Prenuptial Agreements

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jbcjr14

Actually I think the number one issue for divorce is due to money and/or arguments over money...so if you eliminate the arguement over money what's the issue? I personally don't have one, but if were asked wouldn't worry about it too much as you are eliminating the number one marriage killer (outside of Redskin football!!!).

Divorces aren't caused by how the money will be split in the event of a divorce. Divorces over money usually result from not being on the same page with spending habits. Like when one spouse is a spender and the other is a saver. A lot of the time the partners can't come to an agreement on where the financial priorities should be (should we buy the Lexus or save for retirement, take the trip to Europe or save for our kids' college). That's the kind of thing that causes divorces. Prenups only help protect assets in the event of divorce. I've never heard of one that controls how each spouse can spend money when married to each other.

[Monkeydad]

I believe that if you think a prenuptual agreement is necessary, you are marrying the wrong person and shouldn't get married at all.

Marriage is intended to be a life-long committment and if you're already planning for it's failure, you shouldn't start it in the first place.

It shows a lack of trust in my opinion.

[jbcjr14]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Divorces aren't caused by how the money will be split in the event of a divorce. Divorces over money usually result from not being on the same page with spending habits. Like when one spouse is a spender and the other is a saver. A lot of the time the partners can't come to an agreement on where the financial priorities should be (should we buy the Lexus or save for retirement, take the trip to Europe or save for our kids' college). That's the kind of thing that causes divorces. Prenups only help protect assets in the event of divorce. I've never heard of one that controls how each spouse can spend money when married to each other.

That is what I meant Schneed - not implying that it controlled how money can be spent. I was implying that it already takes care of how it will be split should something happen and the divorce rate over money issues during the marriage are lowered because there is no question on who gets what when a prenup is done. Hell, if there was an agreement on who can spend what, where and how....that would be insane, that's too much like capitalism rather than a marriage!

[That Guy]

capitalism? maybe more like a congressional budgeting committee, but 80 pages of budgeting agreements really don't encapsulate capitalism's main tenet of supply and demand all that well. socialist set budgets too you know.

[FRPLG]

ANyone ehere have enough money to actually need to think about prenup? Those who question the strength of a relationship based on the notion that thinking about a prenup is negative probably don't have the kind of money needed for a prenup. I wouldn't be able to adequately speak on the issue since I don't have the money/assets to need one but I can imagine if I am rich enough to think about it then I want one no matter what my relationship is like. People change all the time. It isn't a trust issue it is a risk issue.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jbcjr14

That is what I meant Schneed - not implying that it controlled how money can be spent. I was implying that it already takes care of how it will be split should something happen and the divorce rate over money issues during the marriage are lowered because there is no question on who gets what when a prenup is done. Hell, if there was an agreement on who can spend what, where and how....that would be insane, that's too much like capitalism rather than a marriage!

But it's the how money gets spent part that CAUSES the divorce in the first place. The argument over how money gets split happens AFTER a marriage already heads down the road to splitsville.

I don't see how having a prenup would reduce divorce rates. People don't get divorced because they think they're getting a good deal on the division of assets - some Warpath lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge you can't just up and get divorced for no good reason and collect half the assets. You have to catch your spouse cheating, prove your spouse is abusive, or get your spouse to sign divorce papers for irreconcilable differences. So if a wife makes way less money than a husband, she can't just divorce him for nothing and take home 50% of the assets. She's got to either get his consent (and a divorce settlement for an agreed upon portion of assets), or prove he broke the marriage laws and force him to give 50% of assets.

Having a prenup would help protect your wallet once you get divorced. But it does nothing to help prevent the financial disputes that CAUSE divorce: the inability to agree upon financial priorities, ie spenders vs savers.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

ANyone ehere have enough money to actually need to think about prenup? Those who question the strength of a relationship based on the notion that thinking about a prenup is negative probably don't have the kind of money needed for a prenup. I wouldn't be able to adequately speak on the issue since I don't have the money/assets to need one but I can imagine if I am rich enough to think about it then I want one no matter what my relationship is like. People change all the time. It isn't a trust issue it is a risk issue.

Yet another example of mo' money, mo' problems!

If you're that rich, chances are chicks like you for your money first and foremost. Hopefully the girl knew you before you won the lottery!

I ain't sayin she's a gold digger...

[ArtMonkDrillz]

My sister just married rich and wasn't asked to sign one, maybe she can buy me a new dodge charger in a couple of years. (I'm just kidding, my new brother in law has club level season tickets, so I hope they live a long and happy life together)

[ArtMonkDrillz]

My sister just married rich and wasn't asked to sign one, maybe she can buy me a new dodge charger in a couple of years. (I'm just kidding, my new brother in law has club level season tickets, so I hope they live a long and happy life together)

[BDBohnzie]

so nice, he said it twice.

there are certainly times where a prenup is necessary. for example: Anna Nicole Smith. Dumb old bastard should have had her sign one...

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

so nice, he said it twice...

that was the ADHD, I just hit the button twice I guess.

[12thMan]

One of my favorite sayings is:

"Romance without finance is a nuisance!"

With that being said, you probably could find a good "skeleton" prenup agreement on the internet!

[jbcjr14]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But it's the how money gets spent part that CAUSES the divorce in the first place. The argument over how money gets split happens AFTER a marriage already heads down the road to splitsville.

I don't see how having a prenup would reduce divorce rates. People don't get divorced because they think they're getting a good deal on the division of assets - some Warpath lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge you can't just up and get divorced for no good reason and collect half the assets. You have to catch your spouse cheating, prove your spouse is abusive, or get your spouse to sign divorce papers for irreconcilable differences. So if a wife makes way less money than a husband, she can't just divorce him for nothing and take home 50% of the assets. She's got to either get his consent (and a divorce settlement for an agreed upon portion of assets), or prove he broke the marriage laws and force him to give 50% of assets.

Having a prenup would help protect your wallet once you get divorced. But it does nothing to help prevent the financial disputes that CAUSE divorce: the inability to agree upon financial priorities, ie spenders vs savers.

All I am saying is that a prenup would null and void any arguements regarding the spending vs savers, which potentially lead to other bad habits that cause divorce. But I agree with most of your assessment and its only needed when there are substantial assets involved.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by jbcjr14

All I am saying is that a prenup would null and void any arguements regarding the spending vs savers, which potentially lead to other bad habits that cause divorce. But I agree with most of your assessment and its only needed when there are substantial assets involved.

except it wouldn't, cause a pre-nup says nothing about how money will be spent while the marriage is working, only how it'd be divided after its over.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jbcjr14

All I am saying is that a prenup would null and void any arguements regarding the spending vs savers, which potentially lead to other bad habits that cause divorce. But I agree with most of your assessment and its only needed when there are substantial assets involved.

That Guy pretty much said it for me. You've got your sequence of events all screwed up. Prenups don't help you UNTIL you're divorced. They do nothing to control the flow of money BEFORE you're divorced.