Full intention to sign prenuptial agreement on finances

[WilliamE]

I’m sure your’re going to accuse me of being naive, but that’s a very cynical view.

My view might be cynical, but experience has taught me that it’s a realistic view. Here’s hoping that you don’t find out the hard way.

 

[AdamP88]

My view might be cynical, but experience has taught me that it’s a realistic view. Here’s hoping that you don’t find out the hard way.

Pretty sure I won’t.

In any case I don’t see the point of marriage if you’re not prepared to trust your spouse.

IMO, if you think you need a prenup then you probably shouldn’t marry that person.

If you’d want a prenup no matter what, then maybe don’t get married.

In this situation I think the bigger issue for the OP is his idea about the man controlling all the finances.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Pretty sure I won’t.

In any case I don’t see the point of marriage if you’re not prepared to trust your spouse.

IMO, if you think you need a prenup then you probably shouldn’t marry that person.

If you’d want a prenup no matter what, then maybe don’t get married.

In this situation I think the bigger issue for the OP is his idea about the man controlling all the finances.

I will have to disagree, at least in part.

It’s extremely common for husbands and wives to have prenuptial agreements. Some of them provide for property division in the event of divorce, and some do not.

But when you get right down to it, well-crafted estate plans are “post-nuptial agreements” of a sort. Typically, they reduce control of assets on the part of one or both spouses. It is extremely common to have provisions that in the event of the death of one party, the assets in a trust are “locked in” to a plan providing for income only for the surviving spouse with a third party trustee able to supplement it if it’s necessary.

I am aware of a man whose wife has an oncoming dementia, and she’s totally incapable of managing financial affairs. She would be shorn of her assets by the first highbinder who came along if the man died. So, he created a trust that “locked in” asset disposition now.

I think a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement could be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

Finally, while at times in the past men had total control of assets, it wasn’t entirely true and there were exceptions. As a remnant from feudal times in which land was the basis for the political power of the king, the eldest male heir (in England anyway) inherited all the land, but the daughters inherited the moveable wealth. The supposition was that the daughters would marry landed gentry themselves, and would bring money and moveable goods with them. The male heir who inherited the land had land, but no money because his sisters got that.

There were other things. In my state, for example, in the 19th Century a “married womens’ property act” was passed that provided, among other things that a woman’s inheritance was not subject to her husband’s disposition or debts. Indeed, she could buy land vested in her “as a femme sole” (the words they used) and she could transfer it without her husband joining in the transfer. A man, on the other hand, could not transfer property in his name without his wife’s signature. That might seem unconstitutional now, but it’s still the law here.

And under the old English “tenancy by the entirety” law, which still exists in some states here, including mine, jointly owned property could not be transferred by one party alone. It took both. Nor is it subject to the separate creditors of either one. That was the law ever since my state was admitted to the Union. Oddly, “tenancy by the entirety” no longer exists in Britain.

So, a lot of things weren’t quite what people often think they were.

 

[Xantippe]

I will have to disagree, at least in part.

It’s extremely common for husbands and wives to have prenuptial agreements. Some of them provide for property division in the event of divorce, and some do not.

But when you get right down to it, well-crafted estate plans are “post-nuptial agreements” of a sort. Typically, they reduce control of assets on the part of one or both spouses. It is extremely common to have provisions that in the event of the death of one party, the assets in a trust are “locked in” to a plan providing for income only for the surviving spouse with a third party trustee able to supplement it if it’s necessary.

I am aware of a man whose wife has an oncoming dementia, and she’s totally incapable of managing financial affairs. She would be shorn of her assets by the first highbinder who came along if the man died. So, he created a trust that “locked in” asset disposition now.

I think a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement could be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.

Finally, while at times in the past men had total control of assets, it wasn’t entirely true and there were exceptions. As a remnant from feudal times in which land was the basis for the political power of the king, the eldest male heir (in England anyway) inherited all the land, but the daughters inherited the moveable wealth. The supposition was that the daughters would marry landed gentry themselves, and would bring money and moveable goods with them. The male heir who inherited the land had land, but no money because his sisters got that.

There were other things. In my state, for example, in the 19th Century a “married womens’ property act” was passed that provided, among other things that a woman’s inheritance was not subject to her husband’s disposition or debts. Indeed, she could buy land vested in her “as a femme sole” (the words they used) and she could transfer it without her husband joining in the transfer. A man, on the other hand, could not transfer property in his name without his wife’s signature. That might seem unconstitutional now, but it’s still the law here.

And under the old English “tenancy by the entirety” law, which still exists in some states here, including mine, jointly owned property could not be transferred by one party alone. It took both. Nor is it subject to the separate creditors of either one. That was the law ever since my state was admitted to the Union. Oddly, “tenancy by the entirety” no longer exists in Britain.

So, a lot of things weren’t quite what people often think they were.

Wow, getting land without cash would really stink.

Thanks for the history lesson!

From my reading of 19th century English novels, it looks like there were a lot of trusts and complicated legal arrangements for well-to-do families. For example, in Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Bennet’s property is his to profit from during his lifetime, but he can’t sell it, and it is going to his cousin via entailment when he dies, not to his daughters. However, it also looks like when well-off women married, the property that they brought into the marriage might not be available to their husbands, but might be locked up in a trust so that the couple’s children would eventually get the money as adults. They don’t use the term “trust,” but that’s what we would call it.

I was recently reading about George Washington’s will, and one of the oddities of the will was that he was unable to free all of his family’s slaves in his will:

“Of the 317 slaves at Mount Vernon in 1799, 123 individuals were owned by George Washington and were stipulated in Washington’s will to be freed upon his wife’s death. However, these conditions did not apply to all slaves at Mount Vernon. When Martha Washington’s first husband Daniel Parke Custis died without a will, she received a life interest in one-third of his estate, including his slaves. The other two-thirds of the estate went to their children. Neither George nor Martha Washington could free these dower slaves by law. Upon her death the slaves would revert to the Custis estate and be divided among her grandchildren. By 1799, 153 slaves at Mount Vernon were part of this dower property.”

mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/washingtons-1799-will/

It was very common for heirs to really have their hands tied with regard to family property.

 

[pnewton]

I am a partner in a professional services firm. Our partnership agreement contains a clause that requires any partner getting married to have a prenup protecting the business. A few years ago one of the partners was planning to get married, and his fiancee was dead-set against signing a prenup. Nothing would change her mind, so the partner announced one day that there would be no prenup.

It sounds like your former business partner was a wise man with proper priorities. He is better off rid of a relationship that would interfere with his marriage, and if he was Catholic, his faith. One does not enter marriage with it being second to business.

As the article linked above said, a pre-nup is neutral. If it is about protection of assets, then it is wrong. One does not protect one’s money from one who is of the same flesh. If the pre-nup is about protection of marriage, then that would be a great idea. How about a pre-nup where the party who seeks divorce or separation (you can throw in an exception for physical battery if you must), gives up 75%, or even more of all assets, as a way of protecting the marriage and making in more important than wealth. I would even go for 100% forfeiture in the event that the party seeking divorce is also the sole unfaithful one.

 

[WilliamE]

It sounds like your former business partner was a wise man with proper priorities. He is better off rid of a relationship that would interfere with his marriage, and if he was Catholic, his faith. One does not enter marriage with it being second to business.

Unfortunately, it didn’t work out too well for him.

The other partners and myself had no interest in interfering with his marriage. Our interest was in protecting our business - and the income we depend on to provide for our own families. A very simple prenup where his fiancee agreed that she had no claim on the assets of the business could have avoided the whole mess.

 

[pnewton]

Unfortunately, it didn’t work out too well for him.

The other partners and myself had no interest in interfering with his marriage. Our interest was in protecting our business - and the income we depend on to provide for our own families. A very simple prenup where his fiancee agreed that she had no claim on the assets of the business could have avoided the whole mess.

The problem is, marriage makes one of one flesh, not one in every way except his money, or her money. Marriage not only brings one into the whole family, in-laws and all, but the whole of another’s life, even their bank account and business, if it personally held. I would have to say that I could not in good conscience have signed such a document either and entered into Sacramental marriage.

In this day and age, unfortunately, there are many areas where one does not find tolerance for one’s faith, or where one’s conscience is not accommodated. I am curious though, since this does not sound like a matter of faith. If the partner would have come and explained it as a matter of faith based on the Catholic doctrine of marriage, do you think an accommodation could have been reached?

 

[AdamP88]

I have to agree with pnewton. Marriage makes you one flesh. Money and all. If you’re seeking to protect “your own interests” going into the marriage, then maybe marriage isn’t for you.

Also, I’m pretty sure in WilliamE’s situation that there could have been a work around that protected the business and didn’t require a prenup.

 

[oldgraymare2]

I have to agree with pnewton. Marriage makes you one flesh. Money and all. If you’re seeking to protect “your own interests” going into the marriage, then maybe marriage isn’t for you.

Also, I’m pretty sure in WilliamE’s situation that there could have been a work around that protected the business and didn’t require a prenup.

I have been reading this thread with interest.

I am thinking of the second part of your paragraph here, as I am wondering about the exact same thing.

 

[mommy_k]

I am surprised that your inheritance was not handled by a trust and estate lawyer by your parents

The purpose of generational property is to keep it in the family.not only for you…but for your future children and grandchildren. This is common and a good thing… .there,are many ways to do this.

Prenups forshadow divorce and not inline with Catholic teaching…you have not even found a potential spouse.

There are many financial specialists and lawyers that can help you preserve your income and funds for your future children without a prenup…speaking with someone can help you…not only with your concern, but to also prevent you from possibly mishandling your income and funds too.

 

[Xantippe]

I am surprised that your inheritance was not handled by a trust and estate lawyer by your parents

The purpose of generational property is to keep it in the family.not only for you…but for your future children and grandchildren. This is common and a good thing… .there,are many ways to do this.

Prenups forshadow divorce and not inline with Catholic teaching…you have not even found a potential spouse.

There are many financial specialists and lawyers that can help you preserve your income and funds for your future children without a prenup…speaking with someone can help you…not only with your concern, but to also prevent you from possibly mishandling your income and funds too.

Yes!

 

[1990Domer]

I have to agree with pnewton. Marriage makes you one flesh. Money and all. If you’re seeking to protect “your own interests” going into the marriage, then maybe marriage isn’t for you.

Also, I’m pretty sure in WilliamE’s situation that there could have been a work around that protected the business and didn’t require a prenup.

AdamPeter and pnewton, my DH and I talked about this thread for a long time. We both agreed that a prenup would be grounds for a nullification, if signed. We also agreed it sends a very confusing message to the person being asked to sign. It’s almost like you’re predicting the marriage to fail. As others have said, the two become one.

Just a quick story…my (now deceased) MIL asked for a family portrait on my wedding day that excluded me…just in case we got divorced. How do you think it made me feel? And my husband, bless him, was furious! Let me just add that even Bill Gates didn’t ask for a prenup. Enough said.

 

[Xantippe]

AdamPeter and pnewton, my DH and I talked about this thread for a long time. We both agreed that a prenup would be grounds for a nullification, if signed. We also agreed it sends a very confusing message to the person being asked to sign. It’s almost like you’re predicting the marriage to fail. As others have said, the two become one.

Just a quick story…my (now deceased) MIL asked for a family portrait on my wedding day that excluded me…just in case we got divorced. How do you think it made me feel? And my husband, bless him, was furious! Let me just add that even Bill Gates didn’t ask for a prenup. Enough said.

Also, there are such things as self-fulfilling prophecies.

And, very importantly, prenups sometimes do not stand up during a divorce.

family.findlaw.com/marriage/top-10-reasons-a-premarital-agreement-may-be-invalid.html

“But if the agreement is so grossly unfair that one party would face severe financial hardship while the other prospered, the court is unlikely to enforce it. Basically, “unconscionable” contracts are generally found invalid, and premarital agreements are no exception.”

So, the greedier the prenup, the less likely it is to stand.

Edited to add: That last thing means that WilliamE and his partners still have reason to sleep poorly at night–if the prenups that the partners have are very, very unfair to the spouse, they may not be respected in court.

 

[mommy_k]

Seems some business attorneys were sleeping on the job, referring g to Willam Es post…

Declaring a business a limited partnership or something similar would have taken care of that whole issue. Not a prenup.

 

[carefullytread]

I am not a lawyer, but I feel the need to add to this thread in case some one else is reading this.

A pre-nup does not have to be punitive towards your spouse in the event of divorce. It doesn’t mean you’re planning on a divorce. And it doesn’t have to go against church teachings.

Especially if you own a business or are a partner in a business, please talk to a lawyer. Don’t take advice from people on the internet. Talk to your priest too. Or several priests. But also talk to a lawyer.

Part of being a responsible business owner is understanding the risks to your partners and employees.

 

[1990Domer]

@(name removed by moderator),

Thank you for this explanation. We taught pre-Cana for years–until the Catholic marriage rate fell over a cliff–and this was our understanding when we were being trained.

 

[Memaw]

I am not a lawyer, but I feel the need to add to this thread in case some one else is reading this.

A pre-nup does not have to be punitive towards your spouse in the event of divorce. It doesn’t mean you’re planning on a divorce. And it doesn’t have to go against church teachings.

Especially if you own a business or are a partner in a business, please talk to a lawyer. Don’t take advice from people on the internet. Talk to your priest too. Or several priests. But also talk to a lawyer.

Part of being a responsible business owner is understanding the risks to your partners and employees.

I agree and with the statistics of Marriage being over 50% chance of divorce, even in Catholic marriages, it is a problem. I know many Catholic marriages that started out “in love” and later broke up, even ones married a couple decades or more. One hardly thinks anything of it now!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Xantippe]

I agree and with the statistics of Marriage being over 50% chance of divorce, even in Catholic marriages, it is a problem. I know many Catholic marriages that started out “in love” and later broke up, even ones married a couple decades or more. One hardly thinks anything of it now!! God Bless, Memaw

Cite?

The numbers I have seen are much lower, especially for Catholics. Catholics have approximately a 28% divorce rate.

ncregister.com/daily-news/catholics-continue-to-have-lowest-divorce-rates

 

[AdamP88]

This is pretty definitive.

People keep saying that divorce and marriage breakup is “a thing” in the real world. Obviously this is true. But there is such a thing as going in with the wrong attitude and I imagine most marriages that break up are marriages of people who really don’t give a rat’s tail about the indissoluble sacrament.of marriage.

Again, you may call me naive, but I really think if you don’t trust your intended then you shouldn’t be getting married. If you go into marriage suspicious of your future wife, then that’s not really a vote of confidence for the relationship.

There are many factors that are responsible for marriage breakup and the rise of divorces. But it’s possible to meet someone and have a happy marriage. I’ve seen it happen among my parents, aunts and uncles, and friends.
More and more often a happy marriage is presented as a sort of unattainable ideal that we just have to get out of our heads in order to be realistic. I imagine the biggest factor leading to marriage breakup is a lack of a prayer life and trust in God, mixed with an inability to die-to-self for your spouse.

I’d actually be interested to see the divorce rate of couples who get prenups compared to those who don’t.

I could be wrong, but I’d be willing to bet the breakup rate is higher among the prenup couples.

 

[Memaw]

Cite?

The numbers I have seen are much lower, especially for Catholics. Catholics have approximately a 28% divorce rate.

ncregister.com/daily-news/catholics-continue-to-have-lowest-divorce-rates

Cite your source. The Marriage tribunals are very busy these days. God Bless, Memaw