Re: POST-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS

qvcaddition · ‎03-10-2010

Depending on assets, second marriages should have pre nuptials. THANK GOD I DID. WAS IN MY 50,S and would have been left homeless. Was on advice of his attorney. Love is blind d, but not Stupid.

Mrsq2022 · ‎03-10-2010

@Ms X wrote:
@febe1 wrote:
I think for young, first-time marrieds, with approx. bringing like most young people the same amount to the marriage, it is unnecessary.
By the time you've experienced life and are up in age and have accumulated a wealth, I think a pre-nup is necessary. Especially when you have the wealth and children you would like to inherit.
My brother, a Senior, lost his wife and married a widow who was l4 years younger than he. They both agreed and both wanted a pre-nup, they would share from marriage forward and before wealth would be left to their children.
Just recently, they have separated and are in the process of selling home and dividing shared wealth. They lasted about seven years. Anyone with accumulated wealth and advanced age would be foolish to not do so, in my opinion.
You share what you gain together. No one should mind that. And it shows nothing but adult realism. Until death? Maybe 50 years ago....
I would never sign a prenup that gave me nothing. I certainly understand the need to take care of children and others, but the notion that a woman should marry a man who presents her with a document that says she gets only what they "gain together" even if that's little to nothing (no longer working, investments not doing well?) is a complete nonstarter. I would tell him where to put his prenup.

And this is exactly the reason that so many men NEED a prenup. Why should anyone be entitled to any wealth that they had nothing to do with? That was earned or inherited before you came into the picture?

KarenQVC · ‎05-13-2010

I would find out how YOU would benefit, OP. Here is an example, I guess---your husband gambles away all his $. Then you have to pay him to get a divorce. You lose.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Ms X wrote:
@febe1 wrote:
I think for young, first-time marrieds, with approx. bringing like most young people the same amount to the marriage, it is unnecessary.
By the time you've experienced life and are up in age and have accumulated a wealth, I think a pre-nup is necessary. Especially when you have the wealth and children you would like to inherit.
My brother, a Senior, lost his wife and married a widow who was l4 years younger than he. They both agreed and both wanted a pre-nup, they would share from marriage forward and before wealth would be left to their children.
Just recently, they have separated and are in the process of selling home and dividing shared wealth. They lasted about seven years. Anyone with accumulated wealth and advanced age would be foolish to not do so, in my opinion.
You share what you gain together. No one should mind that. And it shows nothing but adult realism. Until death? Maybe 50 years ago....
I would never sign a prenup that gave me nothing. I certainly understand the need to take care of children and others, but the notion that a woman should marry a man who presents her with a document that says she gets only what they "gain together" even if that's little to nothing (no longer working, investments not doing well?) is a complete nonstarter. I would tell him where to put his prenup.

@Ms X

That's not what a pre-nup is necessarily about!!

My best friend was engaged years ago and was asked to sign a pre-nup. She said she would be happy to sign any document that her attorney approved. As it turned out, the pre-nup was more generous than she would have been "legally" entitled to. It often tells you a lot about the person, and can be a very interesting exercise,

NYC Susan · ‎03-13-2010

@Beachy1 wrote:
How does your husband feel about it?

Attorneys make their money by drawing up these documents. Of course they're going to suggest them.

I find that to be really offensive. Attorneys advise their clients as to what they feel is best for their particular situation. Sure, there are some bad apples, but that's in every profession. Most attorneys absolutely do not suggest something simply because it will earn them money. They are officers of the court, and there are regulations that go along with that.

Ms X · ‎09-13-2012

@Mrsq2022 wrote:
@Ms X wrote:
@febe1 wrote:
I think for young, first-time marrieds, with approx. bringing like most young people the same amount to the marriage, it is unnecessary.
By the time you've experienced life and are up in age and have accumulated a wealth, I think a pre-nup is necessary. Especially when you have the wealth and children you would like to inherit.
My brother, a Senior, lost his wife and married a widow who was l4 years younger than he. They both agreed and both wanted a pre-nup, they would share from marriage forward and before wealth would be left to their children.
Just recently, they have separated and are in the process of selling home and dividing shared wealth. They lasted about seven years. Anyone with accumulated wealth and advanced age would be foolish to not do so, in my opinion.
You share what you gain together. No one should mind that. And it shows nothing but adult realism. Until death? Maybe 50 years ago....
I would never sign a prenup that gave me nothing. I certainly understand the need to take care of children and others, but the notion that a woman should marry a man who presents her with a document that says she gets only what they "gain together" even if that's little to nothing (no longer working, investments not doing well?) is a complete nonstarter. I would tell him where to put his prenup.
And this is exactly the reason that so many men NEED a prenup. Why should anyone be entitled to any wealth that they had nothing to do with? That was earned or inherited before you came into the picture?

If the husband wants the wife to quit her job, as many rich men do (at least according to what I read in news stories about such divorces), she should not end up destitute if they end up divorcing years later. Further, women who accompany their husbands to business occasions and are otherwise involved in his career are an asset. I wouldn't be an asset in those situations, but these wives are. After years of being involved in the man's career and not working to suit him, YES, the wife deserves a settlement of some kind.

So marriage is a partnership unless and until it breaks up and then the wife gets nothing? We could certainly cite examples of when a wife would deserve nothing, but in general that is not the case. Half of his assets for a shortish marriage is certainly too much. Hence, the prenup. Still, in most cases nothing isn't fair either. And, no, I would never sign a prenup that gave me nothing. It's not relevant to my life, but speaking theoretically I find that tells you a lot about a person, especially if he has a list of expectations as long as his arm. I can't cook, am a terrible hostess, and am not terribly agreeable, so I would never be involved in such a sitution. Those who do bring these qualities to a relationship do deserve a settlement.

Deanie · ‎03-09-2010

@qvcaddition wrote:
Depending on assets, second marriages should have pre nuptials. THANK GOD I DID. WAS IN MY 50,S and would have been left homeless. Was on advice of his attorney. Love is blind d, but not Stupid.

Well, I must respectfully disagree, Love is stupid also, five words: Paul Mccartney and Heather Mills.

Deanie · ‎03-09-2010

@Stormygirl wrote:
Six years after I divorced my first husband, I received a letter from the State of Texas with the intent of withholding my Income Tax refund for back support of a child I didn't know even existed. Thankfully I was divorced long before this love child came along and who the heck knew they could go after Ex Wives for the product of an affair from your ex-husband? Well they can if the Ex husband is a bum and not working so yea I would protect myself you betcha! By the time my lawyer got done with their social services, the both of them neither got a red cent from me. Want money go to work was my answer. Never again. LOL

I have never, in all my years, heard whereby the government can go after a non relative for money for a non biological nor legal offspring. If that were the case, what would be the sense of paternity suits of DNA testing? If they cant go after a man that is not a bio father, why in the world could they go after a woman with no legal standing? Good Grief, has the system gone toally mad?