How to structure a prenup to protect the lower earner to a reasonable extent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it all depends on what the higher earner wants. Are they trying to say their earnings and investments during the marriage won’t be marital property? In that case the lower earner is screwed no matter what. If the higher earner is pushing this then lower earner needs to get a certain amount per year married/per kid. High earner is likely not going to accept low earner spending time on her career instead of his career and household so she needs to be compensated

+1000

ALso, the lower earner really needs to consider why they would want to be married/have kids with someone who cares so little about them. What do they get from being in this relationship? Because I don't see much but a self centered spouse

We both already have kids.

Alright, there you go. The higher earner is trying to protect their children’s inheritance. Most spouses - particularly men - just go along to get along, and their kids end up losing their entire inheritance to stepmom and her kids. As a breadwinning DW it is my biggest nightmare that I pass away early and everything I worked hard for ends up going to some golddigger’s brats.

Premarital assets are off limits, provided they are kept separate. You can claim some entitlement to the money grown on those assets during the marriage, but even then it’s hard to imagine why you’d feel entitled to that. It predated you and had nothing to do with whatever you contributed.

New assets are a different story. You should demand your share of those. Same with any assets you had coming in and any growth on those assets, provided they are kept separate.

If you insist on staying home and being kept, demand alimony and settlement/inheritance in an amount that will keep you sustained in the event of divorce or widowhood. Otherwise, you continue to work. If your spouse wants to treat you like the help they need to pay for it.

Also consider a life estate in a marital home in case spouse passes away first if you don’t co-own the property.

You should also come to some agreement about how expenses for your respective kids will be paid for. If spouse does not want to pay for your kids to go to the same fancy schools or the same fancy activities you should think twice about marriage. It’s just a recipe for resentment.

This is all spot on except that if it’s going to be a long marriage with a significantly older man, I don’t think it is unfair for OP to get a share of the premarital assets assuming that she is going to care for him in his old age. People routinely leave chunks of assets to relatives who cared for them. as long as his kids are fully cared for I can’t see it being wrong to leave the second wife a share of the estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it all depends on what the higher earner wants. Are they trying to say their earnings and investments during the marriage won’t be marital property? In that case the lower earner is screwed no matter what. If the higher earner is pushing this then lower earner needs to get a certain amount per year married/per kid. High earner is likely not going to accept low earner spending time on her career instead of his career and household so she needs to be compensated

+1000

ALso, the lower earner really needs to consider why they would want to be married/have kids with someone who cares so little about them. What do they get from being in this relationship? Because I don't see much but a self centered spouse

We both already have kids.

Alright, there you go. The higher earner is trying to protect their children’s inheritance. Most spouses - particularly men - just go along to get along, and their kids end up losing their entire inheritance to stepmom and her kids. As a breadwinning DW it is my biggest nightmare that I pass away early and everything I worked hard for ends up going to some golddigger’s brats.

Premarital assets are off limits, provided they are kept separate. You can claim some entitlement to the money grown on those assets during the marriage, but even then it’s hard to imagine why you’d feel entitled to that. It predated you and had nothing to do with whatever you contributed.

New assets are a different story. You should demand your share of those. Same with any assets you had coming in and any growth on those assets, provided they are kept separate.

If you insist on staying home and being kept, demand alimony and settlement/inheritance in an amount that will keep you sustained in the event of divorce or widowhood. Otherwise, you continue to work. If your spouse wants to treat you like the help they need to pay for it.

Also consider a life estate in a marital home in case spouse passes away first if you don’t co-own the property.

You should also come to some agreement about how expenses for your respective kids will be paid for. If spouse does not want to pay for your kids to go to the same fancy schools or the same fancy activities you should think twice about marriage. It’s just a recipe for resentment.

Kids aren't entitled to inhertance.

Neither is the second wife …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting something isn't the same as treating all the kids the same.
A former boss remarried to a younger woman with 3 kids under 12. He had 3 kids in their 20s. He set up an estate plan treating all the kids equally.
He got Alzheimer's, she put him in a care home, divorced him. He died and his kids got half and the other kids who left with mom got the other half. After taking care of him for 5 years.
Should have done a prenup,

She cared for him for 5 years. Putting someone with Alzheimers in a care home is 99% of the time the right thing to do, for everyone's safety, but especially the patient. He set it up to treat everyone equally, why is that a bad thing? It's what many do who actually love their 2nd spouse and "step kids" and integrate them into the joint family. Sounds like it was at least 10-15+ years together, not 1-2 and she ran

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting something isn't the same as treating all the kids the same.
A former boss remarried to a younger woman with 3 kids under 12. He had 3 kids in their 20s. He set up an estate plan treating all the kids equally.
He got Alzheimer's, she put him in a care home, divorced him. He died and his kids got half and the other kids who left with mom got the other half. After taking care of him for 5 years.
Should have done a prenup,

her three kids should not have gotten anything.

Umm...he set it up (when he was mental stable it seems) to support all 3 equally. That was his choice. Shows he was committed to his 2nd marriage and loved his step kids as well. His money, his choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it all depends on what the higher earner wants. Are they trying to say their earnings and investments during the marriage won’t be marital property? In that case the lower earner is screwed no matter what. If the higher earner is pushing this then lower earner needs to get a certain amount per year married/per kid. High earner is likely not going to accept low earner spending time on her career instead of his career and household so she needs to be compensated

+1000

ALso, the lower earner really needs to consider why they would want to be married/have kids with someone who cares so little about them. What do they get from being in this relationship? Because I don't see much but a self centered spouse

We both already have kids.

Alright, there you go. The higher earner is trying to protect their children’s inheritance. Most spouses - particularly men - just go along to get along, and their kids end up losing their entire inheritance to stepmom and her kids. As a breadwinning DW it is my biggest nightmare that I pass away early and everything I worked hard for ends up going to some golddigger’s brats.

Premarital assets are off limits, provided they are kept separate. You can claim some entitlement to the money grown on those assets during the marriage, but even then it’s hard to imagine why you’d feel entitled to that. It predated you and had nothing to do with whatever you contributed.

New assets are a different story. You should demand your share of those. Same with any assets you had coming in and any growth on those assets, provided they are kept separate.

If you insist on staying home and being kept, demand alimony and settlement/inheritance in an amount that will keep you sustained in the event of divorce or widowhood. Otherwise, you continue to work. If your spouse wants to treat you like the help they need to pay for it.

Also consider a life estate in a marital home in case spouse passes away first if you don’t co-own the property.

You should also come to some agreement about how expenses for your respective kids will be paid for. If spouse does not want to pay for your kids to go to the same fancy schools or the same fancy activities you should think twice about marriage. It’s just a recipe for resentment.

Kids aren't entitled to inhertance.

Neither is the second wife …

And why is his 2nd wife not entitled to part of his estate? Unless it's a marry on his deathbed situation, she deserves it as well. Set up a will/estate to ensure your kids from first marriage receive whatever portion you want. Then decide how much to leave 2nd wife and/or her kids. In a real marriage, they become your kids as well if you are a good person. So protect your "first marriage kids" but it's your choice to leave some to your "2nd family" as well

[Anonymous]

This depends on what your relationship is like. Usually premarital assets remain yours unless you're in a community property state. Talk to a lawyer, the amounts you're talking about mean the cost won't matter in the long run.

We structured our prenup as a vesting schedule with a no fault escape at 3 years and a 10 year vesting schedule that equalizes our assets until they're 50/50. That protected the higher earner from losing half a few years in, but meant we're financial partners long term. Even though I make 5X what my spouse does they give me a lot of support and enabled me to reach that level in my career so splitting it felt fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This depends on what your relationship is like. Usually premarital assets remain yours unless you're in a community property state. Talk to a lawyer, the amounts you're talking about mean the cost won't matter in the long run.

We structured our prenup as a vesting schedule with a no fault escape at 3 years and a 10 year vesting schedule that equalizes our assets until they're 50/50. That protected the higher earner from losing half a few years in, but meant we're financial partners long term. Even though I make 5X what my spouse does they give me a lot of support and enabled me to reach that level in my career so splitting it felt fair.

10 year vesting for a second marriage with a 16 year age gap, one person in a c-suite type role, and both grown and minor children? Sounds like there is going to be a certain amount of inherent strain on the marriage. 15-20 years to equalization probably makes more sense in that scenario.

[Anonymous]

This sounds messy . Tighten that prenup
Or you will get nada

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it all depends on what the higher earner wants. Are they trying to say their earnings and investments during the marriage won’t be marital property? In that case the lower earner is screwed no matter what. If the higher earner is pushing this then lower earner needs to get a certain amount per year married/per kid. High earner is likely not going to accept low earner spending time on her career instead of his career and household so she needs to be compensated

+1000

ALso, the lower earner really needs to consider why they would want to be married/have kids with someone who cares so little about them. What do they get from being in this relationship? Because I don't see much but a self centered spouse

We both already have kids.

Alright, there you go. The higher earner is trying to protect their children’s inheritance. Most spouses - particularly men - just go along to get along, and their kids end up losing their entire inheritance to stepmom and her kids. As a breadwinning DW it is my biggest nightmare that I pass away early and everything I worked hard for ends up going to some golddigger’s brats.

Premarital assets are off limits, provided they are kept separate. You can claim some entitlement to the money grown on those assets during the marriage, but even then it’s hard to imagine why you’d feel entitled to that. It predated you and had nothing to do with whatever you contributed.

New assets are a different story. You should demand your share of those. Same with any assets you had coming in and any growth on those assets, provided they are kept separate.

If you insist on staying home and being kept, demand alimony and settlement/inheritance in an amount that will keep you sustained in the event of divorce or widowhood. Otherwise, you continue to work. If your spouse wants to treat you like the help they need to pay for it.

Also consider a life estate in a marital home in case spouse passes away first if you don’t co-own the property.

You should also come to some agreement about how expenses for your respective kids will be paid for. If spouse does not want to pay for your kids to go to the same fancy schools or the same fancy activities you should think twice about marriage. It’s just a recipe for resentment.

Kids aren't entitled to inhertance.

Neither is the second wife …

As long as you are married when the spouse dies, you can always challenge the will for half of the estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting something isn't the same as treating all the kids the same.
A former boss remarried to a younger woman with 3 kids under 12. He had 3 kids in their 20s. He set up an estate plan treating all the kids equally.
He got Alzheimer's, she put him in a care home, divorced him. He died and his kids got half and the other kids who left with mom got the other half. After taking care of him for 5 years.
Should have done a prenup,

She cared for him for 5 years. Putting someone with Alzheimers in a care home is 99% of the time the right thing to do, for everyone's safety, but especially the patient. He set it up to treat everyone equally, why is that a bad thing? It's what many do who actually love their 2nd spouse and "step kids" and integrate them into the joint family. Sounds like it was at least 10-15+ years together, not 1-2 and she ran

No she just put him in early. His KIDS visited, moved him to more care when it was needed, buried him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting something isn't the same as treating all the kids the same.
A former boss remarried to a younger woman with 3 kids under 12. He had 3 kids in their 20s. He set up an estate plan treating all the kids equally.
He got Alzheimer's, she put him in a care home, divorced him. He died and his kids got half and the other kids who left with mom got the other half. After taking care of him for 5 years.
Should have done a prenup,

her three kids should not have gotten anything.

Umm...he set it up (when he was mental stable it seems) to support all 3 equally. That was his choice. Shows he was committed to his 2nd marriage and loved his step kids as well. His money, his choice.

Yeah well they didn't love him as it turns out. No flowers or even condolence notes from any of them. By then they were late teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting something isn't the same as treating all the kids the same.
A former boss remarried to a younger woman with 3 kids under 12. He had 3 kids in their 20s. He set up an estate plan treating all the kids equally.
He got Alzheimer's, she put him in a care home, divorced him. He died and his kids got half and the other kids who left with mom got the other half. After taking care of him for 5 years.
Should have done a prenup,

She cared for him for 5 years. Putting someone with Alzheimers in a care home is 99% of the time the right thing to do, for everyone's safety, but especially the patient. He set it up to treat everyone equally, why is that a bad thing? It's what many do who actually love their 2nd spouse and "step kids" and integrate them into the joint family. Sounds like it was at least 10-15+ years together, not 1-2 and she ran

No she just put him in early. His KIDS visited, moved him to more care when it was needed, buried him.

Maybe he was a crap husband and there was no goodwill at the end. My mom would take care of my dad even though he was not a good husband just to spare us kids from it; whereas, a second wife won’t have the same motivation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the new husband willing to help with college expenses? Once you are married, new husband’s salary and net worth will be added to your salary which will mean 0 financial aid. Or perhaps, the kid’s father pay for college.

This is important to understand. The kids from lower income will forfeit most financial aid scholarships. It can be a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it all depends on what the higher earner wants. Are they trying to say their earnings and investments during the marriage won’t be marital property? In that case the lower earner is screwed no matter what. If the higher earner is pushing this then lower earner needs to get a certain amount per year married/per kid. High earner is likely not going to accept low earner spending time on her career instead of his career and household so she needs to be compensated

+1000

ALso, the lower earner really needs to consider why they would want to be married/have kids with someone who cares so little about them. What do they get from being in this relationship? Because I don't see much but a self centered spouse

We both already have kids.

Alright, there you go. The higher earner is trying to protect their children’s inheritance. Most spouses - particularly men - just go along to get along, and their kids end up losing their entire inheritance to stepmom and her kids. As a breadwinning DW it is my biggest nightmare that I pass away early and everything I worked hard for ends up going to some golddigger’s brats.

Premarital assets are off limits, provided they are kept separate. You can claim some entitlement to the money grown on those assets during the marriage, but even then it’s hard to imagine why you’d feel entitled to that. It predated you and had nothing to do with whatever you contributed.

New assets are a different story. You should demand your share of those. Same with any assets you had coming in and any growth on those assets, provided they are kept separate.

If you insist on staying home and being kept, demand alimony and settlement/inheritance in an amount that will keep you sustained in the event of divorce or widowhood. Otherwise, you continue to work. If your spouse wants to treat you like the help they need to pay for it.

Also consider a life estate in a marital home in case spouse passes away first if you don’t co-own the property.

You should also come to some agreement about how expenses for your respective kids will be paid for. If spouse does not want to pay for your kids to go to the same fancy schools or the same fancy activities you should think twice about marriage. It’s just a recipe for resentment.

In a 2nd marriage, I do get "protecting" your assets so your kids still get their share. But I don't understand how you can want to marry someone else and not feel a need to provide something for them and their kids. How can you say you "love someone" yet want them not to get anything financial from you?!?!?!

Huh?
We have no idea how old these kids are and who the caretaker is if they are under age 18. Plus they already have 1 mother, 1 father, and at least 2 sets of grandparents and perhaps various aunts & uncles to “provide for them.”

Same with my set of kids. I don’t get remarried when they are age 15, 25, or 35 and suddenly they are showered with cars, tuitions, and vacations from new step parent. Plus the above people. And new step everythings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting something isn't the same as treating all the kids the same.
A former boss remarried to a younger woman with 3 kids under 12. He had 3 kids in their 20s. He set up an estate plan treating all the kids equally.
He got Alzheimer's, she put him in a care home, divorced him. He died and his kids got half and the other kids who left with mom got the other half. After taking care of him for 5 years.
Should have done a prenup,

her three kids should not have gotten anything.

Umm...he set it up (when he was mental stable it seems) to support all 3 equally. That was his choice. Shows he was committed to his 2nd marriage and loved his step kids as well. His money, his choice.

Yeah well they didn't love him as it turns out. No flowers or even condolence notes from any of them. By then they were late teens.

You were expecting teenagers to send condolence notes to you? When they were grieving? That sounds like an unrealistic expectation. That's not what teens do. If they actually felt like he was their father, it's hard to lose a father figure when you're a child. Relatives should have been consoling them not expecting consolation.