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.

This is a great example of a values litmus test.

Here I think what's unreasonable is that you would divorce somebody you loved for not seeing them very much.

The millions seem more like a windfall/luck and neither would be harmed by splitting up $28M into $14M. I don't think they needed a prenup.

Elon Musk's first wife wrote an article about her life as Elon's first wife. She found the prenup process/pressure from his investors very ugly and upsetting. She was put under a lot of pressure from people who were more concerned about their financial investment in the company than the health of her marriage.

And as we now see, no amount of money makes up for choosing a toxic spouse. The impact on her kids' lives is permanent. They literally find out about new siblings randomly from social media.

Anonymous wrote:I have no problems with prenups in many instances but in this case would advise the lower earner not to sign and to move on if the other party insists.

You realize that a prenup can protect her interests too? It's more likely to be invalidated if it's too one-sided.

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.

Selective infantilization and invocation of agency is their speciality.

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.

I have no problems with prenups in many instances but in this case would advise the lower earner not to sign and to move on if the other party insists.

Anonymous wrote:Can a prenup, even when it is well written to protect asset, be invalidated by a judge? I am sure it has happened many times before, right?

I am interested to hear about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Richard Branson’s wife just died and in the obituary he’s quoted as saying that they didn’t have a prenup because he felt it cheapened the relationship. She was his second wife.

Asking for a prenup when you’re both so young and don’t have the money in the bank seems like a tough way to start the relationship. It’s like you’re putting up walls when you have nothing to protect.

He does have something to protect though. Bad take.

Ehat about her? Doesn't she have things to protect? Or is money the only thing of value? If so, he should find someone with as much money as he has.

Huh? You aren't making sense and are making a bunch of logical leaps. If she has something to protect, she is a big girl and can figure out ways protect herself too. Maybe that's a prenup; maybe other means.

And you wonder why people don't like prenups! This is not how you treat someone you want to marry. People with money are more sophisticated in terms of figuring out what needs to be protected ( because they have attorneys/advisors who are paid to look out for them). You cannot say your fiancee is a " big girl", and can protect herself.

Any good potential spouse should be looking for a fair prenup, considering the other party and how the prenup can protect them too.

But…you were talking about things other than money. Get your story straight.

I still am - nothing in my response suggests otherwise. Get your head straight.

Then infantilize women so much that you think they aren't capable of sticking up for and protecting themselves? Either within or outside of a prenup?

Not surprising to see that in your teeny tiny head, only women can fall into this category. Take a moment and think deeper.

You're the one framing her that way, goofy. Goodness you are bad at this. Collect yourself, follow the thread and try to make just a bit of sense.

Anonymous wrote:Is your son interested in a prenup or just you? I am not trying to sound flip because my question matters.

OP does seem the the mother and is looking to protect the interests of her Special Little Man.

To PP - no, we don’t infantilize women. In fact, women are well aware that the end responsibility for the their kids born in marriage remains with them. The 50:50 formula became the law to ensure kids would get a fair share of the estate from either parent even in case of divorce. Men tend to abandon kids from a prior marriage when they find a wetter P.. later in life. Women tend to remain caretakers for young kids and any SN adult kids which is an objective drag on women’s ability to earn.
So I would only sign a prenup with an automatic expiration date - when the first child is born to marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Richard Branson’s wife just died and in the obituary he’s quoted as saying that they didn’t have a prenup because he felt it cheapened the relationship. She was his second wife.

Asking for a prenup when you’re both so young and don’t have the money in the bank seems like a tough way to start the relationship. It’s like you’re putting up walls when you have nothing to protect.

He does have something to protect though. Bad take.

Ehat about her? Doesn't she have things to protect? Or is money the only thing of value? If so, he should find someone with as much money as he has.

Huh? You aren't making sense and are making a bunch of logical leaps. If she has something to protect, she is a big girl and can figure out ways protect herself too. Maybe that's a prenup; maybe other means.

And you wonder why people don't like prenups! This is not how you treat someone you want to marry. People with money are more sophisticated in terms of figuring out what needs to be protected ( because they have attorneys/advisors who are paid to look out for them). You cannot say your fiancee is a " big girl", and can protect herself.

Any good potential spouse should be looking for a fair prenup, considering the other party and how the prenup can protect them too.

But…you were talking about things other than money. Get your story straight.

I still am - nothing in my response suggests otherwise. Get your head straight.

Then infantilize women so much that you think they aren't capable of sticking up for and protecting themselves? Either within or outside of a prenup?

Not surprising to see that in your teeny tiny head, only women can fall into this category. Take a moment and think deeper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Richard Branson’s wife just died and in the obituary he’s quoted as saying that they didn’t have a prenup because he felt it cheapened the relationship. She was his second wife.

Asking for a prenup when you’re both so young and don’t have the money in the bank seems like a tough way to start the relationship. It’s like you’re putting up walls when you have nothing to protect.

He does have something to protect though. Bad take.

Ehat about her? Doesn't she have things to protect? Or is money the only thing of value? If so, he should find someone with as much money as he has.

Huh? You aren't making sense and are making a bunch of logical leaps. If she has something to protect, she is a big girl and can figure out ways protect herself too. Maybe that's a prenup; maybe other means.

And you wonder why people don't like prenups! This is not how you treat someone you want to marry. People with money are more sophisticated in terms of figuring out what needs to be protected ( because they have attorneys/advisors who are paid to look out for them). You cannot say your fiancee is a " big girl", and can protect herself.

Any good potential spouse should be looking for a fair prenup, considering the other party and how the prenup can protect them too.

But…you were talking about things other than money. Get your story straight.

I still am - nothing in my response suggests otherwise. Get your head straight.

Then infantilize women so much that you think they aren't capable of sticking up for and protecting themselves? Either within or outside of a prenup?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Richard Branson’s wife just died and in the obituary he’s quoted as saying that they didn’t have a prenup because he felt it cheapened the relationship. She was his second wife.

Asking for a prenup when you’re both so young and don’t have the money in the bank seems like a tough way to start the relationship. It’s like you’re putting up walls when you have nothing to protect.

He does have something to protect though. Bad take.

Ehat about her? Doesn't she have things to protect? Or is money the only thing of value? If so, he should find someone with as much money as he has.

Huh? You aren't making sense and are making a bunch of logical leaps. If she has something to protect, she is a big girl and can figure out ways protect herself too. Maybe that's a prenup; maybe other means.

And you wonder why people don't like prenups! This is not how you treat someone you want to marry. People with money are more sophisticated in terms of figuring out what needs to be protected ( because they have attorneys/advisors who are paid to look out for them). You cannot say your fiancee is a " big girl", and can protect herself.

Any good potential spouse should be looking for a fair prenup, considering the other party and how the prenup can protect them too.

But…you were talking about things other than money. Get your story straight.

I still am - nothing in my response suggests otherwise. Get your head straight.

All marriages have prenups. It's just either you two that decide the terms, or the government.

Usually it's to protect assets or businesses that already exist. Idk if you can do a prenup for "maybe someday I'll make $5M and you wont get it" but I'm not a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Richard Branson’s wife just died and in the obituary he’s quoted as saying that they didn’t have a prenup because he felt it cheapened the relationship. She was his second wife.

Asking for a prenup when you’re both so young and don’t have the money in the bank seems like a tough way to start the relationship. It’s like you’re putting up walls when you have nothing to protect.

He does have something to protect though. Bad take.

Ehat about her? Doesn't she have things to protect? Or is money the only thing of value? If so, he should find someone with as much money as he has.

Huh? You aren't making sense and are making a bunch of logical leaps. If she has something to protect, she is a big girl and can figure out ways protect herself too. Maybe that's a prenup; maybe other means.

And you wonder why people don't like prenups! This is not how you treat someone you want to marry. People with money are more sophisticated in terms of figuring out what needs to be protected ( because they have attorneys/advisors who are paid to look out for them). You cannot say your fiancee is a " big girl", and can protect herself.

Any good potential spouse should be looking for a fair prenup, considering the other party and how the prenup can protect them too.

But…you were talking about things other than money. Get your story straight.

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.

CA is a different beast though. I doubt this will be the outcome in the DC region.