Prenup or no Prenup?

[Anonymous]

Marry your equal and have no prenup, unless there are children from previous marriage need to be financially protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friend was an early software engineer at Google. Moved to CA after college with his girlfriend, and they eventually got married. When Google went public in 2004, he became instantly wealthy, ~$28M. Due to his insane work schedule, he got divorced 2 years later, and she took $14M.

If you think that is reasonable, you don't need a prenup. If you think that is unjust, then get a prenup.

She moved to California to be with him, presumably wasted her youth and fertility on him, and then waited around 2 more years while he was off working all the time. She deserves to be compensated for all of that.

Don’t waste women’s youth if you don’t want to pay up. He should have just stayed single if he didn’t want a real relationship. Too many men feel entitled to a girlfriend and wife, rather than looking at if they can actually be a good boyfriend or husband.

She chose all of that. He doesn't need to pay her for her own decisions.

And he made the same choices - to marry her knowing he would lose half in the event of a divorce.

The law is the law. He knew what he was getting into and that everything would be split 50/50. You don’t get to decide the law “isn’t fair” when it’s millions of dollars rather than thousands.

He didn’t have to get married. He could have had a prenup. He didn’t. That’s on him. Courts don’t want to hear men whining when they could have easily handled it with a prenup or by not getting married.

[Anonymous]

This is basically what the law would do if you had no pre-nup.

[Anonymous]

Could you wait for company to go public, lock up the proceeds (talk to a lawyer) then get married and everything you earn going forward belongs to the marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friend was an early software engineer at Google. Moved to CA after college with his girlfriend, and they eventually got married. When Google went public in 2004, he became instantly wealthy, ~$28M. Due to his insane work schedule, he got divorced 2 years later, and she took $14M.

If you think that is reasonable, you don't need a prenup. If you think that is unjust, then get a prenup.

She moved to California to be with him, presumably wasted her youth and fertility on him, and then waited around 2 more years while he was off working all the time. She deserves to be compensated for all of that.

Don’t waste women’s youth if you don’t want to pay up. He should have just stayed single if he didn’t want a real relationship. Too many men feel entitled to a girlfriend and wife, rather than looking at if they can actually be a good boyfriend or husband.

She chose all of that. He doesn't need to pay her for her own decisions.

And he made the same choices - to marry her knowing he would lose half in the event of a divorce.

The law is the law. He knew what he was getting into and that everything would be split 50/50. You don’t get to decide the law “isn’t fair” when it’s millions of dollars rather than thousands.

He didn’t have to get married. He could have had a prenup. He didn’t. That’s on him. Courts don’t want to hear men whining when they could have easily handled it with a prenup or by not getting married.

Yes, he could have. He got what he deserved for making bad decisions, and she got the gold she was waiting for. I bet he won't make that mistake again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have assets at marriage, do a pre-nup agreement for sure.

My ex and I had no assets to speak of in our early 20s but I had gone to a girls HS where typing was a required class "in case your husband divorces you". I temped when his mom watched our babies and typed 120wpm to actually keep the lights on while he went to very important neurosurgeon lawyer astronaut school.

Our rent was $900 and I brought in like $1400 a month while he accumulated debt. I drove a 1980 car to my job that leaked oil. Our electric bill was like $89 at the time and I know because I kept meticulous records.

I clipped coupons from circulars like Edward Scissorhands and we lived on ramen stews with reduced price vegetables. There was no money for hobbies so sometimes I woke up at 4am on a Sunday if he was home and went to dumpster dive behind Joanne's. Find enough unpaired knitting needles and eventually you can pair them. I unraveled enough old sweaters to re-knit them in different forms for our kids. I shopped at Savers and Salvation Army for the kids clothes.

We didn't even think of a pre-nup at the time.

Now he's kind of screwed because we didn't have one.

I'm not screwed, though, I got paid.

If you have assets to bring to a marriage, get a pre-nuptial at least that says you get to take back the value of what you brought to the marriage.

In most marriages where there is serious financial success, it eventually becomes an issue whether or not you think it will.

It seems though that your story backs the no prenup idea. Imagine your husband asked to sign it revoking all his future earnings . You would have gotten nothing after many years of living in poverty supporting him through the law school

+1 plus, your husband doesn’t sound screwed by not having a prenup either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:28(M) is preparing to marry a 26(F), and has the potential to earn $5 million in stock if his company is acquired or goes public within the next year. Currently, he makes $300K per year, while she earns $75K annually. They've been dating for 3 1/2 years. Should the 28-year-old man ask his fiancée to sign a prenuptial agreement, and could it potentially be a deal breaker?

Of course, a prenup. Only for the stock money nothing more.

After marriage there is no more comparing of the salary all the money goes together. IF you don't trust your partner do not get married.