Prenup - I prepare for marriage, he prepares for divorce

[m3rry]

Frankly, if I were him, I'd be nervous about you not wanting to sign a prenup.

Thanks you HDbadger, but as the woman being asked for marriage, I feel insulted and likely to turn down the proposal...

[Wakeup]

cutting off your nose to spite your face helps no one.

[Boisdevie]

Prenup is basically groundworks for divorce, is it not?

In the same way that having car insurance is groundworks for a car crash?

[m3rry]

For me, I would like to have some sort of a prenup that protects both of us. My assets and his. It would be an agreement between the two of us that would specifically outline everything.

thank you Starnique, but that sounds making love too complicated

[m3rry]

I can see both sides of this argument clearly.
For pre-nups: 20 years on, I now have children and substantial assets. If (heaven forbid) I became widowed and had to start again, I would most certainly do a pre-nup. Not so much for myself, but to protect the children's lifestyle and the assets which will be their's one day. Even in the case of my death, the lion's share of my assets would go to my children and not a new husband. I'd want this all on paper and agreed to.

Thank you basilandthyme, but we both are single and with no children. I really feel this prenup is unnecessary...

[m3rry]

I think smackie9 is dead on. It's easy for the person who has fewer assets and who makes less money to say, "Well, I gave a lot to the relationship, too, so I deserve at least half," even when that person didn't make nearly the same amount of money as his/her partner did and didn't have nearly as much to show for a lifetime of work.
And no, you don't get "paid" for washing dishes and doing laundry. Marriage is a legally binding contract. It is not your employer.

HDBadger, not all assets can be attributed to financially or even physically. The women's big role in the family is also to bear and nurture the child, which takes her off her career and puts her in a disadvantaged position in claiming the career back because of the lost years.

[surfhb2]

thank you Starnique, but that sounds making love too complicated

Oh yes! Because a marriage is not at all complicated (sarcasm) LOL!

[m3rry]

No, it's actually NOT, at least not in California. A marriage is considered a business contract, and each "partner" is entitled to half of what is earned during the time of marriage, NOT that which was privately held prior to marriage, which remains separate property.
m3rry - I wouldn't be happy about signing a prenup if you plan to have children with this man, unless it says something along the lines of what happens in California, which I think is fair to all parties. You shouldn't sign something that might have negative long-term effects on your future kids.

Merci Vashti, I think the default marriage regime here in France is the same as there in Cali. I appreciate your input on this, thank you very much ♥

[surfhb2]

Well it looks like another OP is going to go against the advice of everyone in the thread. I think youve made up your mind. Good luck!!

Why not find a guy who has no assets or money? Or will that not work for you?

[m3rry]

Sign it. If you had anything to lose, wouldn't you want to protect yourself?
And remember- it will never be used unless you divorce. So, if you're planning on not divorcing, why are you worrying about it?

Thank you Rowen... The biggest for me to lose is our marriage, and our family intact. If I sign it, it's like signing to a leeway that this might happen and I do not share this value so I'm contemplating now of just going away and maybe I'll have another shot of marriage with a man who shares more my values...

[HDBadger]

HDBadger, not all assets can be attributed to financially or even physically. The women's big role in the family is also to bear and nurture the child, which takes her off her career and puts her in a disadvantaged position in claiming the career back because of the lost years.

In the eyes of the courts (which is all we are talking about here), yes, contributions are either financial (money, assets) or physical (the kids).

If the woman puts her career on hold, that's a decision she has to deal with. All of the responsible mothers I know were back working soon after giving birth.

[m3rry]

On the flip side - my wife and I have only one bank account: joint. Money goes in, money goes out. We don't pay attention to who contributes more, we just pay bills. She manages our funds. When I want to make a large-ish purchase, I call he rand ask if we can afford it. If she says 'no', then it's "Ok, thanks". Usually she says yes.
But we have a true symbiotic partnership. She's my other half, and vice-versa... but we didn't need the government to approve that for us... though we did need the government to allow us to make life-or-death decisions for each other, and thank god we did; needed it a mere two months after we got married.

Thanks for sharing HeartIsAching, that is very inspiring to me, and I aspire as well to something like that in the future.

[Wakeup]

The problem with having one bank account is that if (for whatever reason) your other half decides to rack up credit card debt with a card that is associated with the joint account,(don't need joint signatures for a CC where I'm from anyway) then you too are responsible for that cc debt and it will be divided 50/50 as well should the relationship resolve. Its easy to say that "we would never do that" but desperate people do desperate things... when someone is scorned, more often then not, they react on the scorn rather then BandT's calm dissolving of assets and liablilities.

Adding: Shit happens. Even the most loving and fair relationships can end. There is good reason for both of you to look out for your own interests. Marriage is a business as well as a romantic endevour.

M3rry: What tangible assets will you be bringing into this union? When two people start out even (with nothing or very little) then you can have your entitlement (idealistic) attitude, M3rry. When it starts out unmatched is when you both should be looking out for your future should the relationship dissolve. It's not very romantic but it's certainly practicle and smart. Get your own councel and make sure you are protected should your union end up like 50% (or higher) others and end in divorce. Your lawyer will explain everything to you and will make sure you are looked after in a fair manner...(that current family law is not over-ridden at the very least) should your union dissolve. If his money means more to you then actually trying to be LIFEmates then maybe you shouldn't marry him. Maybe he'd be better off with someone whose love for him is more important then what she'll end up with (up and above what family law dictates) if it ends.

[HDBadger]

I agree with wakeup's post. If both spouses come from similar backgrounds, with similar assets, and earn similar amounts throughout their lives, all of this stuff is much easier.

But, OP, your guy is coming into the marriage with more than you, and, from the sound of it, will make more than you throughout his lifetime. You can slice this up any way you want, but his value IN THE FRAMEWORK OF A LEGAL CONTRACT is substantially more than yours. This isn't about love. It's about the law.

This is why I would never marry a woman who made substantially more or substantially less than me. Issues almost always arise. The OP's man just doesn't want to be screwed, which happens too frequently to men in divorce proceedings.

[HDBadger]

Finally, I'll just say one thing about the "she got the kids, so she needs more money argument."

That's a fallacious argument, because courts in the U.S. have been historically biased against men in granting custody.

These laws are so biased that states, like Massachusetts, are trying to revamp then.

I believe (assuming both parents are mentally sound and competent) divorced parents should still raise the children equally, and thus we eliminate giving one spouse more money because of the kids.