Very common these days. He needs to protect himself.

Thank God he stopped this nonsense asking for a post nup now you and I can continue our torrid affair.

If a spouse inherits money from his family that spouse should have 100 percent control of that particular money. There should be no need to sign an agreement because a balanced and normal person would feel no sense of ownership of their partners dead parents assets.

OP, good news, but still, I'd consult a lawyer (by myself, on my lunch hour). Just so you get a better sense of the various types of post-nup documents that exist, their purpose, the benefits, limitations, risks of signing (or not signing them), etc. Hopefully you never hear about this again, but if you do, better to be informed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi all - this is the OP, with a quick update. After a sit down over the weekend, DH completely dropped the subject of a post-nup. And apologized. I am still not entirely sure why he raised it in the first place, and he didn't want to throw any family members under the bus, so he didn't defer to that explanation. I don't think he fully realized how insulting the thought was, whether it was coming from a good place or not. He says he wanted to provide ME with assurances about the potential influx of money, so that I would be comfortable with where it might go, etc. I think he felt bad and was backpaddling, to be honest. But I didn't push the issue further. It's not going to happen, and he knows I would never sign it regardless. It didn't have to do with the business structure in any event.

I don't think he fully thought through what the suggestion implied, and how it would be interpreted. Regardless, I am grateful for the comments and suggestions on this board. I am certainly keeping tabs on the thread, in case anything more develops. I am relatively confident that it will go away at this point.

OP again. I do think he might have been mistakenly referring to some of the deal-related estate planning documents as a postnuptual agreement. There are multiple family members involved, attorneys, financial planners, etc., and he isn't a lawyer and doesn't know the semantics of what the term postnuptial agreement implies (i.e., a segue into separation/divorce). So perhaps the term was thrown around by one of the many cooks in the kitchen. We are the only married couple with one spouse involved in the transaction. But he certainly indicated that he loves me, loves our family, wants us to enjoy any financial gain together as a family, pay for college and secure the kids' financial futures so they won't need to worry about loans for college, etc. That is what matters to me. I am gainfully employed, but want to make sure that the kids will be taken care of for college, etc., since we do have four, all of which are close in age, so college tuition is going to be a bear.

A suggestion. If he comes back with some concerns from his family that the money stays in the family, the rather than a post-nup, if you need to give some reassurance to his family, suggest that he might want to make his portion of the family business proceeds/profits go into a trust for the children. If he is alive, he is the trustee of the trust (e.g. the person who controls it) and the children are the beneficiaries. In the event that he predeceases you, then another designate would be assigned (either you or someone in his family) to be the trustee, but the beneficiaries would still be your children. This gives the family assurance that the money will stay in the family, and go directly to his blood heirs. Your children will still get the benefit of their father and paternal family's business. The reason this helps give assurance to some, is that often money gets left to a surviving spouse who remarries and then the money goes out of the family, benefits the second spouse and subsequent children more than it benefits the family blood heirs. The trust ensures that the money stays within the family, even if it just passes down to the next generation.

Unfortunately, I have seen many people who just share the marital benefits and watch family business, ownership stakes, and profits pass out of their family that way, by a family member's death and the spouse's subsequent remarriage, that it is understandable wanting to provide some assurance that the money stays with the family heirs, even if it goes down one generation. A trust is better than a pre- or post-nuptial in that situation.

Good to hear OP.

I bet he mentioned something about this to someone else, who promptly said "You asked for what?! Do you have any idea how that must have made your wife feel?!"

Hopefully it was just a boneheaded moment that you can both laugh about some day in the future. And I hope it all turns out to be a great help to the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi all - this is the OP, with a quick update. After a sit down over the weekend, DH completely dropped the subject of a post-nup. And apologized. I am still not entirely sure why he raised it in the first place, and he didn't want to throw any family members under the bus, so he didn't defer to that explanation. I don't think he fully realized how insulting the thought was, whether it was coming from a good place or not. He says he wanted to provide ME with assurances about the potential influx of money, so that I would be comfortable with where it might go, etc. I think he felt bad and was backpaddling, to be honest. But I didn't push the issue further. It's not going to happen, and he knows I would never sign it regardless. It didn't have to do with the business structure in any event.

I don't think he fully thought through what the suggestion implied, and how it would be interpreted. Regardless, I am grateful for the comments and suggestions on this board. I am certainly keeping tabs on the thread, in case anything more develops. I am relatively confident that it will go away at this point.

OP again. I do think he might have been mistakenly referring to some of the deal-related estate planning documents as a postnuptual agreement. There are multiple family members involved, attorneys, financial planners, etc., and he isn't a lawyer and doesn't know the semantics of what the term postnuptial agreement implies (i.e., a segue into separation/divorce). So perhaps the term was thrown around by one of the many cooks in the kitchen. We are the only married couple with one spouse involved in the transaction. But he certainly indicated that he loves me, loves our family, wants us to enjoy any financial gain together as a family, pay for college and secure the kids' financial futures so they won't need to worry about loans for college, etc. That is what matters to me. I am gainfully employed, but want to make sure that the kids will be taken care of for college, etc., since we do have four, all of which are close in age, so college tuition is going to be a bear.

Thanks for the update, OP, so glad to hear it turned out to be nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi all - this is the OP, with a quick update. After a sit down over the weekend, DH completely dropped the subject of a post-nup. And apologized. I am still not entirely sure why he raised it in the first place, and he didn't want to throw any family members under the bus, so he didn't defer to that explanation. I don't think he fully realized how insulting the thought was, whether it was coming from a good place or not. He says he wanted to provide ME with assurances about the potential influx of money, so that I would be comfortable with where it might go, etc. I think he felt bad and was backpaddling, to be honest. But I didn't push the issue further. It's not going to happen, and he knows I would never sign it regardless. It didn't have to do with the business structure in any event.

I don't think he fully thought through what the suggestion implied, and how it would be interpreted. Regardless, I am grateful for the comments and suggestions on this board. I am certainly keeping tabs on the thread, in case anything more develops. I am relatively confident that it will go away at this point.

OP again. I do think he might have been mistakenly referring to some of the deal-related estate planning documents as a postnuptual agreement. There are multiple family members involved, attorneys, financial planners, etc., and he isn't a lawyer and doesn't know the semantics of what the term postnuptial agreement implies (i.e., a segue into separation/divorce). So perhaps the term was thrown around by one of the many cooks in the kitchen. We are the only married couple with one spouse involved in the transaction. But he certainly indicated that he loves me, loves our family, wants us to enjoy any financial gain together as a family, pay for college and secure the kids' financial futures so they won't need to worry about loans for college, etc. That is what matters to me. I am gainfully employed, but want to make sure that the kids will be taken care of for college, etc., since we do have four, all of which are close in age, so college tuition is going to be a bear.

Clearly you guys need to sit down and discuss how the money should be used and see if you agree. Call it a post nuptial agreement or not... you need to get on the same page. Also, life can take a left turn on a dime.

Also, you need a trust. A postnup might actually protect your assets and your children's assets.

My friend has a prenup and when they divorced he would have literally left them nothing, but since they had a prenup he couldn't do that, he had to honor his commitment to give their son a certain amount of money.

Anonymous wrote:Hi all - this is the OP, with a quick update. After a sit down over the weekend, DH completely dropped the subject of a post-nup. And apologized. I am still not entirely sure why he raised it in the first place, and he didn't want to throw any family members under the bus, so he didn't defer to that explanation. I don't think he fully realized how insulting the thought was, whether it was coming from a good place or not. He says he wanted to provide ME with assurances about the potential influx of money, so that I would be comfortable with where it might go, etc. I think he felt bad and was backpaddling, to be honest. But I didn't push the issue further. It's not going to happen, and he knows I would never sign it regardless. It didn't have to do with the business structure in any event.

I don't think he fully thought through what the suggestion implied, and how it would be interpreted. Regardless, I am grateful for the comments and suggestions on this board. I am certainly keeping tabs on the thread, in case anything more develops. I am relatively confident that it will go away at this point.

OP again. I do think he might have been mistakenly referring to some of the deal-related estate planning documents as a postnuptual agreement. There are multiple family members involved, attorneys, financial planners, etc., and he isn't a lawyer and doesn't know the semantics of what the term postnuptial agreement implies (i.e., a segue into separation/divorce). So perhaps the term was thrown around by one of the many cooks in the kitchen. We are the only married couple with one spouse involved in the transaction. But he certainly indicated that he loves me, loves our family, wants us to enjoy any financial gain together as a family, pay for college and secure the kids' financial futures so they won't need to worry about loans for college, etc. That is what matters to me. I am gainfully employed, but want to make sure that the kids will be taken care of for college, etc., since we do have four, all of which are close in age, so college tuition is going to be a bear.

Hi all - this is the OP, with a quick update. After a sit down over the weekend, DH completely dropped the subject of a post-nup. And apologized. I am still not entirely sure why he raised it in the first place, and he didn't want to throw any family members under the bus, so he didn't defer to that explanation. I don't think he fully realized how insulting the thought was, whether it was coming from a good place or not. He says he wanted to provide ME with assurances about the potential influx of money, so that I would be comfortable with where it might go, etc. I think he felt bad and was backpaddling, to be honest. But I didn't push the issue further. It's not going to happen, and he knows I would never sign it regardless. It didn't have to do with the business structure in any event.

I don't think he fully thought through what the suggestion implied, and how it would be interpreted. Regardless, I am grateful for the comments and suggestions on this board. I am certainly keeping tabs on the thread, in case anything more develops. I am relatively confident that it will go away at this point.

Maybe it has to do with preventing DH from a forced sale by you, OP, in the event you divorce and you are awarded half the value of his interest in the business, and he can't come up with that cash amount. Agree with all advice about getting a complete understanding of what the agreement would be and getting a good lawyer to review it with you. As PPs noted, it might be a chance to lock in some things in case there ever is a divorce (though I imagine such an agreement would not be exhaustive as far as all of your marital assets, etc.).

Emotionally, I'd want to talk more with DH about why exactly he wants this and what he imagines the agreement would be. I'd also want him to address the emotional impact on you of this request.

Any updates, OP? My initial Occam's razor sense was telling me that DH probably figured now that he was going to be rich it was time to get a penthouse, a sports car and date women in their late 20s/early 30s. Hope that isn't the case!

Heh-heh-heeehhhhllllllllllllll no.

Hellnaw.

HELL NO!