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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

She didn’t say she didn’t want one; she said the husband would’t do it. Which, TBH, raises the index of suspicion that she needs all the protection she can get.

OP, do not take your child out of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

[Anonymous]

oy. Ignoring the post-nup nuts...

OP, in addition to making sure your bank accounts are truly joint (not just that you have a card with your name on it on his account), make sure your house, car, and utilities are joint too. This is for your credit, but also, if he dies it can be a real pain to transfer things instead of just dropping his name from the account. Also make sure that all accounts with designated beneficiaries (401K, IRA, life insurance) are up to date, and list the correct person (the spouse as first). Take some of your own money now and put it in a relatively liquid, interest earning account such that you and only you will have access to it in case of his death or a separation or some other occurrence that makes it impossible for you to access your joint cash. That is your personal emergency fund for day to day expenditures post-personal-catastrophe (or lawyers fees). Also if you can, you guys should start contributing to an IRA in your name, since you won't have a work retirement account to contribute to anymore. That is not just for you, but is a way for you as a couple to maximize your joint retirement savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

Judging from what you are saying it sounds like if your spouse comes at you with one of these posthup agreements, you might want to take that as a red flag and get the hell out while the getting is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

Judging from what you are saying it sounds like if your spouse comes at you with one of these posthup agreements, you might want to take that as a red flag and get the hell out while the getting is good.

It’s no different than a prenup. Just as offensive, if you see it that way.

[Anonymous]

My husband and I got a post-up when I quit my job.

We both feel it is fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

Judging from what you are saying it sounds like if your spouse comes at you with one of these posthup agreements, you might want to take that as a red flag and get the hell out while the getting is good.

It’s no different than a prenup. Just as offensive, if you see it that way.

No. With a prenup his property/money/debt belongs to him, my property/money/debt belongs to me. If we get married and want to keep our property/money/debt (made before we married) separate we can both sign a prenup indicating that. Or if it's a second marriage and you both want to leave assets from before your marriage to your own children rather than each other then a prenup is good.

I guess I just don't see the value of a postnup unless it somehow is protective to both parties and both parties are represented by their own lawyers. I'm trying to envision this as a married couple and it seems more like a predivorce agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

Judging from what you are saying it sounds like if your spouse comes at you with one of these posthup agreements, you might want to take that as a red flag and get the hell out while the getting is good.

It’s no different than a prenup. Just as offensive, if you see it that way.

No. With a prenup his property/money/debt belongs to him, my property/money/debt belongs to me. If we get married and want to keep our property/money/debt (made before we married) separate we can both sign a prenup indicating that. Or if it's a second marriage and you both want to leave assets from before your marriage to your own children rather than each other then a prenup is good.

I guess I just don't see the value of a postnup unless it somehow is protective to both parties and both parties are represented by their own lawyers. I'm trying to envision this as a married couple and it seems more like a predivorce agreement.

Is this still you or are there multiple people in this thread making clear that they cannot imagine the situation accurately but also have strong views about it that they believe are relevant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oy. Ignoring the post-nup nuts...

OP, in addition to making sure your bank accounts are truly joint (not just that you have a card with your name on it on his account), make sure your house, car, and utilities are joint too. This is for your credit, but also, if he dies it can be a real pain to transfer things instead of just dropping his name from the account. Also make sure that all accounts with designated beneficiaries (401K, IRA, life insurance) are up to date, and list the correct person (the spouse as first). Take some of your own money now and put it in a relatively liquid, interest earning account such that you and only you will have access to it in case of his death or a separation or some other occurrence that makes it impossible for you to access your joint cash. That is your personal emergency fund for day to day expenditures post-personal-catastrophe (or lawyers fees). Also if you can, you guys should start contributing to an IRA in your name, since you won't have a work retirement account to contribute to anymore. That is not just for you, but is a way for you as a couple to maximize your joint retirement savings.

Finally, some good advice. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

Judging from what you are saying it sounds like if your spouse comes at you with one of these posthup agreements, you might want to take that as a red flag and get the hell out while the getting is good.

It’s no different than a prenup. Just as offensive, if you see it that way.

No. With a prenup his property/money/debt belongs to him, my property/money/debt belongs to me. If we get married and want to keep our property/money/debt (made before we married) separate we can both sign a prenup indicating that. Or if it's a second marriage and you both want to leave assets from before your marriage to your own children rather than each other then a prenup is good.

I guess I just don't see the value of a postnup unless it somehow is protective to both parties and both parties are represented by their own lawyers. I'm trying to envision this as a married couple and it seems more like a predivorce agreement.

This is probably why you’re confused. Sure, some prenups address only what’s owned before a marriage, inheritances or protecting kids from a first marriage. But prenups can also state no alimony ever, real estate will only belong to one party, full waiver of retirement, etc. it can be for first marriages and the not-so-wealthy. There are plenty of one sided “unfair” prenups and they are still valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

Judging from what you are saying it sounds like if your spouse comes at you with one of these posthup agreements, you might want to take that as a red flag and get the hell out while the getting is good.

It’s no different than a prenup. Just as offensive, if you see it that way.

No. With a prenup his property/money/debt belongs to him, my property/money/debt belongs to me. If we get married and want to keep our property/money/debt (made before we married) separate we can both sign a prenup indicating that. Or if it's a second marriage and you both want to leave assets from before your marriage to your own children rather than each other then a prenup is good.

I guess I just don't see the value of a postnup unless it somehow is protective to both parties and both parties are represented by their own lawyers. I'm trying to envision this as a married couple and it seems more like a predivorce agreement.

This is probably why you’re confused. Sure, some prenups address only what’s owned before a marriage, inheritances or protecting kids from a first marriage. But prenups can also state no alimony ever, real estate will only belong to one party, full waiver of retirement, etc. it can be for first marriages and the not-so-wealthy. There are plenty of one sided “unfair” prenups and they are still valid.

Even in a case like that, you at least know what you're getting into before you get into it. You don't have to marry the person if the terms of the prenup sound ridiculous to you and vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oy. Ignoring the post-nup nuts...

OP, in addition to making sure your bank accounts are truly joint (not just that you have a card with your name on it on his account), make sure your house, car, and utilities are joint too. This is for your credit, but also, if he dies it can be a real pain to transfer things instead of just dropping his name from the account. Also make sure that all accounts with designated beneficiaries (401K, IRA, life insurance) are up to date, and list the correct person (the spouse as first). Take some of your own money now and put it in a relatively liquid, interest earning account such that you and only you will have access to it in case of his death or a separation or some other occurrence that makes it impossible for you to access your joint cash. That is your personal emergency fund for day to day expenditures post-personal-catastrophe (or lawyers fees). Also if you can, you guys should start contributing to an IRA in your name, since you won't have a work retirement account to contribute to anymore. That is not just for you, but is a way for you as a couple to maximize your joint retirement savings.

Finally, some good advice. Thank you.

+100 I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, lady. I’m an experienced lawyer. You’re not. I assure you I’m right. Even if you feel it’s a moral injustice, it is the way the law works.

You did mean minor children.

I said “kids” which is obviously not adults. Yes, minor children.

Judging from what you are saying it sounds like if your spouse comes at you with one of these posthup agreements, you might want to take that as a red flag and get the hell out while the getting is good.

It’s no different than a prenup. Just as offensive, if you see it that way.

No. With a prenup his property/money/debt belongs to him, my property/money/debt belongs to me. If we get married and want to keep our property/money/debt (made before we married) separate we can both sign a prenup indicating that. Or if it's a second marriage and you both want to leave assets from before your marriage to your own children rather than each other then a prenup is good.

I guess I just don't see the value of a postnup unless it somehow is protective to both parties and both parties are represented by their own lawyers. I'm trying to envision this as a married couple and it seems more like a predivorce agreement.

This is probably why you’re confused. Sure, some prenups address only what’s owned before a marriage, inheritances or protecting kids from a first marriage. But prenups can also state no alimony ever, real estate will only belong to one party, full waiver of retirement, etc. it can be for first marriages and the not-so-wealthy. There are plenty of one sided “unfair” prenups and they are still valid.

Even in a case like that, you at least know what you're getting into before you get into it. You don't have to marry the person if the terms of the prenup sound ridiculous to you and vice versa.

Uh...right. But the issue was whether a post nup would be valid if inequitable. Obviously you don’t need to sign a post nup if you don’t like the terms.