Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the the most successful partnerships require that upon becoming a partner, the partner's spouse must disclaim any right to ownership in the partnership.
This is so that partnership can me managed without worrying about spouses getting ownership after a divorce and interfering with the operation of the business.

In fact, it's a firm condition of being elected to partner.

So, OP, were you aware it's a best practice among some of the world's most successful partnerships? Did you consider the family is following sound business advice and modelling their own partnership after best practices?

For every virtuous spouse, there is one lacking in scruples and good judgement. It's not personal, it's just business.

Wouldn't this be in the partnership agreement itself, though, and not require a postnup?

Exactly. The prior post is BS. The partnership agreement would outlay the distinction, it wouldn't be handled via a postnup. That is a horse of a different color. And how do we know this is a partnership arrangement, and not an S-Corp or some other corporate structure with OP's DH as a shareholder or owner or officer as opposed to a partner. We don't.

ITA I know several partners at law firms (including my DH), and NONE of them have post-nup agreements.

Another spouse of a law firm partner, we have no post-nup and I was never required to sign anything with respect to his partnership.

Is DH's day job working for this business? Because if so, no way would I relinquish a claim on that, like I wouldn't with any other earnings.

If this is a family business he has nothing to do with day-to-day, that might be different for me. Then this is almost like a family inheritance without a death? I guess I'd be more sympathetic to that version of events, if no amount of our family resources (including time) went into this endeavor.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I wonder if he used post-nup but really means something else. Upon hearing that you two are the only married ones, I would give him the benefit of the doubt here. I'm thinking his family suggested a way to make sure that "outsiders" (spouses, future spouses, etc.) stay out of the business dealings. I'm thinking there is a way that this can be done on a business level, and not on a personal/post-nup level.

I think that's a very generous (to OPs DH) potential interpretation of the situation and, for OPs sake, hopefully it's true. Unfortunately, the request comes off more as wanting to make sure OP doesn't get any benefit from the business endeavor despite being there all along supporting her DH while he was building this business with the family.

Is he seeing someone young

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the the most successful partnerships require that upon becoming a partner, the partner's spouse must disclaim any right to ownership in the partnership.
This is so that partnership can me managed without worrying about spouses getting ownership after a divorce and interfering with the operation of the business.

In fact, it's a firm condition of being elected to partner.

So, OP, were you aware it's a best practice among some of the world's most successful partnerships? Did you consider the family is following sound business advice and modelling their own partnership after best practices?

For every virtuous spouse, there is one lacking in scruples and good judgement. It's not personal, it's just business.

Wouldn't this be in the partnership agreement itself, though, and not require a postnup?

Exactly. The prior post is BS. The partnership agreement would outlay the distinction, it wouldn't be handled via a postnup. That is a horse of a different color. And how do we know this is a partnership arrangement, and not an S-Corp or some other corporate structure with OP's DH as a shareholder or owner or officer as opposed to a partner. We don't.

ITA I know several partners at law firms (including my DH), and NONE of them have post-nup agreements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the the most successful partnerships require that upon becoming a partner, the partner's spouse must disclaim any right to ownership in the partnership.
This is so that partnership can me managed without worrying about spouses getting ownership after a divorce and interfering with the operation of the business.

In fact, it's a firm condition of being elected to partner.

So, OP, were you aware it's a best practice among some of the world's most successful partnerships? Did you consider the family is following sound business advice and modelling their own partnership after best practices?

For every virtuous spouse, there is one lacking in scruples and good judgement. It's not personal, it's just business.

Wouldn't this be in the partnership agreement itself, though, and not require a postnup?

Exactly. The prior post is BS. The partnership agreement would outlay the distinction, it wouldn't be handled via a postnup. That is a horse of a different color. And how do we know this is a partnership arrangement, and not an S-Corp or some other corporate structure with OP's DH as a shareholder or owner or officer as opposed to a partner. We don't.

That's fucked. You should start to protect yourself financially. Maybe he's planning his exit strategy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of the the most successful partnerships require that upon becoming a partner, the partner's spouse must disclaim any right to ownership in the partnership.
This is so that partnership can me managed without worrying about spouses getting ownership after a divorce and interfering with the operation of the business.

In fact, it's a firm condition of being elected to partner.

So, OP, were you aware it's a best practice among some of the world's most successful partnerships? Did you consider the family is following sound business advice and modelling their own partnership after best practices?

For every virtuous spouse, there is one lacking in scruples and good judgement. It's not personal, it's just business.

Wouldn't this be in the partnership agreement itself, though, and not require a postnup?

NP here but the non-family spouse isn't a partner and wouldn't be signing the partnership agreement.

What I think is, that he is planning a future without you.....sorry.....but for some reason, if he is coming into money within the next 10 years, you would think he would be happy and saying things like "this is going to allow us to travel together more as a family, etc"----or something along those lines...heck even if he wanted to do nothing with it, you think he would be excited to share it with you sometime in the future.

OP, I wonder if he used post-nup but really means something else. Upon hearing that you two are the only married ones, I would give him the benefit of the doubt here. I'm thinking his family suggested a way to make sure that "outsiders" (spouses, future spouses, etc.) stay out of the business dealings. I'm thinking there is a way that this can be done on a business level, and not on a personal/post-nup level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be very clear with him that there is no way you will sign a postnup so to just stop that line of inquiry now. Then I'd tell him how hurtful this is and that you have to assume he is considering ending the marriage and see where that takes the conversation.

Finally, I'd tell him that if you (meaning the both of you) come into a great deal of money because of this business venture that has been in the works for years, then you'd like to suggest setting up trusts or savings accounts of some sort for each of your children.

to add on .......

...... does it make sense to see a marriage therapist?
...... sit down and meet with a financial advisor?
...... clarify your hopes and dreams for the future?

All good advice on how to proceed...

I think I would need a better understanding of what he expects that post-nup would look like. If it really is about the family trying to make sure the family business stays in their family and all of the spouses are being asked to sign post-nups to keep ownership from being split further outside the family, that's not inherently unreasonable. That said, no post-nup (or pre-nup) should be entirely one-sided. For whatever rights you'd be giving up in the event of death or divorce, the post-nup should provide for reasonable alternative compensation. So, for instance, you agree in the post-nup to forfeit any ownership rights in the family business, but will be given a sum, in addition to any other amounts to which you are entitled, of X. X could be a fixed amount that never changes, a set amount in today's dollars that increases over time to keep pace with inflation and reasonable rate of return, a % of the value of his ownership stake at the time of death/divorce, etc. If you go down this road, you definitely need your own lawyer to make sure you're treated fairly in the agreement.

If he's not 100% on board with that kind of agreement, he's trying to screw you.

This is not a partnership but A FAMILY BUSINESS. This speaks to what is family? The best family businesses are either all inclusive OR owned by only one family member. The SBA has an entire section on why family businesses fail and one of the leading causes is failing to adequately include spouses.

No I wouldn't sign, unless it's beneficial to me and there are really good reasons.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. No. Not young, childless or newlywed. I wouldn't say I have always contibuted equally because of circumstances with unpaid maternity leave, and I have student loan debt and he does not. But I definitely am not the sit on my behind and get taken care of type.

I guess I should maybe expect divorce papers too, huh?

OR he should.

No way would I sign. Hurt probably doesn'the begin to describe it.