<p>Yes, I am Ellebud. About two weeks ago someone used “'my” computer and put in a different user name. I tried, Mr. Ellebud tried to change the name back but we just couldn’t sub Ellebud back in and BevHills out. So…it’s me…for better or worse…now called BevHills (I wouldn’t have chosen BevHills)…ever.</p>
<p>I completely agree with mythreesons1144, and I like the wording of the response. It seems to me that this is both realistic and practical, and the part about it protecting both parties is how I feel. Signing, to me, shows more trust than not signing it. It doesn’t take away from a loving relationship on anyone’s part. And yes, it’s negotiated by both parties, in agreement. I’ve been told that each party should have his or her own attorney, at least to review it.</p>
<p>Pre-nups have always struck me as a good way to end a marriage but a lousy way to begin one. I don’t have any stats, but I bet marriages that start off with a pre-nup end in divorce at a rate significantly higher than those that don’t.</p>
<p>On the one hand a pre-nup is very “sensible.” On the other hand it’s starting off the marriage on a negative note, with failure in mind.</p>
<p>Coureur, you put into words how I felt, but couldn’t convey. That’s exactly how it seems to me.</p>
<p>The other issue is inheritance and the advisability of placing those assets in trust. One issue not yet raised here is that of liability. If inherited assets are kept separate in a trust, the document can be worded to protect those assets from legal pursuits involving the spouse. If either spouse is involved in a profession where law suits may occur, it would be foolish not to protect and secure the assets of the other person. A trust can be set up so the surviving spouse gets income from the assets without inheriting principal, nor could his/her subsequent (surviving) spouse have rights to the those assets. That makes a lot of sense to me. In many (if not most) states, inherited assets which are not co-mingled can be protected in separate trusts. Prenups can fill in the blanks otherwise. None of this has anything to do with commitment and marriage, but rather to protecting everyone involved.</p>
<p>When my dad remarried in his 60’s my grandmother put all her assets in a trust. She wanted to make sure her assets went to him and/or her grandchildren. She has since died. All her assets are still in the trust. My dad can spend it all if he wants however if there is anything left when he dies it goes to us(the grandkids) not his wife who is 15 years younger than him…</p>
<p>I think prenups are a good idea, especially if there are other people to consider like children.</p>
<p>I didn’t have a pre-nup, but if I had married one of my other boyfriends I might have.
I don’t think it is necessarily negative, it is just insurance.</p>
<p>Better to have it & not need it, than to need it & not have it.</p>
<p>I think they are a very good idea when there are other people to consider, especially children from previous relationships. And perhaps when there is a significant inheritance. </p>
<p>My MIL wanted me to sign a prenup. My husband-to-be had inherited some money from his grandmother, which his mother was holding in trust until he was 30, I think (we were 25 when we got married). As I recall, it was something like $30,000 – not a life-changing amount of money. She made a big stink about how I should sign a prenup so I could never get my hands on that money. I refused and was pretty insulted by the whole thing. I mean, if I wanted to marry for money, I think I could have done a little better. :)</p>
<p>Everyone seems to think that pre-nups are a great idea to keep Dad’s money out of the hands of his much younger second wife. But I think a lot of young women aren’t thinking things through clearly when they agree to prep-nups with draconian terms. </p>
<p>It is distressingly common for young women to give up their budding careers --and future earning potential – when marrying an older wealthier man who wants a wife who is available to travel or just generally available to make his life run smoothly. These women are often in big trouble 20 years down the line when they are facing a divorce with no marketable skills and an ill-considered prenup.</p>
<p>^^^^I don’t think I would ever have agreed to a prenup which called for me to give up my community property rights. In other words, I would expect to split proceeds which were earned during the marriage. I would have no problem signing away claims to moneys earned before the marriage or family trusts and inheritances, etc.</p>
<p>Given this is cc, can someone shed light on how college loans play into the equation sans pre-nup? Perhaps someone can expand on the earlier post mentioning liabilities, specifically college loans - do these remain tied to the student or do they become common liabilities?</p>
<p>We didn’t have a prenup. H had more assets but I had more cash when we married. We had no prenup. If one of dies and the other remarries, we’d want to see how best to give something to our kids and/or grand kids. Maybe we’d use trust or prenup. Haven’t studied it.</p>
<p>Best approach is to not think of the document as a pre-nip. Think of it as an agreement to agree that the state laws of inheritance and divorce do not make sense for you so you are rewriting them to suit yourselves.</p>
<p>^If someone doesn’t know me enough that I would do the right thing, whatever the laws allowed, then he’s the wrong guy. I don’t need a signed contract to act ethically.</p>
<p>A pre-nup is a bit like having a will rather than using the laws of intestacy. The state’s will that they have drafted for you if you don’t have one may not suit your needs or wishes.</p>
<p>I don’t have that, either. my stuff will go to my kids. What they do after that is fine with me–I trust them.</p>
<p>It’s just not me to think that contracts, for me, make more sense than good will among people who love and trust each other. If that’s not true for others, then fine for them.</p>
<p>Let me tell you a story. Several years ago my SIL at a rather young age died suddenly. She had no kids and no will. So her assets (basically the profit of the sale of her small house, and some life insurance) were divided among her siblings evenly. However, at the time, she was involved with a guy she most likely would have married. Her siblings, including my H, voluntarily gave him part of each of their modest inheritances, so instead of three equal parts (3 sibings), there were four. It didn’t take a contract to know that that was the right thing to do.</p>