
Is a prenup a good idea? - finangle
https://finangle.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/is-a-prenup-a-good-idea
======
erispoe
IANAL, but it depends on the situation. A prenup is a way to protect your
spouse's and your respective assets by having a wall in between them. You
design the wall. So, let's say, if you do something risky and creditors can
come after you, at least your spouse's assets are protected. Often though,
creditors will seek collaterals with your spouse as well, but at least it has
to be explicit and on a case-by-case basis.

However, the US being a common law country, it's up to the judge to determine
how enforceable they are. Apparently, judges are much less likely to enforce
them in former spanish/mexican catholic states in the South-West than they are
elsewhere in the country. So a prenup in California might be less useful than
in New-York.

Lastly, a prenup does not say anything about how much you love your spouse. If
you love him/her, you should plan for his/her safety if you engage in
activities risking your own assets. Going down together for the sake of it is
not a wise display of marital love.

Again, talk to your lawyer.

------
this2shallpaas
It doesn't surprise me if the person who has less income and fewer assets
wouldn't want a prenup. Or people who believe it shows a lack of full
commitment, a wrinkle in their Medieval/Disney love story.

Prenups seem like a good idea for the partner with more assets, which is more
often than not a male. Women are much more likely to initiate divorce.

"In a survey of 2,262 adults in heterosexual partnerships over the course of
five years, Rosenfeld found that women initiate divorces 69 percent of the
time.

On the whole, they also reported less satisfaction with their marriages than
men."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/08/27/wh...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2015/08/27/why-
women-are-more-likely-to-initiate-divorce/)

~~~
emodendroket
Well, one could easily say, by the same token, that "it doesn't surprise me
that the person with more assets would want a prenup." I'm not sure why one
person asserting their interests here is greed but the other person doing the
same is prudence.

~~~
this2shallpaas
Neither is (necessarily) greed- the motivation is probably benign, at least in
many cases. But one is very likely prudence.

------
DamnYuppie
I find it interesting that many of the comments seem to paint that marriage is
about love/trust. This is a relatively modern interpretation of the
institution. It has, since the dawn of time, been an institution meant to
ensure stability and continual propagation of the species. It was usually a
way to improve ones lot in life or ensure their well being. Also until very
recently, last 150 years, it was common to have a marriage contract.

To me love has very little to do with marriage, those who seem to think that
it does generally find themselves in divorce court. One should focus on having
a shared vision of what they want their life to be and be willing to make room
for their partners eccentricities. Emotions come and go and are not a great
foundation for a relationship. Trust, compromise, hardwork, and support should
be the bedrock.

~~~
dionidium
_This is a relatively modern interpretation of the institution_

Well, sure, and in response to massive societal changes. More people than ever
aren't even _having_ children. What need do they have for an institution that
assists in that endeavor?

So what is the trust, compromise, and hard work supposed to be in support of?

~~~
DamnYuppie
I do not recall stating it was only about children currently. My stance was
there is an over emphasis that marriage is about love or that it should be
large component of it. I don't agree with that.

Trust, comprise, and hard work are to be in support of each other in attaining
their shared vision of their life, whatever that is.

~~~
dionidium
Well, sure :) I don't think anybody who has ever been in a long-lasting
relationship would disagree with you.

------
chollida1
One instance where I see alot of people sign prenup is in the case where one
person is a partner in a business, whether it be a lawyer, doctor, hedge fund,
etc.

In these situations its usually the firm that wants the prenup.

The reason is very simple, in the event of the marriage ending they don't want
to have the business be put into jeopardy by having an outsider own part of it
or by having one of the partners have to sell their stake to fund the divorce
proceedings.

It doesn't always firewall off the company from trouble when a divorce happens
but it does help.

I've never heard of a spouse balking at the idea of a prenup in these
situations. Most people are pretty level headed about this.

The only gotcha is that the spouse has to get something of value for signing
the prenup, often the corporation itself will put up the money for this end of
the deal.

The last two deals friends have signed have had a clause that the spouse gets
the equivalent of the highest 3 years of pay in the event of a divorce where
no one is at fault and the marriage lasts 5+ years. This is separate from what
ever other assets the couple splits.

If you are a business owner this just makes way to much sense to not consider.

~~~
dragonwriter
> One instance where I see alot of people sign prenup is in the case where one
> person is a partner in a business, whether it be a lawyer

IIRC, its a violation of the ABA model rules for a non-lawyer hold a
partnership in a law firm (or, more precisely, for a lawyer to be a partner in
or work in such a firm, which amounts to the same thing.)

------
jstanley
> Daniel wanted to have a prenup, but Susan fought tooth and nail to keep it
> out of their marriage.

Is this not a huge red flag about Susan's intentions?

~~~
dionidium
The whole _point_ of marriage is to make an unmake-able promise. If you're
going to start hedging before you even say the words, then what's the point?

~~~
armitron
This your (naive and/or totally fucked up) idea of marriage, certainly not
what marriage _is_ for the vast majority (i dare say) of the population.

~~~
zeveb
What _is_ marriage for the vast majority of the population? It's certainly no
longer about sex (and less and less about sexual exclusivity). It's not really
about children. It's not an economic union. It's certainly not lifelong.

So far as I can tell it's about a big party, and having the rest of society
validate one's current relationship. It's not at all clear why we still have a
great deal of permanence-presuming civil law covering what's now clearly
become a private, temporary matter. What's the point?

~~~
armitron
It's a partnership that works on multiple levels.

Not some disney fairy tale about unmake-able promises.

~~~
dionidium
Have you been to a wedding recently? Those vows aren't about practical
concerns. They're about eternal love, as long as we both shall live, to have
and to hold.

You're free to layer whatever you want over top of that promise. But what you
explicitly agree to with literal _vows_ is all about the love, man.

~~~
erispoe
You seem to be talking about religious weddings.

Religious weddings are exactly that: words, and intentions. What matters is
the judge that declares you married and the contract you sign.

If you started to make religious vows enforceable in courts, which they are
not, you'd probably see a lot less people interested into it.

------
strictnein
My wife and I came from two very different income brackets. My father was a
successful businessman and while we were dating sold his company. His share
was in the low 8 figure range. He died a year or two later due to a congenital
heart defect.

We thought about a prenup for a while, my wife was even on board, but every
time we started to actually work on getting it set up, it all felt very weird
and unsettling. It's also kind of strange, in that I personally didn't have
much in the way of assets, but my mother was left with too much to ever spend,
and my father had a generation skipping trust setup that was funded by his
life insurance, so that my kids were destined to be multi-millionaires before
they were even born (something that we are keeping from them until my mother
passes). So, we were kind of planning around the possibility that my mother
would die early or that we would divorce after 30 years, and that seemed odd.

13 years and two kids later ... _shrug_

------
kefka
I get it if there were children from a previous relationship. Sometimes step-
relations can (and do) go sour, and that could guarantee that your children
get a fair share.

Aside that, wanting one shows to me that you're not wanting to be a partner.
Instead, you want special dispensation as a 'separate-class' in the marriage.
Just no, no, no.

~~~
askldfhjkasfhd
It could also indicate that one's personal values do not include a complete
melding of finances to be a partner.

It's acceptable in a business arrangement to be partners with unequal stakes.

In my opinion, it's useful to separate the love/trust/bonding from marriage.
Marriage is a civil contract that says very little about the relationship.

------
carsongross
In today's world? Absolutely.

Divorce is the expected outcome of marriage now, and the man will get nuked in
family court. If you have any significant assets you would be foolish not to
protect them.

~~~
hebleb
Who says divorce is the expected outcome of marriage? What's the point of
getting married if that's the person's mindset?

~~~
gnaritas
> Who says divorce is the expected outcome of marriage?

Statistics. What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?

~~~
dragonwriter
> > Who says divorce is the expected outcome of marriage?

> Statistics.

[citation needed]

> What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?

 _Probably_ , the latter. The popular "half of all marriages will end in
divorce" was from near the peak in the particular methodology it used, and was
based on projecting the then-past trend and making an estimate of lifetime
probabilities for new marriages based on that trend extending out into the
future, and even _then_ it was a result of second and subsequent marriages
having significantly higher divorce rates than earlier marriages, with first
marriages, even in the projection, being substantially below 50% probability
of ending in divorce.

But its actually really hard to get a good idea of what is more likely when
you don't have a way of actually sampling the space of interest (which would
take reaching into the future), and various methodologies of estimating
divorce risk (and even whether the rate at which marriages end in divorce is
really rising or falling) come to different answers.

~~~
gnaritas
> [citation needed]

No, you don't get to ask for a citation when I'm asking you the question.
"What's more likely, divorce or marriage until death?"

You answered...

> Probably, the latter.

I'd say probably the former. Neither of us has provided any data to back up
those opinions but I don't think you can rationally look around you and
honestly claim you've seen more people married until death than people who got
divorced especially in light of people with multiple marriages. Every divorce
counts and I'd certainly wager the number of divorces is greater than the
number widows/widowers.

~~~
dragonwriter
> No, you don't get to ask for a citation when I'm asking you the question.

I didn't ask for a citation in response to your _question_ , I asked that in
response to your _answer_ "Statistics" to the grandparent posts question "Who
says divorce is the expected outcome of marriage?"

If your claim is that statistics say that, then where are the statistics?

~~~
gnaritas
Statistics would be what would answer that question, i.e. it's not a _who_ ,
it's math; I wasn't claiming to have those statistics. I was trying to discuss
what you thought the math was and why.

------
hackcasual
9 years ago I got married and got a prenup to protect a trust I had been given
from my mother's passing. 2 years ago I got divorced. I got to find out that
what the prenup protected was already protected as a matter of law, and that
further the language in the prenup implied it protected her contributions to
her 401k, but only protected the interest on mine. It was a very badly drafted
prenup.

In the end, it involved additional time and expense to get an expert on family
law in the state we were married in (got divorced in another state) and
mediation to come up with an agreement that was fair.

Those who think that prenups are a smart thing to prevent yourself from
getting screwed in a divorce, keep in mind the just add to the complexity of a
break up and in many cases end up just getting tossed out.

------
hedgew
A perspective from Scandinavia; this sounds absurd and unequal. It's rare for
anyone not to have a prenup here. The law also treats both genders equally in
divorce (most recently, fathers' rights to their children were improved).

I don't really understand why anyone would even get married in California with
laws like that, it sounds like a bad deal, for both you and the relationship.

------
tapiwa
Prenups are strange in that those who are mature enough to get them, probably
don't need them, and those who aren't, do need them.

If I had my way, prenups would be a mandatory requisite for anyone applying
for a marriage licence.

Here's why.

On Maturity, Frankness, Honesty & Disclosure:: I'll call the decision to get
married, Peak Love. You are about to spend a chunk of money on a party, so I'm
thinking you are pretty loved up.

This is the time to be having the hard conversations. I can almost guarantee
that if you are not able to agree on what happens in the event of a divorce at
this time, there is no way you're going to agree once you decide to divorce.

As other posters have indicated too, both parties are forced to disclose their
financial positions. No more "oops, I forgot to mention my $100k in credit
card debt" conversations once you're already married.

Divorces can be messy and acrimonous. With a lot of bitterness, anger, and all
the other emotions that will make what should be a rational discussion seem
like a Mid East peace negotiation summit.

And once you go guns hot, it can get very very expensive very quickly.

Cost is totally worth it:: Even allowing for the fact that your marriage will
never fail, the fact that there is a non trivial chance it will, makes the
cost of lawyering up for a pre nup totally worth it.

Put slightly differently .... Prenup lawyers are cheaper than divorce lawyers.
Especially if the other side decides to get nasty.

------
Stasis5001
There are very good reasons why Susan should be against a prenup. Suppose her
and Daniel have a child, and they both agree that it makes sense for Susan to
quit her job and raise the child at home.

If they have a prenup, a divorce is devastating to Susan. She's made no income
and will likely have trouble finding employment since her skills may have
atrophied. Does this seem fair?

~~~
antisthenes
It actually does seem fair, because regardless of the prenup Susan will be
entitled to a sizeable alimony and child support, based on Daniel's income.

Since women are more likely to initiate divorce, it would be in her interest
to keep the marriage alive to the best of her ability.

The man bears the higher risk here, so the post-divorce split should represent
that accordingly.

------
johnnymonster
The bottom line is that 2 people should educate themselves on the legalities
of marriage before they enter into the agreement. Far too often people just
jump into legal contracts without understanding what it means to them in the
long term. The legal terms of marriage without a contract differ from state to
stage and if the wife wants to punish you could always just move into a
different state, reside there for the minimum time and then divorce you there
to get the rules in her favor. Always try to see it from the good and evil
side. The point is that you would not purchase a home or a car without a
contract or knowing what the implied contract is before hand. I've personally
been burned pretty badly in a past divorce solely because I didn't find out
the laws before hand and was tricked into something that I was not educated
on.

------
rekwah
I'm curious if this is easier to handle with non-liquid assets?

Imagine he has a $100k fishing boat instead of $100k stuffed in a mattress. Is
the spouse more willing to sign a prenup if it's easier to make the mental
separation between "mine" and "theirs" when it's a physical asset?

~~~
finangle
If you have illiquid assets, I think it is more important for you to have a
prenup. Say if you have a one million dollar house and run a business that is
also worth one million, you might want to give your spouse the house and keep
the business for yourself in the prenup. After all, you do not want your
spouse who knows nothing about your business to have 50% interest in it. And
it saves the headache of having to sell the house and split the proceeds in a
divorce.

------
niccaluim
Get. A. Prenup. Trust me on this; I should know.

You have _no_ idea what the future will bring. You might have comparable
assets and income now, but that could change. People have a tendency to
dramatically underestimate how different their lives will be in even just 5-10
years.

Prenups protect both parties. They aren't just a way for one spouse to raise a
fortress around their assets. What if the balance of income changes during the
marriage? It could. You don't know. Just because things are a certain way now,
doesn't mean they will be later.

And you might be madly in love today, but when things go south, it brings out
the absolute worst in people. _Negotiate these things now while you still have
each other 's best interests in mind;_ don't wait until you hate each other
and are trying to get revenge.

~~~
emodendroket
It seems like a prenup preemptively protecting assets that do not exist would
be rather difficult both to write and to enforce.

~~~
niccaluim
Protecting future assets is the whole point. In community property states,
assets acquired prior to the marriage are already separate property.

------
hendersoon
A friend of mine got married with a pre-nup. He also married a woman with
dramatically less assets.

His reasoning was simply that /not/ having a pre-nup introduces a negative
incentive to the relationship. Every time they have an argument, his wife
could think "If I dump this jerk, I make $X!".

So it's not about planning for disaster, it's about /avoiding/ disaster. That
seemed like a reasonable argument to me. His fiancee obviously disagreed, but
he wore her down.

~~~
Jtsummers
The argument, to her, would likely sound like, "I don't think you really want
me. So sign this pre-nup and prove it." It displays a lack of trust and faith
in the partner. Without that faith, what's the point of getting married?

~~~
belorn
If both parties has complete faith, then the existence of the pre-nup is
irrelevant. it would be like signing a paper in the event that the sun burns
out and the earth explodes.

The argument, to him, would sound like "I don't think you expect this marriage
to last. Refuse to sign this pre-nup and prove that you intend to issue
divorce in a few years".

~~~
Jtsummers
I agree. _IF_ both parties have faith it's irrelevant.

But when _one_ party is pushing it, it demonstrates a lack of faith. I
understand it when your assets are particularly valuable (pre-marriage). I
understand that it can be used to ensure an easy (easier) divorce, in the
worst case.

But the post I was responding to, the man figured that without the pre-nup
she'd always be thinking, "I can leave and take half." That indicates that he
has no faith in her, not the other way around. Making that case will ruin her
faith in _him_ and will ruin (or has a high likelihood to) the relationship.

------
peterjancelis
Timely post as just today I got engaged to my girlfriend. We will definitely
go for a prenup, I want to avoid a 15 year long divorce battle like my parents
had at all possible costs.

I have created a subreddit for people interested in discussing prenups:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/prenup](https://www.reddit.com/r/prenup)

~~~
GFischer
Interestingly enough, in my anecdotal evidence, couples who have a prenup
don't divorce :)

Maybe the mere fact of having enough trust to do a prenup marks a more mature
marriage, more likely to succeed in the longer term?

~~~
peterjancelis
Hope so! My fiancee is definitely super mature, only 24 years old but had to
support her family (while studying) after her father died at 17 years old.
She's completely onboard with us deciding what is fair in what scenario rather
than outsourcing it to some parliament and court system somewhere.

------
ChuckMcM
Isn't it kind of like "should you get insurance?"

We can be glad that Daniel, after a long bachelorhood, found someone to spend
his remaining days with. But we can't evaluate anything at all about the
future prospects of the relationship without more information. Over the years
I've known people on both sides of the situation, where their spouse turned
out to be just someone who wanted to marry a tech millionaire and then divorce
them after getting control of a chunk of assets, and people who are still
going strong seeing the world and enjoying life.

If your spouse stays at home with the kids while you work, its a great idea to
have life insurance to cover their needs if something happened to you. If
you're both retired and your kids are grown up and moved away? Well its nice
to have something to cover funeral arrangements. Seems like the situation is
everything here.

------
dragonwriter
> Additionally, I consulted a few family law attorneys, and I got quotes from
> a $2,500 flat fee to $500/hr (with a total budget of up to $10,000).

And note that whatever you are quoted is the cost _for each partner_ : either
partner not having _independent_ legal counsel is one of the reasons for which
a prenup can be voided.

------
anotherevan
An interesting (to me at least) variation on this is a Jewish prenuptial
agreement[1] that basically said the husband would provide a get[2] if they
were divorced under the law of the land.

Apparently it is reasonably common now, but when one of my best friends go
married it was a new thing, at least in our part of the world. It was
something their Rabbi insisted on.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prenuptial_agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_prenuptial_agreement)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_%28divorce_document%29)

------
LifeQuestioner
If I marry a millionaire, and I earn 50k a year, I'd still want a prenup. What
you earnt before has fuck all to do with me. Am I the only one who doesn't
take this personally? Would you personally sign one if your spouse earned
more?

~~~
nileshtrivedi
Did you marry a millionaire while earning only 50K a year?

What people say they will do and what they actually do can vary wildly.

~~~
LifeQuestioner
And I'm sure you have enough evidence to make a judgment of a randomer over
the Internet.

------
dominotw
most prenups are not usually honored in american courts. You have to go to
great lengths to make sure prenup is airtight.

~~~
chaverma
Or, you could not get married.

~~~
Spivak
And commonlaw marriage states completely ruin that plan in some cases.

~~~
emodendroket
There are like three states that have common-law marriage and it's not that
easy to end up in one.

------
anotherevan
I never even considered a prenup, but we were young, of similar wealth (or
lack there of). If heaven forbid anything happened and I was remarrying, I
would probably be considering a prenup, or at least a carefully thought out
will because there are now children involved.

My sister-in-law had a prenup - her husband brought significantly more assets
and earning potential to the relationship - however I seem to remember the
ratios changed over time such that it evened out the longer they were married,
which seemed a reasonable approach to me.

------
googletazer
If your spouse has the same amount of assets, and in foreseable future will
continue earning about the same as you - maybe not.

If the spouse has less or more seems like a no brainer, why would you want to
give her money she hasn't earned or take money you haven't earned in case of a
divorce? So in 99% of cases - hell yeah.

~~~
sokoloff
My wife and I came into the relationship with wildly different assets and
incomes (both never-married, no prior kids, late 30s).

I wouldn't have considered a pre-nup for the simple reason that I'm wagering
we'll be together for the duration and if not, I'm willing to share our
familial resources amongst the 4 of us. We're together 10+ years now, two kids
in elementary school, wife left a nearly 6-figure science job to stay home and
raise the kids. Everyone seems happy with that arrangement.

What I brought into the relationship 10-11 years ago has less bearing on our
current financial standing than the support and promotions I've earned since
and the investments we've made, most of which are made on paper with "my"
money and "my" direction, but are nevertheless "ours" in every sense that
matters to me/us.

I've seen relationships that my friends have entered though, where my first
thought was, "Boy, I hope they have a pre-nup..."

~~~
googletazer
You and your wife fell on the side of the bell curve where its two reasonable
people who see their assets as joint. I guess both of you have high risk
tolerance as well. Vast majority of people I personally know do not see their
assets in the same way.

------
bdcravens
There are a lot of intangibles values that seem overlooked when it comes to
"protecting what's mine". The value of bearing and raising children, if that's
how it plays out. Potential career benefits that may come out of doubling your
network, etc.

------
chinathrow
As a founder and owner, I tend to get a prenup too. If my shares gain value
after a valuation round, I might be forced to sell my part of the company in
case I would need to liquidate those shares during a divorce.

~~~
dragonwriter
> As a founder and owner, I tend to get a prenup too.

This phrasing makes it sound like marriage is a repeated event for you, for
which you usually get a prenup.

------
rbcgerard
two points:

1\. the bigger question is how many soon-to-be-married people actually
understand the contractual obligations they are making when they go get their
marriage license - it's frankly inexcusable not to educate yourself on this
subject - you read your employment contract right?

2\. a prenuptial agreement can be anything, a lot of people have preconceived
notions of what it means, but really it just means when it comes to issue x,
we don't want to use the default state statute/regulation/interpretation we
want to solve this issue in y way...

------
Kinnard
In lieu of a prenup, perhaps a Ketubah:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah)

------
bunnymancer
Marriage is a contract.

Should a contract have terms and conditions?

Yes. Yes it should.

------
Camillo
A prenup is a bad idea, because it means you're getting married.

------
colmvp
> In case you are curious, Daniel and Susan ended up not having a prenup.
> Daniel wanted to have a prenup, but Susan fought tooth and nail to keep it
> out of their marriage. Daniel is now at peace with the fact that he has to
> share whatever he makes during the marriage with Susan, knowing that the
> money he brought into the marriage will always be only his. Dear readers, do
> you think Daniel and Susan should have had a prenup?

Huh, how surprising that the person with significantly less income and assets
fought hard to prevent a prenup.

~~~
danvoell
"share whatever he makes during the marriage with Susan" \- my understanding
is that you need to share not just what you make during marriage but also the
assets you had before.

~~~
DamnYuppie
That depends on the state. Most it is seen as separate unless you "co-mingle"
them with shared assets, say invest in a business or home together.

------
gamache
Is a prenup a good idea? Let's examine a well-connected, basement-dwelling
money hoarder in his quest to get a regular poor to Touch His Dick.

Oh, what do you know, he caved to her demands!

~~~
dang
Comments like this are a bannable offense on HN.

Your comment history looks good otherwise, so we won't ban you for this one,
but please don't post anything like it again. The threads here are for civil,
substantive discussion.

