I figure folks should hash things out as early in the relationship as possible so there aren’t sudden surprises after the wedding and later. Of course things continue to come up as people remain together, but the more things that the couple can consider and agree upon the fewer surprises the better.
When we did an “engaged encounter” which was required by the Catholic Church, so we could get married in the church, we were bemused and surprised that most of the young couples had not considered or really discussed finances and were just starting to think about these topics over the weekend. Of course, we were the oldsters in the group and many of the couples were 10 or more years younger than us.
Finances can really be a landmine for many people and relationships.
Before DIL even met S, she asked him a bunch of Qs—are you gainfully employed? Do you have debt? She didn’t want to waste her time. She also was careful to meet him in places where she knew a lot of the employees, just in case he was creepy or made her nervous. I like her—she’s very smart and CAREFUL!
I agree with @HImom’s post, that couples should have a conversation and hopefully a relative meeting of the minds about spending and saving and financial goals. The rabbi who married ShawSon and his wife had a series of structured conversations with them. One was about finances. He had been CEO of a company before selling it and entering into the rabbinate so was more able to talk with them than probably most. In addition to the cases that you highlight @RookieCollegeMom , a prenup seems relevant for younger folks if one of the participants is a company founder before meeting the spouse or if one party has or expects significant inheritance. I had not thought about debt, but clearly folks should discuss that and how it is going to be handled. Both of our kids generally agree with our model of a full partnership, but with ShawD they had to discuss how to deal with inheritance (which will more than likely come in the form of trusts) . ShawSon has no prenup, but I established a trust to hold his founders shares well before he met his wife (I thought his previous GF was posed a high probability of divorce) that actually was designed, in part. In the trust I established to hold his shares, his wife is a beneficiary of the trust as long as they are married.
Hmmm, have to look more closely at our trust. We have one set up. Our kids are primary successor beneficiaries after H & I die, 50\50. It is mostly to pass real estate.
D’s friend whose marriage was cancelled over a pre-nup was about 30 years old (boyfriend about the same). They were college grads, had jobs, had bought a house together. He did make more than her and it was his mother pushing for the pre-nup (this girl was not a gold digger but MIL thought she was). I don’t think either had debt or at least not a lot, even student loans were minimal.
But when that pre-nup spelled out the future finances, including how the children would be supported, I think it was the first time she understood that they weren’t even close to being on the same page. Until then, they bought what they wanted (cars, dogs, vacations, dinners) and while I think they knew how much the other person made, it didn’t matter because each had what was needed.
Financial counseling pre-marriage may ferret some of that out, but I believe there can be a lot of nodding and feeling confident that a pre-nup is not needed because everything is going great so no need to write it down.
Interesting. Sounds like the mil to be had a lot of influence over her son. That would be the issue for me. The fact that he listened to and supported what his mother wanted.
In the end, it was good that the bride figured out the family dynamics before the wedding and not after.
Just because the MIL pushed on the pre-nip, it didn’t mean the son disagreed. My daughters didn’t push back when I said it was prudent to have a pre-nap. I think it was a fair one or their spouse wouldn’t have agreed to it. D2’s MIL thought it was a good idea too.
I may have posted this here before, but same kind of thing should happen when a couple buys a house together before getting married. They need to document what will happens if they split up, while they are happy. We told my step-d and her now fiancé that they should really do that. We didn’t need to know what they agreed to, but wanted them to think about it.
My first thought was “sounds like she dodged a bullet”. lol But maybe the MIL recognized there were differences? Of course, then she could have just recommended counseling.
How do 2 people who don’t even have children yet figure this out? How do they possibly know what their financial situation or career situation or health situation or kids will be like will be in 5, 10, or 20 years from signing the pre-nup?
And, in general, nobody knows what the future holds - maybe I make a lot more money now but my industry tanks in 8 years, maybe spouse become physically unable to work, maybe I will the lottery, maybe spouse invents some amazing product.
Other than some massive wealth or owning a company or some special circumstance, etc - I just feel like you are splitting up your stuff before you even get married and it feels (to me) very “mine” and “yours” and don’t feel like that bodes well for the marriage.
Maybe people should spend more time learning good communication skills, being a good partner, how to grow together, etc. And talk about your finances, if you want kids, religion, etc before you get married.
Are you all in with this person or not? Sure, you should each protect yourself and each other (not just from divorce) by being equal partners - not only one person on the accounts and on the house, not only one person makes the decisions, etc.
The point is not to “figure it out”. The point is to make sure that you aren’t leaving it all up to a family court judge to decide what is fair, equitable, etc. IF the marriage doesn’t work out and IF there are minor children at the time of the divorce.
I have a friend- messy divorce, sounded like a reasonably “we can work this out” type of marriage until the husband got bit with some kind of survivalist/“they’re coming for us” insanity. She was still “putting in the work” as the kids like to say- until he brought a gun home, refused to have it secured because “I need it by the bed to protect my family”. OK- a gun in the nightstand with young kids in the house was a line she wasn’t prepared to cross.
She was NOT treated fairly by the court system. Neither in terms of her assets (pre-marital), income, alimony, child support. Don’t know if the family court judge was an NRA type, more politically aligned with the husband than the wife, who knows. But boy, if there was ever a case of someone who married in her late 30’s, was deeply in love with the guy and really and truly was committed to the marriage- this was it. None of us can predict the future. But protecting your future ability to support your “maybe” children if the marriage blows up seems like a prudent thing to do.
There really isn’t much you can put into a prenup to override a divorce order that includes children. If your prenup says 'husband will pay 100% for the kids, the court will say no. If it says the party making $300k will pay nothing, the court will say no. Sort of like agreeing that one party will take all the debt - well the credit card companies will not care and they’ll go after whoever is liable (the parties could go after each other, post termination).
Ron Perelman (a really rich guy) was married (many times) and had a daughter with one. Definitely had a prenup. Wife wanted a really high amount in child support and his argument was that it was a kid who ate mac and cheese, how much could a 3 year old need? Court said tough, kid gets to live like a child of a millionaire, and if she wants mac and cheese, she can eat it on top of the Mark which would cost more than $1 a box.
Point is you can’t bargain away the rights of a child, even if that child isn’t even born yet.
This MIL was very controlling. She had 3 sons and thought every woman in the world was after her (sons’) money. I pointed out that friend/bride would be protected by state law for children in a divorce, but the problem with the prenup also spelled out how they would contribute during the marriage (she would go back to work, she would pay for XXX% of costs during the marriage). I pointed out that things can change -her health, his health, the child could be special needs, etc. The prenup discussions pointed out how different their views of how they would live were.
A good thing IMO. Very hard on the bride at the time, very good in the long run.
Do my kids have prenups? No. Did they discuss these things before marriage? One did, one didn’t.
My friend was a partner in a small business with her dad.
My comment about insuring that you can support your maybe/if/someday children was not to suggest that a prenup is going to control alimony, child support. But it WOULD protect both the divorcing party (my friend) and her family of origin (her dad, mom, two siblings who were employees of the business but not part owners) from having their business controlled/made a mess of by a vengeful ex. And if one’s livelihood is dependent on assets one brings into the marriage (whether actively managed or not) it seems short-sighted not to have a prenup. Doesn’t mean the person with the assets is less committed to the relationship (as suggested above), intends to divorce, etc. But if the family business goes under, how is the mom supposed to support her kids? And with an ex who would rather “live off the land” than work a job with a paycheck, there are no wages to garnish for child support. No pay stub. No W2.
I just don’t get the anti-pre nup crowd. I didn’t have one (had no assets, just student loans) and none of my kids did either. But for lots of people they just make sense as a financial planning tool whether or not you need it down the road.
I heard of a case where the parents encouraged prenup mainly due to wanting protections on child’s assets received from grandparents (current portfolio and eventual inheritance). The child reluctantly agreed, and I think they were envisioning something simple like this- https://www.pandadoc.com/prenuptial-agreement-template/
Unfortunately the lawyers involved had more complicated prenup templates that outlined all sorts of scenarios / clauses for divorce and how to make sure that a stay-at-home parent (or lower wage earner) was treated fairly. I don’t know all the details, just that it added a lot of stress when there was already plenty of the normal stressful wedding prep.
Lawyers for both parties should be involved in any legal agreement.
Shouldn’t be one attorney but one for each.
There can be income disparity from child rearing. Doesn’t have to be stressful, needs to be fair.
I thought that inheritance as long as it’s not commingled is for the person inheriting not the spouse. Any future inheritance is that, in the future.
I have a relative who has been engaged in legal proceedings since the divorce was final 4 years ago. I think that judges and courts can be slanted towards either party. I’ll just say that agreeing to terms before the judge does is optimal.
It’s expensive, time consuming and one of the parties loves to involve the adult children which is very unfortunate.
The post I responded to said the prenup “…spelled out future finances, including how the children would be supported”. And I could not understand one could put in a prenup how the not-yet born children would be supported years from now.
I am not sure I understand your reply. Are you saying it should be in a prenup because you don’t want to leave it in the hands of a family court judge? What kind of things/directions should be in there?
I had no idea that pre-nups could be as complicated as what I am hearing in this thread. I just figured it was simple, I come into this marriage with a lot of my own or family money and want to protect it from a spouse should we divorce. I would never suggest my child make an agreement about future earnings or how potential children are treated or who is responsible for what finances during the marriage.
You can put it in there, but doesn’t mean it can be enforced. That’s what I was telling this bride (although it was a game of telephone, as I was telling my daughter and she was relaying, although not as legal advice). She did have a lawyer, but his lawyer drafted the agreement and then he didn’t want to make any changes. All this just proved they weren’t in agreement about anything.
You can agree to certain things, such as how much each person will put into 401k accounts and that those will be your own, but there is a when federal law kicks in (I think at 10 years?) and you can’t just change the beneficiary if you are married without spouse signing off. It’s going to be part of the divorce division.
You can agree to no alimony, but can’t agree to no child support. The court may award alimony anyway, especially if something changes such as a disability, huge change in earning power, etc.