THERE IS A 100% CHANCE OF DIVORCE IF YOU MARRY THIS LOSER. HE IS DOING ALL OF THIS FOR A MEASLY $70k OVER HIS LIFE PARTNER. I CAN UNDERSTAND IF HIS FORTUNE WAS $7M OR SO...BUT PETTY, PETTY. DISUGSTING. RUN!!

This will get worse. I wish I had run when I encountered this.

$70k, prenup?? Hahahaaa is this a joke? Are we being punked?! Lol that's a good one

Anonymous wrote:I was 14:35. I think the most generous interpretation is that her boyfriend heard or read something about prenups and feels like it is necessary -- again being either unaware or ignorant of the thousands and thousands of legal decisions already issued which address the issue in a relatively fair way. A more troubling interpretation is that he is selfish with money.

I tend to agree with this PP and think some of the other posters are getting a little overheated, especially with such a limited amount of info as you've given here, OP. Yeah, the request for a prenup could be coming from some evil desire to screw you over for the divorce he's already planning for years down the road after you've helped to pay for his grad school, but as we are not living in a soap opera it seems unlikely. My now-DH also mentioned wanting a prenup before we married and we were in almost exactly the same situation as you are now. He had bought a home before I met him and I was coming in with some student loans and made less than he did at the time, though we had already pooled our finances and so we were both paying into the mortgage and the student loans at that point. I definitely had the impression it was just something he'd heard somewhere and thought should be done rather than anything nefarious.

I told him we could if he really wanted to though I thought it was unnecessary - my attitude was exactly yours, I genuinely didn't care, agreed it was his money, just thought it was more hassle than it would be worth to either of us long-term - and left it in his court. Never heard a thing about it again. Whether he ever really wanted to do it at all, whether me being willing to do it set at rest any vague concerns he had, or whether he decided it was going to be more expensive than it was worth I don't know, but I really do think it was just something he heard somewhere and thought was something lots of people did as part of the getting-married process. He's an engineer so very process-oriented. Now been married almost 10 years and no problems with shared finances. So unless your instincts are telling you there is more to this than it appears on its face, I wouldn't worry about it.

He liquidated his 401k for the down payment?

Bad move. Your over extended in a home.

Why did you buy a home together before marriage?

I would not sign anything. If you two are adult
Enough to marry your adult enough to join finances.

And has he replensihed that 70k?

Are you listed as the beneficiary on his 401k? Stocks, all investments? Life insurance? Has your estimate attorney sent notification to all financial accounts (for both of you) that you are the only surviver beneficiary.

If you both die. Is there a family trust set up for
Future children.

No?

Well your not ready to marry.

A divorce will cost him more than 70k. Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't marry a man who made 2x what I did and wanted a prenup for 70k. Too stingy. Big big red flag.

+1

AND expects you to pay for his grad school

I wouldn't marry a man who made 2x what I did and wanted a prenup for 70k. Too stingy. Big big red flag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

It's actually not that simple at all, especially once they sell this house and use the proceeds to buy the next one.

The principles are actually fairly straightforward and equitable.

Here is a good primer on how the law would handle it:

https://www.livesaymyers.com/down-payment-marital-home-virginia-divorce/

That doesn't address the scenario where they sell this house and buy another with the proceeds. At that point it's no longer coming from a separate asset because the house is a marital asset, and the originally separate portion can lose its separate asset protections if not handled properly. Further, as that note discusses, there are a variety of ways to value the separate asset portion in the event of divorce. A pre-nup can designate a valuation methodology to avoid fighting about it later.

Bolded part is incorrect.

--signed a divorce lawyer (in general, he'd get his separate property plus passive growth on those funds before you two would divide the marital share. If he's offering to waive the passive growth in his separate share, he's offering to give LESS to himself than The law otherwise grants him as he's waiving the passive growth on his 70k)

What if the house sold at a loss?

What if your marriage ended by his death (do you owe someone else in his family 70k?)

You would equitably split the appreciation after marriage minus. I do not believe that is incorrect.

Minus what is the question. The attorney is saying the husband would get $70k plus some amount to account for passive growth before splitting appreciation. You are saying the husband would get $70k then divide the appreciation. These are not the same. I don't know the law, just letting you know that you two are not saying the same thing.

Red flag -red flag. Run run

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe he wants a prenup over such a small amount of money. That would concern me.

+1

I also would be concerned that he wants to protect his $70k, but has no problem with you combining your assets now (before you guys are married).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

It's actually not that simple at all, especially once they sell this house and use the proceeds to buy the next one.

The principles are actually fairly straightforward and equitable.

Here is a good primer on how the law would handle it:

https://www.livesaymyers.com/down-payment-marital-home-virginia-divorce/

That doesn't address the scenario where they sell this house and buy another with the proceeds. At that point it's no longer coming from a separate asset because the house is a marital asset, and the originally separate portion can lose its separate asset protections if not handled properly. Further, as that note discusses, there are a variety of ways to value the separate asset portion in the event of divorce. A pre-nup can designate a valuation methodology to avoid fighting about it later.

Bolded part is incorrect.

--signed a divorce lawyer (in general, he'd get his separate property plus passive growth on those funds before you two would divide the marital share. If he's offering to waive the passive growth in his separate share, he's offering to give LESS to himself than The law otherwise grants him as he's waiving the passive growth on his 70k)

What if the house sold at a loss?

What if your marriage ended by his death (do you owe someone else in his family 70k?)

You would equitably split the appreciation after marriage minus. I do not believe that is incorrect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

It's actually not that simple at all, especially once they sell this house and use the proceeds to buy the next one.

The principles are actually fairly straightforward and equitable.

Here is a good primer on how the law would handle it:

https://www.livesaymyers.com/down-payment-marital-home-virginia-divorce/

That doesn't address the scenario where they sell this house and buy another with the proceeds. At that point it's no longer coming from a separate asset because the house is a marital asset, and the originally separate portion can lose its separate asset protections if not handled properly. Further, as that note discusses, there are a variety of ways to value the separate asset portion in the event of divorce. A pre-nup can designate a valuation methodology to avoid fighting about it later.

Bolded part is incorrect.

--signed a divorce lawyer (in general, he'd get his separate property plus passive growth on those funds before you two would divide the marital share. If he's offering to waive the passive growth in his separate share, he's offering to give LESS to himself than The law otherwise grants him as he's waiving the passive growth on his 70k)

What if the house sold at a loss?

What if your marriage ended by his death (do you owe someone else in his family 70k?)

I can't believe he wants a prenup over such a small amount of money. That would concern me.