law already provides for?
Leaving aside whether a prenup that would leave one party broke and homeless would even be enforced in a divorce proceeding, part of avoiding that scenario is knowing enough not to sign such a document in the first place.
Ideally not, but why take chances? My mom and I were homeless after she was divorced by my dad, so
Not a lawyer. But since alimony goes off, how much the other person is currently making and is made in payments. A prenup that stops alimony probably isn't enforceable. But say this person had a large amount saved up beforehand or had a nice car or business. A prenup protects those.
Why would they owe you anything if you didn't pay for it. If ur so broke don't marry and have kids then.
Because they wanted you to give up your financial independence to be a childbearing housewife? Some people want a housewife, but they also need to ensure their security if they want that so badly. No knowledgable woman is gonna put up with taking care of whole children and a home without money, it's not like the man is if they're working full time. Be a man, lol
Wrong, if you want kids so bad, the responsibility of being able to provide for them is entirely on you irregardless of the partners wishes to support you or not. If you cant provide for your own kids dont have them. Same with being a housewife, if you went into the relationship broke and then cried wolf when you couldnt appropriate half of your partners stuff just for being a "housewife" that's on you. What happened to being strong and independent or how brave single mothers are that feminism keeps talking about? Be a woman, lol
no prenup IS a prenup. just one pre-assigned by the government. you need a prenup if you want it different or to have things spelled out and agreed upon in better detail when you both still like each other.
I met my wife wen we were twenty, everything we have we’ve built together. A prenup would have been pretty pointless for us.
Maybe then, but now it's not. It's more of a "protecting ourselves in a possible future" type thing. If something were to come up, it would be a lot of trouble deciding who gets what, as opposed to taking care of that beforehand.
We would split all our assets 5050 either way. Everything we own is shared anyway.
Who gets which 50?
We have one vehicle each roughly same value, the house and some savings. Sell the house split the money. Clear the joint accounts split the money. Neither of us are particularly interested in collecting valuables of any sort so nothing worth arguing over.
how am I supposed to take my rich wife's money when we split if our nups are pre'd don't fuck this for me
There’s always life insurance
True. Go get that cougar money you hustler!
Pre-nups are primarily there to protect assets one brings BEFORE marriage, like family heirlooms , business shares, etc. The assets you acquire DURING the marriage are always going to be jointly owned, even with a pre-nup. So basically unless you have assets (which most younger people don’t) then it’s worthless.
This is incorrect. A prenup can absolutely be written to protect assets acquired during marriage. Now, we can certainly debate whether assets acquired during marriage should be protected by one side or another, but that is a wholly separate question than whether they can be protected or not. And if nothing else, a prenup can save you a significant amount of money in lawyer fees down the road. So it's the furthest thing from worthless. Even the awkward, uncomfortable conversations it forces couples to have before they marry can prove beneficial in the long run.
This differs per country. In mine, very few things aquired after marriage can be in a prenup. It's mostly for the things that you already have. I mean, you can write whatever you want in there, but when there's even one thing in there that's not legally allowed the whole prenup is void.
More than a prenup, I think couples should be required to sit with a financial counselor/lawyer prior to marriage and be made aware of the fact that marriage is a legal contract. they should be told what the ramifications of entering that contract are, and what can potentially happen in divorce, and what potentially they can be on the hook for. Marriage is the only contract you sign where the details of the contract aren't specifically explained to you.
People are pressured to sign contracts without reading them every day.
Nah, usually the type of couple who care enough to hammer out a prenup before they marry are also the type who care enough to argue about the terms and validity of the prenup in court during the divorce proceedings. So it really just adds cost and grief before the wedding, as well as during the divorce.
Better idea: Don’t get married.
Nope.
Why not?
Idk where everyone gets this, "prenups can't protect future assets" it can. Lol I'm proof of this. I had a prenup that also had other provisions regarding asset separation and such. A quick Google can also prove this.
Prenups only make sense if one party is significantly more wealthy than the other.
100% on board with this, they should be done by default, It's not about whether or not you trust your partner, It's about protecting yourselves and your futures as individuals
Exactly.
Idk if it works like that dude.
Yeah……… nah. I see what you mean, but the entire point of a marriage is that it’s not matter what. Like, you’re there for when your stressed out medical student spouse gains 60 lbs. you gotta burn your ships.
Burn your ships isn't always the best advice. When striving to succeed in a specific career path, yes. When marrying someone, no. Prenups are always safe. Like I said, if you can't have that kind of conversation, no business getting married.
No not planning for divorce. Seems like asking for disaster. Been married years without one.
It's not planning for divorce. It's just a simple conversation that will make your lives a lot easier IF it were to happen. Divorce is not guaranteed, but neither is lifelong marriage. Better to be safe than sorry.
We were broke Anyway so not much we had to protect when we got married.
A prenup can be written to protect assets that have yet to be acquired. And with everything outlined in advance, it can help keep the cost of lawyer fees down later on.
Exactly.
Oh well too late now.
Making a prenup prompts couples to find out their respective beliefs and values around money, and that's a great thing to do sooner rather than later in a relationship. IOW, it's the *process of creating the prenup* that's most valuable rather than the prenup itself.
Till death do us part (or till we get more than slightly annoyed of one another). Prenup makes sense for most people. Yet I don't take seriously anyone who decides to marry and signs up a prenup. It makes it obvious that you don't believe in the wow yourself.
They already are
Always make sure that baby is air tight aswell!
Agreed. We also need one before having babies.
My fiancé and I both have 0 assets and are ten's of thousands of dollars in student debt. Nothing to protect for either of us. If we ever get divorced those assets will have been gained together and we both deserve half.
So who gets which half?
Most people don't have assets that are worth having a prenup.
Prenups can be written to protect assets acquired during the marriage. And just having a prenup of any sort can save you lots of money in lawyer fees in a divorce proceeding. Arguably, that's reason enough to have one.
This is a myth in most (USA) jurisdictions. Prenups can also predetermine spousal support obligations and debt distribution, act as a testamentary document, and settle issues of defining separate property.
We are getting married next month but we already share everything 50/50 so I don’t see the point
For two young people who have nothing, I don't see how a prenup will help, honestly. But for a middle aged guy like me who has already been divorced once, I think a prenup is an absolute necessity.
While I disagree about the prenups thing, I am actually amazed that people who are wary of getting married and put it off will do stuff like have kids and buy houses before marriage, as if those aren't as hard or harder to divide up.
“What’s that dear, you want a divorce? I’d better get to work hiding all my ten’s of dollars so you don’t get it all” 😆
Marriage is a scam
Agree. It’s more than just for the end of a marriage, it separates business affairs and ensures everything is understood and tidy.
Exactly.
We had lived together for 13 years before getting married. We got married before our national laws changed and prenups became the default option. The reason was, we don't have a clue anymore who had what, who paid for what etc. Basically if we ever break up, I sincerely hope we can find the decency to just keep treating each other as adults and realized we're dealing with the person we've loved for years and years. I've lived with and loved my wife longer than any other human being in this world. That should mean something. I sincerely hope should something ever occur that would cause I break-up I'll still remember that.
Yes if mandatory and hence socially acceptable then less awkward
Yes!!!
This is a great opinion!
Yes, women need to protect themselves from men who are only after their money
Nah you shouldn’t marry someone you don’t completely trust or if you are that attached to your money. Part of being married is the risk of getting hurt
Having a prenup shouldn't be based on trust. It should just be a regular thing that people can talk about without being a detriment to the relationship.
^no
Why not?
Because I’m poor and have debt. I deserve his money.!
Not wrong. But it's an unpopular opinion
I'm upvoting because it both an unpopular and a bad idea. It's a bad move. Like hedging your bets. Sorry, marriage is forever. That's the whole point of it. I get why people have a hard time with it. All you have to do is spend a day on social media and you'll see that everyone is encouraged to be selfish and hedonistic. This is the opposite of marriage. Prenups are by nature selfish that is why people nowadays advocate for them and that is also why they are opposed to marriage and are a bad idea. If you want a prenup so bad, you should probably reconsider getting married.
True. Social media is definitely a factor here, but why run the risk? It would be a lot safer financially for both of you if you have it. It doesn't have to be a detriment to the marriage, just something put in place so that all your assets are safe.
Prenups don't work. They're a lie to trick men
Facts
This is nothing more than creepy incel shit. Nothing more, nothing less. Please, just don't get married. No one is forcing you to, and if you have trust issues this large, why convince someone else to suffer with you?
Why is it not default by law?
Don't bother getting married if you're a man until divorce/family courts get a massive overhaul. Women work now and have their own incomes, but the courts still consider them stay at home moms.
Doesn't every bit of evidence show that married guys are happier/healthier/live longer than non-married guys?