One person wants a prenup and the other does not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks all. I am still debating on everything and honestly, having a tough time. I can't go into too many details, as it will be a give away who I am. We are in our thirties, no previous marriages on either side. I will be contacting a lawyer but honestly, I can't afford one, at all. So I am stuck. As I said before, businesses, I don't care about. I can't run a business, and I have no desire to be a part of one. Not to mention, his business ideas don't even seem that great. As far as he saying no to a 401k or his retirement, do you all think that's fair? I will be working but taking a year off after (well, if) we get pregnant, and we hope for two kids. I have yet to start saving for retirement because I can't afford to set money aside. If I only contribute 20 percent, how would the house be split, considering that it also will always be in his name? I don't know who to talk to, lawyer, friends or family. I have none of the above. He is a nice guy and a gentleman, but very driven by money. He refuses marriage if there is no prenup. I don't want his money but at the same time, I have to protect myself and our future kids.

OP, this is so, so sad. Can't you see what you are falling into here?

Is your fiance American? Just wondering.

You want kids? Really? With this man? Does he mention child support in his prenup? Or will he throw the kids to the wolves since they don't contribute?

The more posts I read, the more I think you must get into counseling to figure out why, oh, why you are "in love" with this controlling man? Red flags are waving all over, and you seem to step over and through them as though they are not there. Get OUT, OP. Out, out, out. Your brain is all fuzzy because your emotions are ruling your head, but when the kids arrive, and all is not sunny or perfect (kids exacerbate the cracks in a relationship), you will find the fuzzy love is gone and the reality of life with this man will be pretty grim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who is advising OP not to go ahead based on the pre-nup that her SO wants her to sign offer some thing concrete as to what the minimum should be that OP ought to seek in a pre-nup?

Not looking for legal advice but just an approximate percentage that OP should want since the 20% she was offered is generally deemed unreasonable.

This sounds like OP was writing in using the third person here....

That obviously wasn't OP asking that question...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who is advising OP not to go ahead based on the pre-nup that her SO wants her to sign offer some thing concrete as to what the minimum should be that OP ought to seek in a pre-nup?

Not looking for legal advice but just an approximate percentage that OP should want since the 20% she was offered is generally deemed unreasonable.

This sounds like OP was writing in using the third person here....

That obviously wasn't OP asking that question...

Disagree. Only OP would ask that question, but... now, hiding behind the third person. OP, why even ask, do you think 30% is going to make a difference? It is not the percentage of what you can claim to contribute, it is the entire concept!

[Anonymous]

OP, I GUARANTEE you that if you do marry this man, and end up being a SAHM, he will lord it over your head that you are not bringing any money home.

If you keep working and make less money than him, he will hold that over your head too.

I truly think you should drop this guy.

In the alternative, propose that in the prenup, if you do SAHM, agree upon a salary (with retirement contribution) that HE will pay YOU for being a SAHM- and then you can pay your 20% share of the mortgage from that salary.

See what he says about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks all. I am still debating on everything and honestly, having a tough time. I can't go into too many details, as it will be a give away who I am. We are in our thirties, no previous marriages on either side. I will be contacting a lawyer but honestly, I can't afford one, at all. So I am stuck. As I said before, businesses, I don't care about. I can't run a business, and I have no desire to be a part of one. Not to mention, his business ideas don't even seem that great. As far as he saying no to a 401k or his retirement, do you all think that's fair? I will be working but taking a year off after (well, if) we get pregnant, and we hope for two kids. I have yet to start saving for retirement because I can't afford to set money aside. If I only contribute 20 percent, how would the house be split, considering that it also will always be in his name? I don't know who to talk to, lawyer, friends or family. I have none of the above. He is a nice guy and a gentleman, but very driven by money. He refuses marriage if there is no prenup. I don't want his money but at the same time, I have to protect myself and our future kids.

OP, this is so, so sad. Can't you see what you are falling into here?

Is your fiance American? Just wondering.

You want kids? Really? With this man? Does he mention child support in his prenup? Or will he throw the kids to the wolves since they don't contribute?

The more posts I read, the more I think you must get into counseling to figure out why, oh, why you are "in love" with this controlling man? Red flags are waving all over, and you seem to step over and through them as though they are not there. Get OUT, OP. Out, out, out. Your brain is all fuzzy because your emotions are ruling your head, but when the kids arrive, and all is not sunny or perfect (kids exacerbate the cracks in a relationship), you will find the fuzzy love is gone and the reality of life with this man will be pretty grim.

My guess is that he was her ticket out of an even grimmer situation.

And he knows it.

This guy has the upper hand like no tomorrow, and she's okay with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I GUARANTEE you that if you do marry this man, and end up being a SAHM, he will lord it over your head that you are not bringing any money home.

If you keep working and make less money than him, he will hold that over your head too.

I truly think you should drop this guy.

In the alternative, propose that in the prenup, if you do SAHM, agree upon a salary (with retirement contribution) that HE will pay YOU for being a SAHM- and then you can pay your 20% share of the mortgage from that salary.

See what he says about that.

OP, this is a good way to illustrate the point: Why don't you figure out what it costs to pay a nanny legally, with taxes, benefits and vacation, and set that, with a clause linking the final "salary" to standard hourly rate at the time you stop working. I believe it is about 45k-50k cost to the employers after taxes and everything is said and done for a competitive offer, but others on here would know better. He can pay you that out of his salary, and then you can contribute as much of it as possible back to the house, "earning your keep"

It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who is advising OP not to go ahead based on the pre-nup that her SO wants her to sign offer some thing concrete as to what the minimum should be that OP ought to seek in a pre-nup?

Not looking for legal advice but just an approximate percentage that OP should want since the 20% she was offered is generally deemed unreasonable.

A prenup that I would not consider insane would exclude from any divorce division of assets anything each spouse brings to the marriage/earned prior to the marriage. Then, the lower earning party would be entitled to a percentage of joint marital assets OR $X amount of dollars (some reasonable amount that would enable him/her not to starve in the gutter until they finds a job), whichever is greater (because, let's face it, if someone was marrying Bill Gates, 10% of his money would be more than adequate). There should also be a separate provision for child support (yes, a Court will order child support in the event of divorce, but if I were OP, I'd try to get a reasonable amount in a prenup to avoid divorce wrangling). Of course, all of this assumes OP has zero income (if she has her own income, that would have to be calculated and offset against how much money she needs to live on), plus it is much too simple and doesn't take into account a lot of scenarios (e.g., some provision should be made if the guy's business goes broke and neither has any money - he can't pay her $50K a year if he only has $75k/year himself), but this is a very rough start.

Short version - nothing wrong with prenup. Nothing even wrong with saying wife should only have 5% of your assets if you are filthy rich, but OP's prospective spouse doesn't seem to be rich, just paranoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who is advising OP not to go ahead based on the pre-nup that her SO wants her to sign offer some thing concrete as to what the minimum should be that OP ought to seek in a pre-nup?

Not looking for legal advice but just an approximate percentage that OP should want since the 20% she was offered is generally deemed unreasonable.

A prenup that I would not consider insane would exclude from any divorce division of assets anything each spouse brings to the marriage/earned prior to the marriage. Then, the lower earning party would be entitled to a percentage of joint marital assets OR $X amount of dollars (some reasonable amount that would enable him/her not to starve in the gutter until they finds a job), whichever is greater (because, let's face it, if someone was marrying Bill Gates, 10% of his money would be more than adequate). There should also be a separate provision for child support (yes, a Court will order child support in the event of divorce, but if I were OP, I'd try to get a reasonable amount in a prenup to avoid divorce wrangling). Of course, all of this assumes OP has zero income (if she has her own income, that would have to be calculated and offset against how much money she needs to live on), plus it is much too simple and doesn't take into account a lot of scenarios (e.g., some provision should be made if the guy's business goes broke and neither has any money - he can't pay her $50K a year if he only has $75k/year himself), but this is a very rough start.

Short version - nothing wrong with prenup. Nothing even wrong with saying wife should only have 5% of your assets if you are filthy rich, but OP's prospective spouse doesn't seem to be rich, just paranoid.

nor does he seem to be in love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who is advising OP not to go ahead based on the pre-nup that her SO wants her to sign offer some thing concrete as to what the minimum should be that OP ought to seek in a pre-nup?

Not looking for legal advice but just an approximate percentage that OP should want since the 20% she was offered is generally deemed unreasonable.

A prenup that I would not consider insane would exclude from any divorce division of assets anything each spouse brings to the marriage/earned prior to the marriage. Then, the lower earning party would be entitled to a percentage of joint marital assets OR $X amount of dollars (some reasonable amount that would enable him/her not to starve in the gutter until they finds a job), whichever is greater (because, let's face it, if someone was marrying Bill Gates, 10% of his money would be more than adequate). There should also be a separate provision for child support (yes, a Court will order child support in the event of divorce, but if I were OP, I'd try to get a reasonable amount in a prenup to avoid divorce wrangling). Of course, all of this assumes OP has zero income (if she has her own income, that would have to be calculated and offset against how much money she needs to live on), plus it is much too simple and doesn't take into account a lot of scenarios (e.g., some provision should be made if the guy's business goes broke and neither has any money - he can't pay her $50K a year if he only has $75k/year himself), but this is a very rough start.

Short version - nothing wrong with prenup. Nothing even wrong with saying wife should only have 5% of your assets if you are filthy rich, but OP's prospective spouse doesn't seem to be rich, just paranoid.

Finally, an intelligent, well thought-out post as opposed to the ranting on this thread.

Maybe this guy is a generally good guy who just has this insecurity about money and what it would cost him in the event of a divorce. OP has not said anything about any other negatives regarding the guy. There are lots of guys who would never want a prenup but are generally jerks and women marry them.

My advice: OP, if he is a decent guy who just has this complex about money, it should not be a deal-breaker. Look at the guy as a whole and try and work out something reasonable with regard to the prenup. Also, an overly onerous prenup will not be upheld if it ends up going to court.

Above all, don't go by the almost universal advice to run from this guy coming from people who know nothing about him other than what he wants in a prenup. You know him best. If he is a generally controlling guy, I'd be wary no matter whether he wants a prenup or not. If he puts you down in terms of your earning potential, I'd be a lot more concerned than just him wanting a prenup.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I don't know. What if you made most of the money? The era of dependent women is coming to an end, and good riddance. You need to expect to hold your own and if you can't, what makes you think some guy wants to subsidize you?

+1 And I don't agree with the PP who said there's no consideration. Sounds like you earn your money, he earns his, if you divorce you leave with what you proportionally put in. I assume the no alimony clause goes for him too, and you could be the one earning more at divorce. Marriage as conventionally beloved by all the PPers IS a business, so he's right to treat it as such. You're both investing in a business with a 50% failure rate; it's crazy that people DON'T try to hash out dissolution ahead of time. Everyone else, time to build a teleporter to the 19th century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. No businesses owned. He makes more money than I. Any businesses that he creates in the marriage, he wants. No alimony. If I contribute, say 20 percent towards house bills, then in a divorce, that's what I get towards the house.

W
T
F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I don't know. What if you made most of the money? The era of dependent women is coming to an end, and good riddance. You need to expect to hold your own and if you can't, what makes you think some guy wants to subsidize you?

+1 And I don't agree with the PP who said there's no consideration. Sounds like you earn your money, he earns his, if you divorce you leave with what you proportionally put in. I assume the no alimony clause goes for him too, and you could be the one earning more at divorce. Marriage as conventionally beloved by all the PPers IS a business, so he's right to treat it as such. You're both investing in a business with a 50% failure rate; it's crazy that people DON'T try to hash out dissolution ahead of time. Everyone else, time to build a teleporter to the 19th century.

But what about the trust and respect between a couple. All of that means nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I don't know. What if you made most of the money? The era of dependent women is coming to an end, and good riddance. You need to expect to hold your own and if you can't, what makes you think some guy wants to subsidize you?

+1 And I don't agree with the PP who said there's no consideration. Sounds like you earn your money, he earns his, if you divorce you leave with what you proportionally put in. I assume the no alimony clause goes for him too, and you could be the one earning more at divorce. Marriage as conventionally beloved by all the PPers IS a business, so he's right to treat it as such. You're both investing in a business with a 50% failure rate; it's crazy that people DON'T try to hash out dissolution ahead of time. Everyone else, time to build a teleporter to the 19th century.

But what about the trust and respect between a couple. All of that means nothing?

This is such bullshit. I cannot believe people hang onto these notions that a person looking out for a worst case scenario are bad potential spouses. Trust me, the loving and reasonable person you marry can very quickly turn into someone else when a divorce comes into play.

Protect the money up front and then forget about it.

[Anonymous]

Women will rant about prenups, etc until the day when they are earning an amount comparable to men.

Then you'll see a turnaround with arguments that assets should be split in line with the income contributions of each person in the marriage. For now, while there is a discrepancy look for them to insist that the gravy train should continue. They will use all sorts of high-minded reasons but the reality is that they are after money.

Money was one of the primary drivers when they looked for a husband and it will be the primary driver when they seek a divorce settlement. A prenup throws a wrench in the works and that is why they are so up in arms on this and other similar threads.

[Anonymous]

I would never, ever marry anyone without a prenup. I don't care how much I love them. If they are unwilling to sign it there will not be a marriage contract signed. We can remain in a romantic relationship but they will not automatically gain ownership of my income in the event of a divorce.