I would sign if the prenup was requested because of something like a family business or children from a previous marriage. These are specific concerns where is makes sense to lay out obligations and expectations in advance. Otherwise, nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. I did not marry so I can be somehow into my husbands work life. Why would I care what happened at his work. I have a job and I support myself plus a few others.

His job is not my job. I could no imagine my H showing up at my work just because he is married to me.

Bizarre, what does the bride want to be CEO or vice president or something.

Doesn't she have a job already?

Good lord, you have no idea what this thread is about do you? Its about money, without a prenup (or other legal protections), the STBXW would claim a portion of the business as marital asset and get paid for her "share". She does not have to be involved in the business, all that matter is that her husband "owns" a piece and/or is actively involved in running it.

Thank you! Someone with knowledge of what is involved is commenting instead of these posters who are totally clueless about the complexities of what is really involved here.

If the future DIL really has no interest in acquiring a share of the family business in the event of divorce, all that is needed is limit the prenup to her giving up any rights or interest in that entity.

If she refuses to do so, I'd be quite wary of her intentions. The reality is that she has had no role in making the business what it is today so why the heck does she think that she should have any rights to it after she gets married?

Why would you assume she wants rights to anything? You protect what you feel you need to protect but you don't get to set the tone for someones marriage. And the tone of "I don't trust you to act in a decent manner and we are possibly getting divorced" is not a tone that some people feel comfortable with.

Furthermore the assumption that she even cares about the business is offensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not the prenup they were asking her to sign, but there probably is a fair one to be written.

My dad's family business grew five times over under his stewardship. My mom largely stayed home and raised us over two decades. What do you think she should have been entitled to? Nothing? Half? Something in between? Not so easy.

Half

Does this also mean that an SAHM is entitlef to 50% of her husband's net earnings????

of course, why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would. I did not marry so I can be somehow into my husbands work life. Why would I care what happened at his work. I have a job and I support myself plus a few others.

His job is not my job. I could no imagine my H showing up at my work just because he is married to me.

Bizarre, what does the bride want to be CEO or vice president or something.

Doesn't she have a job already?

Good lord, you have no idea what this thread is about do you? Its about money, without a prenup (or other legal protections), the STBXW would claim a portion of the business as marital asset and get paid for her "share". She does not have to be involved in the business, all that matter is that her husband "owns" a piece and/or is actively involved in running it.

Thank you! Someone with knowledge of what is involved is commenting instead of these posters who are totally clueless about the complexities of what is really involved here.

If the future DIL really has no interest in acquiring a share of the family business in the event of divorce, all that is needed is limit the prenup to her giving up any rights or interest in that entity.

If she refuses to do so, I'd be quite wary of her intentions. The reality is that she has had no role in making the business what it is today so why the heck does she think that she should have any rights to it after she gets married?

Anonymous wrote:I would. I did not marry so I can be somehow into my husbands work life. Why would I care what happened at his work. I have a job and I support myself plus a few others.

His job is not my job. I could no imagine my H showing up at my work just because he is married to me.

Bizarre, what does the bride want to be CEO or vice president or something.

Doesn't she have a job already?

Good lord, you have no idea what this thread is about do you? Its about money, without a prenup (or other legal protections), the STBXW would claim a portion of the business as marital asset and get paid for her "share". She does not have to be involved in the business, all that matter is that her husband "owns" a piece and/or is actively involved in running it.

Anonymous wrote:If the son doesn't own an interest in the company already, then I think the FIL should retain full ownership until he dies then distribute as he sees fit.

If the FIL has already gave son an ownership then he was shortsighted and now has to live with it.

+1 - What right do the parents have to attempt to control their son's personal life like that? NONE. If necessary, change the business structure to protect the family assets (ie. form a trust or corporation). The FIL and MIL can retain the controlling entity till they die or want to relinquish the reigns and they can keep their noses out of their son's personal business.

I think the parents are being ignorant and probably have other motives at play if they are unwilling to investigate other options since the bride and groom do not want a prenup. They are being completely disrespectful to their future daughter in law and son. To up the ante to "You don't do as I say or we will not come to your wedding" is horrible and shows how manipulative and screwed up they really are. She is marrying into Crazy Town if you ask me. Her future husband's livelihood is tied to people like this? A career change should be part of the deal.

I married a man with significantly more money and earning potential than me. He made more than 3x as much as I did and came into the marriage with a pretty big stock portfolio. He will also likely inherit quite a bit of money upon the death of his father. I did not sign a prenup, but I also would not have felt entitled to any of his "family money" any more than I would have felt entitled to stocks he bought before we were in a relationship at all. We had a child together, but are now divorced. If I marry again, I would want to sign a prenup with FutureHusband that addresses my DD and her future. I also stand to inherit a decent sum of money upon the death of my father (who got it from his mother), and I would want that money to go to DD.

I would not, as an exwife, want to bankrupt a family business demanding half of my ex-husband's stake in it. That seems unnecessarily vindictive. I would expect him to pay his legal child support obligations, but I would not expect alimony or anything of the kind. I am an adult who is perfectly capable of supporting myself without the money of someone I chose to divorce.

As for whether agreeing to a prenup taints the marriage vows or sets you up for divorce, would you say that writing a will sets you up for death? Because in my opinion, a prenup is a will that would be exercised in the event of the death of a marriage. I would think that the terms of the prenup would also apply to a woman whose husband died - if my hypothetical FutureHusband with the family business died, I would not want to inherit his share of the business. If I was another member of the family, I would not want for my husband's widow to inherit his share of the business. Something, maybe, but not a partner's share.

I would. I did not marry so I can be somehow into my husbands work life. Why would I care what happened at his work. I have a job and I support myself plus a few others.

His job is not my job. I could no imagine my H showing up at my work just because he is married to me.

Bizarre, what does the bride want to be CEO or vice president or something.

Doesn't she have a job already?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not the prenup they were asking her to sign, but there probably is a fair one to be written.

My dad's family business grew five times over under his stewardship. My mom largely stayed home and raised us over two decades. What do you think she should have been entitled to? Nothing? Half? Something in between? Not so easy.

Half

Does this also mean that an SAHM is entitlef to 50% of her husband's net earnings????

Anonymous wrote:Depends on what the prenup says. Also, the parents are idiots. The are like 1 millions ways to protect their assets from a DIL. The first that comes to mind would be put the whole thing in a trust and limit the beneficiaries to direct decendants.

I agree about the nitwit future inlaws. If OP's tale is accurate, the inlaws could surely figure out how to protect things without being so inflammatory to the marriage. I also can see a distinction between protecting the assets of the "family" business and assuming monies earned by son being part of marital income. Not sure what happens if he gets "paid" in shares of the firm. So obviously details a lawyer would need to take a look at.

If the son doesn't own an interest in the company already, then I think the FIL should retain full ownership until he dies then distribute as he sees fit.

If the FIL has already gave son an ownership then he was shortsighted and now has to live with it.

Depends on what the prenup says. Also, the parents are idiots. The are like 1 millions ways to protect their assets from a DIL. The first that comes to mind would be put the whole thing in a trust and limit the beneficiaries to direct decendants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I think prenups make a mockery of wedding vows. "

Prenups/marriage contracts go back to ancient times, nitwit.

Perhaps I would have said the same thing in ancient times-I'll have to get in my way back machine to see. I was actually referring to the words that I spoke when I got married. If I remember correctly those vows did not include "the part of the richness that I chose to share with you."

Also, hope your day gets better (you might need a smiley emoticon, but I just can't bring myself to do it).

Not the PP you're responding to but my vows didn't include anything about riches or money. I promised to love my husband but that wasn't necessary for our marriage. The only thing required for a marriage is someone authorized by the state to conduct it and a marraige license. I see nothing insulting about a prenup or a marriage contract because marriage was first a contractual relationship - and remains so. My DH and I didn't sign a prenup/contract because we had no assets and current marraige law was sufficient for our needs. My mother and her second husband had a prenup because they both had assets they didn't want considered marital property. I see no problem signing a prenup excluding a family business/farm and it has nothing to do with wedding vows. It has everything to do with what is considered marital property.

Anonymous wrote:

Obviously the prenup would treat a 1-year quickie marriage differently than a 20-year marriage with shared children and property involved. And in Virginia, which is a non-common property state, they do look at what each partner brought into the marriage, so a prenup might not even be necessary.

Um. How does a prenup anticipate whether there is a 1 year marriage vs. a 20 year marriage? Is it like a sliding scale written in?

May be I am missing something.

What right does OP have to the family business that she has had no role in acquiring or building up to what it is today?