After working 20 years became SAHM - how to protect self financially

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

As the breadwinner, the only way that you are this happy with your postnup is if you come out ahead with it and it provides you with an easy out. FWIW, the postnup has to be fair in order for it to be valid.

I don't think of my relationship with my husband as adversarial. So, no.

Obviously, I can't possibly know the details of your own personal relationship with your husband or why you would feel the need to spell the terms out of a divorce now.

I understand that people do it. But it seems to me that the terms of a postnup that you agree to and sign 1 year after you are married is no longer going to be appropriate 10 or 20 years down the road. I would consider that document to be valid for maybe 3 years.

This is not correct. An experienced domestic relations attorney will prepare one that will be valid forever and apply even after circumstances change. It’s no different from how a prenup is valid 10 years later.

An agreement that will be valid forever is also going to be a fair one. For instance, an agreement which sets out the terms of splitting (or not splitting) an inheritance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:eh post nups often aren't enforceable anyway

Wrong

- signed a divorce lawyer (VA has a specific law allowing them, in fact)

+1. Seriously, I even identified the statute upthread and the location of the provision that provides for post-nupts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

As the breadwinner, the only way that you are this happy with your postnup is if you come out ahead with it and it provides you with an easy out. FWIW, the postnup has to be fair in order for it to be valid.

I don't think of my relationship with my husband as adversarial. So, no.

Obviously, I can't possibly know the details of your own personal relationship with your husband or why you would feel the need to spell the terms out of a divorce now.

I understand that people do it. But it seems to me that the terms of a postnup that you agree to and sign 1 year after you are married is no longer going to be appropriate 10 or 20 years down the road. I would consider that document to be valid for maybe 3 years.

This is not correct. An experienced domestic relations attorney will prepare one that will be valid forever and apply even after circumstances change. It’s no different from how a prenup is valid 10 years later.

An agreement that will be valid forever is also going to be a fair one. For instance, an agreement which sets out the terms of splitting (or not splitting) an inheritance.

Not necessarily. I have been practicing domestic relations law for almost 30 years. Have you?

[Anonymous]

Maybe this case (wVA) will helps you u deretand the concept of fairness really means foreseeability:

https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1985/16590-5.html

Quoting from the case:

Many courts supervise prenuptial agreements by inquiring into their "fairness," either at the time they were entered into, or at the time of divorce, or at both times. We have no problem accepting the requirements set forth in the jurisdictions cited above that prenuptial agreements must be voluntarily and knowledgeably entered and validly procured, but we are loath to apply a vague and entirely subjective standard of "fairness." Throughout all of contract law there is the recurring problem of disparity of bargaining power; thus if mere disparate bargaining power alone is grounds for invalidating contracts, contracts between rich and poor or between strong and weak will always be of questionable validity. Such, however, is not the rule elsewhere in contract law, and we see no policy reasons to make it so in the law of prenuptial agreements.

The term "fair," without some further elaboration, gives no guidance whatsoever concerning which agreements will be binding and which agreements will be struck down. Furthermore, candor compels us to raise to a conscious level the fact that, as in this case, prenuptial agreements will almost always be entered into between people with property or an income potential to protect on one side and people who are impecunious on the other. Measuring an agreement by an undefined judicial standard of fairness is an invitation to the very wealth redistribution that these agreements are designed to prevent.

D
The cases that discuss prenuptial agreements in other jurisdictions lead to the conclusion that when courts talk about "fairness" in the setting of a prenuptial agreement, they are usually not talking *115 about an entirely subjective, open-ended concept that allows judges to renegotiate contracts and substitute their own judgment for the agreement of the parties. Rather, what other courts are really concerned about is "foreseeability."[10]

In the case of Larry and Elana Gant there is no reason not to honor the parties' prenuptial agreement because circumstances have transpired exactly as the parties foresaw that they might transpire at the time the prenuptial agreement was made. Basically, things did not work out romantically between two middle-aged adults, and that was the exact eventuality about which they had bargained and contracted.

But what would our decision be in this case if Elana and Larry had had an idyllic relationship for five years and had decided to have three children? Certainly that was not a foreseen event, and if ten years after entering into this prenuptial agreement, with three hypothetical children aged four, three, and one, Larry had decided to divorce, these hypothetical, unforeseen, intervening events would compel us to think very hard about whether to honor the prenuptial agreement's waiver of alimony. Elana would need support for herself so that she could care for the children, but neither party had contemplated having children at the time they entered into the agreement.

In crafting rules in an area such as the enforcement of prenuptial agreements only one thing is certain: no matter what rules we adopt, there will be cases when the application of those rules will be inequitable. Therefore, the question to be asked is whether the adoption of firm rules making prenuptial agreements presumptively enforceable in their stated, explicit terms will advance or undermine legitimate public policy that favors marriage. In the field of prenuptial agreements, firm rules favoring enforceability inevitably further the public policy of encouraging middle aged, cohabiting couples to regularize their relationships by getting married.

Furthermore, these rules are unlikely to have any untoward consequences among those marrying for the first time and contemplating children because experience instructs us that it is a rare, starey-eyed couple in their early twenties who enter into an elaborate prenuptial agreement; after all, among the young, marriage is an exercise in optimism. Such optimism, however, is less likely among those who have been divorced one or more times, and it is an understandable pessimism, based upon the national statistics cited above, that cause many middle aged individuals particularly those with property or income to protectto prefer unmarried cohabitation to formal marriage. Although courts have *116 a high regard for their own wisdom, not everyone has unreserved enthusiasm for the proposition that at divorce time his or her future economic well-being is entirely "within the sound discretion of the trial court judge." Zirkle v. Zirkle, W.Va., 304 S.E.2d 664 (1983). See also W.Va.Code, 48-2-15 [1980].


A prenup/post nup are both contracts and would be evaluated the same by a court.

[Anonymous]

I would say 99% of my friends wives don't work. Some have MBAs were VPs etc. They just threw the rock on the husband shoulders. Their houses are paid off, cars paid off, most have vacation homes, kids college funds paid off. And guess what when you are 55-65 as a women going to an office sucks. More so than men. As women need to compete with younger women. And man are shallow assholes. Who wants to go to meetings or drinks with 25-40 year old women in shape with no kids flirting and moving up ladder when you are tagged grandma at end of career. Just enjoy yourself and let your husbands suffer it is the American way

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this case (wVA) will helps you u deretand the concept of fairness really means foreseeability:

https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1985/16590-5.html

Quoting from the case:

Many courts supervise prenuptial agreements by inquiring into their "fairness," either at the time they were entered into, or at the time of divorce, or at both times. We have no problem accepting the requirements set forth in the jurisdictions cited above that prenuptial agreements must be voluntarily and knowledgeably entered and validly procured, but we are loath to apply a vague and entirely subjective standard of "fairness." Throughout all of contract law there is the recurring problem of disparity of bargaining power; thus if mere disparate bargaining power alone is grounds for invalidating contracts, contracts between rich and poor or between strong and weak will always be of questionable validity. Such, however, is not the rule elsewhere in contract law, and we see no policy reasons to make it so in the law of prenuptial agreements.

The term "fair," without some further elaboration, gives no guidance whatsoever concerning which agreements will be binding and which agreements will be struck down. Furthermore, candor compels us to raise to a conscious level the fact that, as in this case, prenuptial agreements will almost always be entered into between people with property or an income potential to protect on one side and people who are impecunious on the other. Measuring an agreement by an undefined judicial standard of fairness is an invitation to the very wealth redistribution that these agreements are designed to prevent.

D
The cases that discuss prenuptial agreements in other jurisdictions lead to the conclusion that when courts talk about "fairness" in the setting of a prenuptial agreement, they are usually not talking *115 about an entirely subjective, open-ended concept that allows judges to renegotiate contracts and substitute their own judgment for the agreement of the parties. Rather, what other courts are really concerned about is "foreseeability."[10]

In the case of Larry and Elana Gant there is no reason not to honor the parties' prenuptial agreement because circumstances have transpired exactly as the parties foresaw that they might transpire at the time the prenuptial agreement was made. Basically, things did not work out romantically between two middle-aged adults, and that was the exact eventuality about which they had bargained and contracted.

But what would our decision be in this case if Elana and Larry had had an idyllic relationship for five years and had decided to have three children? Certainly that was not a foreseen event, and if ten years after entering into this prenuptial agreement, with three hypothetical children aged four, three, and one, Larry had decided to divorce, these hypothetical, unforeseen, intervening events would compel us to think very hard about whether to honor the prenuptial agreement's waiver of alimony. Elana would need support for herself so that she could care for the children, but neither party had contemplated having children at the time they entered into the agreement.

In crafting rules in an area such as the enforcement of prenuptial agreements only one thing is certain: no matter what rules we adopt, there will be cases when the application of those rules will be inequitable. Therefore, the question to be asked is whether the adoption of firm rules making prenuptial agreements presumptively enforceable in their stated, explicit terms will advance or undermine legitimate public policy that favors marriage. In the field of prenuptial agreements, firm rules favoring enforceability inevitably further the public policy of encouraging middle aged, cohabiting couples to regularize their relationships by getting married.

Furthermore, these rules are unlikely to have any untoward consequences among those marrying for the first time and contemplating children because experience instructs us that it is a rare, starey-eyed couple in their early twenties who enter into an elaborate prenuptial agreement; after all, among the young, marriage is an exercise in optimism. Such optimism, however, is less likely among those who have been divorced one or more times, and it is an understandable pessimism, based upon the national statistics cited above, that cause many middle aged individuals particularly those with property or income to protectto prefer unmarried cohabitation to formal marriage. Although courts have *116 a high regard for their own wisdom, not everyone has unreserved enthusiasm for the proposition that at divorce time his or her future economic well-being is entirely "within the sound discretion of the trial court judge." Zirkle v. Zirkle, W.Va., 304 S.E.2d 664 (1983). See also W.Va.Code, 48-2-15 [1980].


A prenup/post nup are both contracts and would be evaluated the same by a court.

A prenup involves agreeing to terms BEFORE marriage when you are not likely to feel coerced into agreeing to them. A postnup after marriage involves signing away your right to what would be a legally equitable split of assets. An unfair split might be viewed as coercion. I'm not a judge or a lawyer but I can't imagine a coerced agreement holding up in court. So much depends on what the terms agreed to are.

Prenup is not the same as postnup.

[Anonymous]

^Good thing we have the non-lawyer, non-judge offering some expert advice here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Good thing we have the non-lawyer, non-judge offering some expert advice here.

Since no one is bothering to offer any good specific examples of what constitutes an unfair but legally binding postnup, we are left to guessing what that means. I would guess that such a lop sided agreement would not be valid. It is possible that the spouse on the loosing end might not realize that he/she could fight. Or maybe they can't afford to legally fight it.

[Anonymous]

I would imagine you discussed the decision to stay at home with your spouse and didn't up and quit without a discussion. My DH would be angry if that happened, understandably, and if you then bring up a post-nup it'll absolutely look like you are gearing up to leave them.

So talk with your spouse about the situation. Our DD has anxiety (generalized, social, and separation), most likely dyslexia (too close to the end of the year for testing through the school so need to wait until the start of next year for that), and potentially another learning disability (that would also be diagnosed through the school testing). Yeah it's rough, but we both still work so we can afford outside testing (if needed), additional/specialized tutoring (if warranted), and the 2 summer classes she is taking to help with reading/writing this summer (only 1 day a week).

That all wouldn't be possible if I stayed home. I'm not sure what I would be doing anyways if she was in school... Clean the house? Certainly not much child related. Maybe a phone call to schedule something but that wouldn't be daily...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would imagine you discussed the decision to stay at home with your spouse and didn't up and quit without a discussion. My DH would be angry if that happened, understandably, and if you then bring up a post-nup it'll absolutely look like you are gearing up to leave them.

So talk with your spouse about the situation. Our DD has anxiety (generalized, social, and separation), most likely dyslexia (too close to the end of the year for testing through the school so need to wait until the start of next year for that), and potentially another learning disability (that would also be diagnosed through the school testing). Yeah it's rough, but we both still work so we can afford outside testing (if needed), additional/specialized tutoring (if warranted), and the 2 summer classes she is taking to help with reading/writing this summer (only 1 day a week).

That all wouldn't be possible if I stayed home. I'm not sure what I would be doing anyways if she was in school... Clean the house? Certainly not much child related. Maybe a phone call to schedule something but that wouldn't be daily...

I also want to add if you're quitting to home school and have never taught or come close to teaching and your child is older than 1st grade there is going to be a HUGE learning curve for you, and most likely you'll end up spending $$ on a tutor, additional classes, curriculum, lesson plans, books/activities, and more. It's not a cheap en-devour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Good thing we have the non-lawyer, non-judge offering some expert advice here.

Since no one is bothering to offer any good specific examples of what constitutes an unfair but legally binding postnup, we are left to guessing what that means. I would guess that such a lop sided agreement would not be valid. It is possible that the spouse on the loosing end might not realize that he/she could fight. Or maybe they can't afford to legally fight it.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to do your own research but here you go.

Marital property settlement agreement that gave husband 94% of marital assets was not unconscionable; husband and wife discussed agreement prior to husband having attorney draft agreement, wife read agreement, husband advised wife to consult with attorney but wife refused to do so, wife was not forced to sign agreement, and there was no showing of overreaching or oppressive behavior by husband. ?Galloway v. Galloway, 2005, 622 S.E.2d 267, 47 Va.App. 83

[Anonymous]

Look, the OP said she doesn't want to force a post-nup on her husband anyway. So whether or not it is enforceable (and often they are not), is irrelevant to OP's question.

What else can she do to protect herself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Good thing we have the non-lawyer, non-judge offering some expert advice here.

Lawyer here. Exactly. As I said at the end of my last post, both a prenup and post nup would be evaluated the same. The only time a court will evaluate true fairness is if it’s dealing with kids. Just because you sign an agreement waiving child support or saying you will pay $50k and waive all visitation rights forever - a judge can overturn that bc it’s not in the best interests of the kids. For adult issues- fairness isn’t really a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Good thing we have the non-lawyer, non-judge offering some expert advice here.

Lawyer here. Exactly. As I said at the end of my last post, both a prenup and post nup would be evaluated the same. The only time a court will evaluate true fairness is if it’s dealing with kids. Just because you sign an agreement waiving child support or saying you will pay $50k and waive all visitation rights forever - a judge can overturn that bc it’s not in the best interests of the kids. For adult issues- fairness isn’t really a factor.

There's always the Sims case though although that was pretty egregious. DW with 3rd grade education...wowz!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Good thing we have the non-lawyer, non-judge offering some expert advice here.

Lawyer here. Exactly. As I said at the end of my last post, both a prenup and post nup would be evaluated the same. The only time a court will evaluate true fairness is if it’s dealing with kids. Just because you sign an agreement waiving child support or saying you will pay $50k and waive all visitation rights forever - a judge can overturn that bc it’s not in the best interests of the kids. For adult issues- fairness isn’t really a factor.

I assume you mean minor children because obviously leaving the non-working parent destitute with no way of supporting themselves is not going to be in the adult children's best interests.. That's just dear old dad/mom kicking the can of responsibility to their unsuspecting children who actually do care about their destitute parent.