PATREON EXCLUSIVE - Prenuptial Agreements

Good topic, thanks for discussing! And for asking your audience to share about their experiences. Nice to learn from the comments above.

Blair

the way women are you should protect future assets. women know men’s potential so if she sees that you’re going to be successful in the future she will get with you while you have nothing. so you should plan for future assets

Thank you Alex..even if you both are student and have nothing, schould sign a prenup.. your significant other may have student debt that you don't want to pay :)

If you don't need a prenup, she probably won't want you anyway.

Sage of Snake

I have no issues with prenuptial agreements and encourage them with young couples, women and men, even if they don’t have any significant assets when starting out. I’ve known a lot of men (and two women) who got screwed in divorce because of alimony - and in some cases, huge overreach on the child support front. A prenup helps protect from financial overreach and can help minimize some of the vitriol and bitter fighting that comes with divorce battles. Divorce can be UGLY and court battles bring out the worst in people, not to mention add to the toxicity kids usually experience when it’s all going down. As for me, I can’t be 100% certain (since it was over 19 years ago) but I’d like to think I would have been ok if my husband suggested a prenup. I’ve always been very practical AND am a child of divorce myself. I saw what happened to my dad, how he struggled after - and how ugly my mom became throughout (and after) the process despite what she was “awarded.” Plus, I planned on working myself so I would have considered the “fruits of my labor” I would want to protect. All that said, I think your recommendation of talking about the concept super early on - before you are all starry eyed and in love - is the best approach. I.e. don’t show up the morning of your wedding day with a contract out of the blue and say “here babe, sign this.” 🤪

You cannot mingle assets you had prior with accounts or assets you establish while together (this creates a basis for mixed funds), but of course you should talk to a lawyer for your state first. Some are much onerous than others and even a prenup may not hold up in court if deemed too far out of line with precedent.

The crazy thing is that the marriage contract is the only precedent in law where the rights and obligations of the signers are left completely blank! Who in their right mind would sign such a contract with nothing but a handful of pledges that no one takes seriously? Here in the USA, No man should get married without a real legal contract that is fair and equitable. I agree with Alexander that the contract should not be punitive towards women, but in the USA there will be no justice for a man in a divorce without a rock solid prenup. Even young and poor couples should have one. The more wealth you produce over the coming years, the more protection you will need. Sure if she truly does support you as you both grow, then you should share in the gains, but again, that can be in the REAL contract, not left to a divorce judge. The ONLY reason to not have a prenup is if one person or the other is already planning to game the system, and wants that door left open. Fair minded people are fine with fair minded contracts.

Just going through a difficult divorce here in America (Arizona). Re the alimony (spousal support), the intention is that the person with lessor earning potential (very frequently the woman) won't be economically trapped in a marriage. For longer marraiges (>10 years), this can often mean that the payer will be responsible until retirement age. It creates a very strong, perverse incentive for women to leave once the kids are older, etc, since she can have all of the financial security but be independent on her own. This will basically stay this way with the law until there is a massive change in society. It is a driving factor for men not wanting to either get married (or where common law cohabitation counts as such) become involved in a long term relationship, at least with someone who is economically lower than them. The result is the golden goose parable playing out with declining marriage and relationship rates. Child custody (in Az) is now typically 50:50 unless agreed to by the parties independently, and I have fought very hard to not give that up. Losing a lot of money to someone who had the luxury of choosing not to work, didn't, and frankly didn't really do much at home either, sucks, but I can say that being treated as an equal parent will have huge benefits for me (and my kids), and it is likely that I may even prevail there given some of her actions.

I'm mid-fifties and well into the property market. My GF mid-thirties (dont judge lol) isn't into the property market at all. If her and I legally 50/50 separate in ten years time, there is no hope for me to own my own home in retirement, and I must protect myself against that at all costs whether she feels offended by it or not. My suggestion to her is that I co-sign for her and get her a rental property in her own name - this is good for her because that was previously infeasible for her, and also because in five years if we separate she can kick her tenant out and just go "home". If, many years later, we are still 100% solid we own two homes between us, this gives us substantial financial options for the future. Point being, she will be wholesale better off in a relationship with me, in terms of money, security, and emotionally, and if play my role correctly and remain elected as her leader, then so will I.

Great topic, thanks. It’s not quite true that we don’t have alimony here in Australia. The courts will still order it but they call it spousal maintenance. If you are upper middle class it can be a large portion of your income. The poor and the very rich seem safe from it.

Just doing some research and it seems as though it might differ state to state. Here in WA, they look at about 8 factors. The most important one seems to be living together though.

Alexander Grace

I've never heard about 'de facto' relationships applying unless you actually live together. Alex - are you saying that, in Australia, if you're in a relationship for > 5 years (but don't live together), you're still considered legally married?