Don't have one, didn't feel like I needed one (culturally & common religious values).
But I wouldn't blame anyone for getting one either, especially if there is a pretty big discrepancy in the net worth and earning potential between the 2 future spouses. I am not a big Ramsey afficionado, but I think he has a good take on that one (a prenup that sunsets):
Do I need a Prenup?Say goodbye to debt forever. Start Ramsey+ for free: https://bit.ly/35ufR1qVisit the Dave Ramsey store today for resources to help you tak...
The problem is also commingling of assets. Contributions to an account AFTER the marriage might be an issue. Earnings after the marriage might be considered community property and give rise to some nasty claims that they assets are now not separate. Once you commingle it gets nasty.
Income discrepancy is not the issue. It is when someone brings in an unusual amount of wealth into the relationship prior to the relationship. For example family wealth. You might not want your share of a family pot being split up with your spouse if you get divorced.
Or I guess if you happen to make a lot prior to marriage like building up a business. But any growth of that business after marriage is both of yours.
But anything you earn while married belongs to both of you. At least that is my opinion. If my wife didn't do all that she did in addition to being miserable it would cost a fortune to care for my children. That is easily worth half my salary.
I guess I was lucky because all I brought was debt.
I think that for most people not getting married at all is superior to the prenuptial agreement. There is no reason you can't be in a committed relationship without a piece of paper from the government. And there are legal mechanisms to confer nearly all the default privileges of a married partner to a long-term, unmarried one.
Where I live you acquire the asset splitting obligations after a period of togetherness whether or not you tie the knot legally. You would need a cohabitation agreement to change the default rules just like you would need a prenup agreement to change the default marriage rules.
Where I live you acquire the asset splitting obligations after a period of togetherness whether or not you tie the knot legally. You would need a cohabitation agreement to change the default rules just like you would need a prenup agreement to change the default marriage rules.
Where is this place?
There are places where you can inadvertently find yourself common law married, but it's easy enough to avoid that. What you're describing seems different from that. Obviously if you start comingling your finances, then that's problematic. But that is problematic everywhere.
There are places where you can inadvertently find yourself common law married, but it's easy enough to avoid that. What you're describing seems different from that. Obviously if you start comingling your finances, then that's problematic. But that is problematic everywhere.
The counterpoint is that when the 2 partners in a marriage are on the same team and work together rather than have a this part is mine and this part is yours mindset your combined net worth accelerates faster than the sum of its parts. At least that has been my experience.
The counterpoint is that when the 2 partners in a marriage are on the same team and work together rather than have a this part is mine and this part is yours mindset your combined net worth accelerates faster than the sum of its parts. At least that has been my experience.
There are valid reasons for getting married and there are circumstances that can benefit a couple using both prenuptial and postnuptial agreements.
The primary benefit of walking through the steps is probably more beneficial in deciding to get married, a contract in itself.
Everything you need to know about postnuptial agreements
There is a significant income disparity between the parties, is not a very good reason for either a pre or post agreement. The discussion itself does force a couple to contemplate unpleasant circumstances and the commitments that are made in getting married.
Old fashioned here, for better or worse simply applies to everything and both parties should be fully committed. Things will turn out much better, emotionally and financially if the marriage lasts. That is the point in getting married after all, the teamwork Anne refers to above.
Hope things work out for everyone.
The counterpoint is that when the 2 partners in a marriage are on the same team and work together rather than have a this part is mine and this part is yours mindset your combined net worth accelerates faster than the sum of its parts. At least that has been my experience.
Same here. I had a good amount saved when I got married but the thought of prenup never even crossed my mind. I knew if the other person came from a similar background as mine and was used to living frugally then further wealth accumulation would be quicker and after a couple of decades that initial saved money of mine per-marriage ill be not a significant amount that was worth getting a prenup ( and most likely not getting married due to bringing up that discussion). I can afford to give up half my wealth now and will still have significant amount left for retirement and other needs.
Like I posted on the FB scenario, since neither party was a Sam Walton heir nor descended from the Rothschild family, a pre-nup was probably not really necessary. It was something like the doc came into the marriage with debt, and the fiancé with no debt but a lower paying job, which is fairly typical. One overall red flag was that someone’s family (not uber wealthy) was pushing it.
Comment