Marriage and prenuptual agreements?

[vern_humphrey]

A pre-nuptual agreement may or may not invalidate a marriage. The key is the purpose of the agreement. If it is to define property rights in the event of divorce, that would be an indicator that the contracting parties were not fully committed to the marriage.

A perfectly valid pre-nuptual agreement is when one of the parties has children by a previous marriage and the other parent is deceased. By law, the surviving spouse inherits, and upon marriage the inheritance becomes common property. A pre-nuptual agreement may be drawn up to ensure that only the children of the first marriage benefit from the inheritance of that marriage.

 

[Eileen_T]

My last boss, a non-Catholic, put all his assets in a Family Trust before he re-married to protect them for the children of his previous marriage.

His present wife cannot claim anything of what he had before the marriage if she decides to call it quits. From what I have seen, it has been an incentive to stay and work through problems.

He is not planning for divorce, he is protecting his children’s inheritance. I think that if more couples did this they might think twice before separating or divorcing.

I would advise my children to take the same measures if they had assets going into a marriage. Not everyone (even Catholics) are prepared to take the bad as well as the good in marriage.

Actually, this is so funny for me.

When my husband and I married 32 years ago this month, we had a car that had to be cranked to start it (we never parked on a main street!), a single bed (newly-weds don’t seem to need much room), a tea-chest for a dining table and two beer crates for dining room chairs.

When my parents came to dinner they had to bring their own plates and cutlery.

We were burgled and all the thieves got were an old camera and a cigarette lighter.

A prenuptual agreement?

Today we are rich beyond measure. We have a six incredibly loving kids, who believe that family and friendship is more important than material wealth.

 

[Karin]

thistle:

Protecting them from whom. It can only be protecting them from your husband? Right?

**My ex-husband becuase if I die and my son is under 18 he would get custody of him and all of his assets (inheritance) **

 

[emsvetich]

We have been married 36 years and everything that we have as a couple we acquired as a married couple. In my mind, pre-nuptual agreements assume that there will be a need for a distribution of assets–hardly the romantic, trusting, sacramental moment that an engaged couple would use as a solid foundation for a “life” together. Should either my wife or me die, I think that a trust could accomplish the same thing to protect assets should the surviving spouse’ children need such protection. When I hear that a pre-nup has been drawn up, I have to ask what they are protecting. It surely is not the marriage bond.

 

[Karin]

emsvetich:

We have been married 36 years and everything that we have as a couple we acquired as a married couple. **Great but a very large majority of what I acquired I acquired before I got married to my current DH (houses, cars, bank accounts etc.)**In my mind, pre-nuptual agreements assume that there will be a need for a distribution of assets–hardly the romantic, trusting, sacramental moment that an engaged couple would use as a solid foundation for a “life” together. NO division of property here…IT ALL GOES TO THE KIDS! Should either my wife or me die, I think that a trust could accomplish the same thing to protect assets should the surviving spouse’ children need such protection. NOT ALWAYS! When I hear that a pre-nup has been drawn up, I have to ask what they are protecting. MY CHILDRENS INHERITANCE!

 

[emsvetich]

Karin:
As Tina Turner would say, "What’s’ love got to do with it?

 

[Karin]

emsvetich:

As Tina Turner would say, "What’s’ love got to do with it?

Once again** NOT** all pre-nups are written with the intention of protecting assests from DIVORCE.

 

[mosher]

Karin:

Once again** NOT** all pre-nups are written with the intention of protecting assests from DIVORCE.

Correct, this is a very important point. While a pre-nup would be grounds to open an annulment case it in itself is not sufficient matter to invalidate a marriage. What is important is the intention of the couple which at times the pre-nup can point to a distorted intention pertaining to indisoluability of Matrimony.

 

[wabrams]

With the exception of someone re-marrying, the only time I could see a pre-nup being important or something I would use is one of the persons coming into the marriage had substantial assets. The nay-sayers can say whatever they want, but if I had a couple hundred thousand dollars right now my fiance would be signing a pre-nup or no marriage.

 

[Karin]

wabrams:

With the exception of someone re-marrying, the only time I could see a pre-nup being important or something I would use is one of the persons coming into the marriage had substantial assets. The nay-sayers can say whatever they want, but if I had a couple hundred thousand dollars right now my fiance would be signing a pre-nup or no marriage.

and the Church would tell you that your marriage was never valid if they allowed you to marry in the Church to begin with.

 

[Karin]

wabrams:

With the exception of someone re-marrying, the only time I could see a pre-nup being important or something I would use is one of the persons coming into the marriage had substantial assets. .

**That is usually when it is used …other wise it really is worthless & not needed **

---

 

[estesbob]

Sometimes there are tax considerations to be looked at(especially if you live in a community proprty state) HOWEVER about the only tme I recommen d Pre-nuptials to my clients is when they remarry , especially if and there are children involved

 

[emsvetich]

emsvetich:

As Tina Turner would say, "What’s’ love got to do with it?

Sorry. I apologize.It is not my place to judge anyone’s motives on this topic.

 

[Steven_Merten]

I full heartedly agree that prenuptual agreements are good. Especially because of the possibility of remariage. My wife and I own a small piece of property which has become a focal point for the whole extended family. It is twenty acers in central Washington where God has most certianly smiled His graces upon. It is where my, now deciesed, father inlaw poured his heart and soul into in little projects which would mean nothing to others but mean the world to us. It is where my brother inlaw has done equally as his father, asking for no payment but to just come and enjoy. It is where my sister inlaw has spent ten years of her life living and would almost prefer death than to have to move. It is where we have family reuions in which hundreds count on, and enjoy, yearly. To either my wife or I, the mere thought of an outsider, not our children, forcing control over and selling our little, insignificant to others, piece of paridise, for a small profit, sends shivers up our spines.

Do I want my wife to be alone if I should die? No! Should I live a life alone should she die? No!

I once asked my brother in-law if I could borrow his chain saw. He stopped and thought a minuet and then he said, “Ask me to sleep with my wife but dont’ ask me to borrow my chain saw!” We both laughed. He was being fasecious to get his point across. However, in deep thought retrospect, I would, if I were dead, want my wife to be happy in another marriage. I would not want our ranch, as we loveingly call our property, to go outside the family. My wife would feel the same. If my wife and I were to die, leaving our ranch to our children, I think our children would feel the same. That will be up to them. Hopefully not my children’s spouces.

 

[puzzleannie]

when MIL remarried several years ago, to a fine Catholic man, all their friends and relatives advised a pre-nup, but priest told them in no uncertain terms it would be a barrier to a valid Catholic marriag contract. they wisely sought legal advice as well, and were told a pre-nup was not the best vehicle to address their concerns (disposition of his property to his children after his death and provision for MILs care and residence for her lifetime) so instead redid their wills and established living trusts. They found the laws of the state they were going to reside in were different from their home state and that also affected their planning decisions.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Nope it protects them form anyone that may think that they have a claim to them!

Wow. I had no idea.

What I don’t understand is how a prenup would do that? Is it easier to protect a prenup than a will?

I know a very wealthy person (estate in the tens of millions, close to 100 I think) who died about 4-5 years ago, and literally before the body was cold there were lawyers filing suits that had been prepared well in advance by certain family factions – the time was imminent as he was dying of cancer. It was so bad he didn’t even end up getting buried where he wanted, the final insult to his “last wish” which during his lifetime he had once even given one of his employees (of his car dealerships) five thousand dollars so she could bury her husband where he wanted to be buried – he said, “a man should at least get his last wish.”

What I want to know is, with all the legal work gone into his will – INCLUDING a provision that anyone who contested the will or his lifetime gifts is automatically excluded – I don’t know how much more a pre-nup would have done for him against his ex. This is an extreme case, but I have little familiarity with death proceedings other than when my dad died, and there was no family contention at that point – of course, no ex-spouses and stuff makes it simpler.

Alan

 

[migurl]

wabrams:

With the exception of someone re-marrying, the only time I could see a pre-nup being important or something I would use is one of the persons coming into the marriage had substantial assets. The nay-sayers can say whatever they want, but if I had a couple hundred thousand dollars right now my fiance would be signing a pre-nup or no marriage.

This is very cold, are you saying you don’t trust her enough? If htis is true, you should NOT be getting married. Trust is a big part of marriage, if you don’t have that, there is no real marriage.
As far as the pre-nup goes, it is a bad idea, there are many other ways to secure money and property in case of wealth, my uncles a lawyer, I know. Pre-nups just make it to easy to get a divorce or an annulment and send a mesage of doubt and distrust in God and in your spouse and your marriage. If you need to protect assets, trusts, will etc are the way to go without risking damage to your marriage.

 

[thistle]

Pre-nup advocates seem to forget that the Sacrament of Marriage is not a private contract between husband and wife but an everlasting agreement between the spouses and God. A pre-nup agreement is trying cut God out of part of the agreement so for me such a marriage should not be valid in the Catholic Church. What happened to unconditional love??
Any arrangements to look after whoever in the event of death can be made in a will. You do not need a pre-nup agreement.

 

[Kristina_P]

Lisa4Catholics:

Does this not invalidate the marriage if you are preparing for divorce from the get go?Thoughts?:ehh:

Invalidate the marriage? Preparation for an unfortunate event isn’t the same as intention to cause that event. Let’s say a couple gets married, neither entering into marriage with the intent to make it temporary. They can’t predict with absolute certainty, though, that one of them won’t develop an addiction or become abusive. If such a thing happens and it becomes clear that living together is no longer safe for the other partner, then a separation might occur. A divorce might become necessary for legal reasons. Divorce or separation, though, do not end marriage, so this couple, while not in a good marriage, are still not in a temporary marriage.

It isn’t right to assume that a couple will separate, but I don’t think it’s a sin to draw up a prenuptial agreement. As far as I can tell, the Church allows separation for some reasons, and a civil divorce has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage. It isn’t an ideal situation, but sometimes married couples separate. They’re still married (if their marriage was sacramental), so neither should remarry, obviously.

Whether or not to plan for this eventuality before the marriage takes place should really be left up to the couple. I have a gut reaction against it and no interest in drawing one up, but I’m not going to judge anyone who chooses to disagree.

 

[Agricola]

Dear all,

Since I am considering marriage, I have thought about this subject a bit. I came to the conclusion that since my wife and I would be one, that there would be no need for a pre-nuptual agreement. All that I will ever have will belong to her, and that is fine with me. If I trust my spouse with my life, and the lives of my future children, what is the point of keeping hold of my earthly possessions?

In the case where there were previous marriages for one or both spouses, there may be cause for a pre-nuptual to reserve the rights of inheritance to certain articles or properties for children of one or the other. However, with a first marriage, there is no need.

Just my thoughts.

God bless,

Agricola