Protecting money you gift adult kids for a house

[Anonymous]

I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

You don't get it because you don't want to get it. There's no need to play coy about it. It's like saying you don't get how someone could be "hostile" to the idea of eating cheese. You don't have to agree with it, but don't pretend it's because it just hasn't been explained to you enough.

[Anonymous]

And for the record, I think pre-nups are nonsense and would never marry someone who suggested one. But that doesn't mean I don't understand why someone might want one. It just means I don't agree with their worldview as it relates to marriage and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

Ok. I misinterpreted your use of the word then. In that case, I don't understand the hostility towards those who disagree with prenups. Previous posters have made a pretty convincing case against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

You don't get it because you don't want to get it. There's no need to play coy about it. It's like saying you don't get how someone could be "hostile" to the idea of eating cheese. You don't have to agree with it, but don't pretend it's because it just hasn't been explained to you enough.

Okay. Do you have something more substantive to respond with? Are you willing to discuss the actual issues I raised in my post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

Ok. I misinterpreted your use of the word then. In that case, I don't understand the hostility towards those who disagree with prenups. Previous posters have made a pretty convincing case against them.

How so? What case have they made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

You don't get it because you don't want to get it. There's no need to play coy about it. It's like saying you don't get how someone could be "hostile" to the idea of eating cheese. You don't have to agree with it, but don't pretend it's because it just hasn't been explained to you enough.

Okay. Do you have something more substantive to respond with? Are you willing to discuss the actual issues I raised in my post?

You aren't actually raising any issues, so there's no need for the faux intellectualism. There've been several pages of discussion regarding how plenty of people view a marriage as a union of people and finances, and are abhorred at the idea of "shielding assets" like one's partner was some kind of pirate waiting to get his or her hands on your precious, precious funds. If you don't get that, that's fine. Your values are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

Ok. I misinterpreted your use of the word then. In that case, I don't understand the hostility towards those who disagree with prenups. Previous posters have made a pretty convincing case against them.

How so? What case have they made?

Did you read the discussions on the previous pages? If you cannot see anything resembling a case there, then let's agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

You don't get it because you don't want to get it. There's no need to play coy about it. It's like saying you don't get how someone could be "hostile" to the idea of eating cheese. You don't have to agree with it, but don't pretend it's because it just hasn't been explained to you enough.

Okay. Do you have something more substantive to respond with? Are you willing to discuss the actual issues I raised in my post?

You aren't actually raising any issues, so there's no need for the faux intellectualism. There've been several pages of discussion regarding how plenty of people view a marriage as a union of people and finances, and are abhorred at the idea of "shielding assets" like one's partner was some kind of pirate waiting to get his or her hands on your precious, precious funds. If you don't get that, that's fine. Your values are different.

I don't have a pre-nup so my partner has full access to anything I have. I don't have trust funds either or any funds to shield from a partner. However, by issues I raised, I mean the fact that the numbers for divorce are high, no matter what people think. That there's an element of luck in choosing a partner that a lot of people seem to want to ignore. That marriage is a legal contract no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. That perhaps if you can't talk about and acknowledge the facts surrounding marriage, maybe your marriage isn't going to be so strong.

That having been said, the hostility (and by this I mean active hostility, not just opposition to the idea) in yours and PPs responses does give me an idea why there are so many divorces. Like I said, I find the thread eye-opening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. My father worked really hard and as a result created trusts for his children and grandchildren. If my spouse were to mistreat me, cheat etc you think that my spouse deserves 1/2 of the money I was entrusted with (8 digits) - money all earned and gifted before we were even dating? Wouldn't you feel terrible losing that money because you chose the wrong spouse. For our kids trusts I'm the trustee (along with our estate planner)- my husband isn't one. Why? Because people protect their money. Smart people anyway. You all are very generous with your pretend trusts- but I wonder how you would feel if that trust was an actuality.

New poster here without a pretend trust. Our net worth is in 8 digits and most of it is inherited. Both of us inherited significant amounts of money but far more on one side than the other. There are trusts on both sides as well but all the money that can be co-mingled has been and we don't have a prenup.

I get that the money is important to you because your father worked hard to earn it and trusted you enough to give it to you, but what do you see as the purpose of the money going forward? What are you going to do with it? If you leave it to your kids or grandkids they may eventually spend it in a way that you completely disapprove of, even without spouses. Do you plan to give most of it to charity? Or spend it? I am just curious about what you see as the future purpose of this asset that you have worked so hard to protect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

You don't get it because you don't want to get it. There's no need to play coy about it. It's like saying you don't get how someone could be "hostile" to the idea of eating cheese. You don't have to agree with it, but don't pretend it's because it just hasn't been explained to you enough.

Okay. Do you have something more substantive to respond with? Are you willing to discuss the actual issues I raised in my post?

You aren't actually raising any issues, so there's no need for the faux intellectualism. There've been several pages of discussion regarding how plenty of people view a marriage as a union of people and finances, and are abhorred at the idea of "shielding assets" like one's partner was some kind of pirate waiting to get his or her hands on your precious, precious funds. If you don't get that, that's fine. Your values are different.

I don't have a pre-nup so my partner has full access to anything I have. I don't have trust funds either or any funds to shield from a partner. However, by issues I raised, I mean the fact that the numbers for divorce are high, no matter what people think. That there's an element of luck in choosing a partner that a lot of people seem to want to ignore. That marriage is a legal contract no matter how hard you pretend otherwise. That perhaps if you can't talk about and acknowledge the facts surrounding marriage, maybe your marriage isn't going to be so strong.

That having been said, the hostility (and by this I mean active hostility, not just opposition to the idea) in yours and PPs responses does give me an idea why there are so many divorces. Like I said, I find the thread eye-opening.

Not this PP, but the other one.

I am still not sure about this hostility you mention.

I am not sure why you keep insisting that people cannot talk about the facts surrounding marriage. They have in this very thread.

Marriage is risky for everyone. If there are couples who can put a dollar amount to all the risks involved, more grease to their elbows.

However, when prenups are discussed, at least on this thread, the only risks being considered are the financial risks to the wealthy. When you(figuratively) take this kind of tone into your marriage, you are implying that your partner has more to gain from marrying you than you do from marrying them. After all, your risks were mitigated in a prenup and theirs wasn't. And this implication is not necessarily true. Furthermore, it can create a sense of suspicion and feelings of being undervalued in a marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. My father worked really hard and as a result created trusts for his children and grandchildren. If my spouse were to mistreat me, cheat etc you think that my spouse deserves 1/2 of the money I was entrusted with (8 digits) - money all earned and gifted before we were even dating? Wouldn't you feel terrible losing that money because you chose the wrong spouse. For our kids trusts I'm the trustee (along with our estate planner)- my husband isn't one. Why? Because people protect their money. Smart people anyway. You all are very generous with your pretend trusts- but I wonder how you would feel if that trust was an actuality.

New poster here without a pretend trust. Our net worth is in 8 digits and most of it is inherited. Both of us inherited significant amounts of money but far more on one side than the other. There are trusts on both sides as well but all the money that can be co-mingled has been and we don't have a prenup.

I get that the money is important to you because your father worked hard to earn it and trusted you enough to give it to you, but what do you see as the purpose of the money going forward? What are you going to do with it? If you leave it to your kids or grandkids they may eventually spend it in a way that you completely disapprove of, even without spouses. Do you plan to give most of it to charity? Or spend it? I am just curious about what you see as the future purpose of this asset that you have worked so hard to protect.

Non-wealthy poster here.

I think it is okay to feel strongly about the money your father left for you. But if you want to protect it in your lifetime(because, like PP said, your children could still waste it all), marry someone with similar money.

Don't go into a marriage in which others are putting everything on the table and choose to keep some stuff back because your father worked hard for it.

Look at it from our perspective. Our parents worked equally hard(from our perspective, it does not even matter whether it is true or not ) to bring us up and mold us into these wonderful people that you would like to marry(humor me). Why should we bring all their hard work to the table and you keep some of yours behind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find this thread eye-opening. I did not grow up with trust funds nor do I have any for my kids or anything like that, but I don't get this hostility to pre-nups at all. Are you all very young? Have you not started to see acrimonious divorces in your social circles? I'm happily married for many years now, but I don't kid myself that the people who I see going through terrible divorces (or, in some cases, putting up with appalling behavior from spouses) were just dumber than me when it came to marriage. There's an element of luck in long-term marriage that I think people just want to pretend doesn't exist. I have a great spouse, but when I look at my divorcing contemporaries, they had the same thing when they got married too. (And yes, I know that the 50% divorce number doesn't apply to college-educated, blah blah blah, but even a 20% number is high: that's a 1 in 5 number, it's just not the rarity people want to pretend.)

I'm no family lawyer, but it seems to be obvious to me that marriage is both a romantic and familial relationship and a legal contract. You can take control and draft your own version of the legal contract, or you can rely on the state's default legal contract. The default legal contract is messy, unpredictable, changes depending on the judge you get, and may contain terms that you'd personally find abhorrent. You can use it if you'd like; if you get married without a pre-nup, that's exactly what you're doing. Or, you can think carefully about things before you go into marriage, and draft up a legal contract that reflects your own values. If you don't want to participate in the legal contract aspect, you can stay in a long-term relationship without actually getting married.

I don't have a pre-nup. It wasn't something that was on my radar at the time of marriage; I didn't even know they existed. However, from my vantage point now, I view it as akin to pre-marital counseling. IMO if discussing a pre-nup is too uncomfortable, maybe you shouldn't be getting married to begin with.

I am not sure where you are getting the hostility from.

Some posters disagree with prenups and others agree with them.

It's a discussion.

By hostility I mean opposition to them, which I definitely see on this thread. If you disagree with pre-nups, you are hostile to them, in other words, at least for yourselves if not for others. If you prefer, you can replace hostility with opposition in that sentence: I do not get the opposition to pre-nups at all. If a couple isn't willing to have an honest and frank discussion of how they're about to enter into a legal relationship as well as a familial and romantic relationship, maybe they aren't ready to get married.

Ok. I misinterpreted your use of the word then. In that case, I don't understand the hostility towards those who disagree with prenups. Previous posters have made a pretty convincing case against them.

How so? What case have they made?

I was wondering the same exact thing! All I've gotten out of this is that prenups make sense when one or both spouses bring significant asssets into a marriage. Hilarious to me how people say to SAHM that they are fools who don't have any protection- then a woman talks about how she has protected herself and you ridicule that, too. Pick a lane, DCUM