Question concerning prenuptial agreement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But a mirrored will can be changed after the death of the first spouse. A post-nuptial might work, but it depends on your jurisdiction. In a prenup a future spouse can give up rights to assets that would otherwise become joint property upon marriage or when the assets were finally gained. Thus the party who wants the pre-nup will have assets to bequeath, that do not depend on the other spouse’s approval.
 
Yes, though it is not necessarily trusting the new spouse, but rather the potential for elder abuse (someone gaining a POA, or a guardianship), convincing the spouse to disinherit the other children while he/she is not really capable of making these decisions. You do also have to worry about, the spouse becoming disillusioned with the children and disinheriting them, because they are not perceived as visiting enough, or taking care of them enough, especially if the widow/widower hood is long. People do that to their own children.
 
I think the bottom line is to consult a canon lawyer, not quotes from non-canon-lawyers on the internet.

You know… you can negotiate a pre-nup and not sign it until after the marriage assuming you trust your spouse.
 
johnmann said:
I think the bottom line is to consult a canon lawyer, not quotes from non-canon-lawyers on the internet.

You know… you can negotiate a pre-nup and not sign it until after the marriage assuming you trust your spouse.
Click to expand...
How can a pre nup be a post nup?
 
johnmann said:
By not signing it until after the nup.
Click to expand...
That would literally be a postnuptial agreement. I may not be a lawyer but I think the date of signing usually tends to be a huge contributor in the effectiveness of a legally binding contract or agreement. Unless you are suggesting they backdate it which would be illegal.

Better to leave this with the Church officials instead of trying to give advice that we probably don’t know enough about.😉 Like you suggested before you suggested the legal mess of postnuptial singing a prenuptial agreement.:rolleyes:
 
johnmann said:
Yes. That’s the idea.
Click to expand...
I think you are confused as to the meaning of the terms.

From the legal dictionary.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/prenuptial+agreement
prenuptial agreement (antenuptial agreement) n. a written contract between two people who are about to marry, setting out the terms of possession of assets, treatment of future earnings, control of the property of each, and potential division if the marriage is later dissolved. These agreements are fairly common if either or both parties have substantial assets, children from a prior marriage, potential inheritances, high incomes, or have been “taken” by a prior spouse. (See: antenuptial agreement)
Click to expand...
And
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Postmarital+Agreement
Postmarital Agreement
An agreement made between spouses after marriage concerning the rights and responsibilities of the parties upon Divorce or the death of one of the spouses.
Click to expand...
Postmarital agreements, also called postnuptial agreements, are agreements made between spouses while they are married. Postmarital agreements concern the rights and responsibilities of each spouse in the event that the other spouse dies or the couple divorces. All states allow postmarital agreements, but courts must review these agreements for procedural and substantive fairness before they can be executed.
Click to expand...
In most states the law on postmarital agreements is similar to the law on premarital agreements. Both parties must make full disclosure of their earnings and their property, and the agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. If Fraud, duress, or coercion was involved in the formation of the contract, a court may declare the agreement void. Some states declare that, when creating a postmarital agreement, both parties must be represented by an attorney in order for the agreement to be valid. Courts are free to strike down provisions in postmarital contracts that violate public policy.
Click to expand...
Some states have special laws for postmarital agreements. In Minnesota, for example, the agreement may not address Child Support, Child Custody, or child visitation issues, and neither party may commence an action for separation or divorce within two years of the execution of the agreement. A section in Minnesota’s statute also provides that no couple with a net worth of less than $1.2 million may fashion a postmarital agreement (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 519.11 [West 1996]). In Florida, if a postmarital agreement waives a spouse’s rights upon the death of the other spouse, each spouse must make full and fair disclosure of assets. No such disclosure is required in Florida for similar premarital agreements (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 732.702 [West 1996]).
Click to expand...
Postmarital agreements are distinct from separation agreements. Separation agreements are intended to govern the rights and duties of the spouses upon separation and until a court orders a divorce decree or until a court recognizes the separation. Postmarital agreements, by contrast, are intended to govern the rights and duties of the spouses after a divorce.
Click to expand...
The proper use of terms is precisely why you should refrain from giving legal advice.

OP Talk to the Church about it!
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I think you are confused as to the meaning of the terms.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer, I understood the terms and used them properly. I’m not even sure what your issue is. I agreed with you. A pre-nup signed after marriage becomes a post-nup.
 
You stated.
johnmann said:
I think the bottom line is to consult a canon lawyer, not quotes from non-canon-lawyers on the internet.

You know… you can negotiate a pre-nup and not sign it until after the marriage assuming you trust your spouse.
Click to expand...
First off what you are describing is a Post marital agreement. As a lawyer you should use the correct terms.

2nd

You might want to check with forum rules before using this as a media to dispense legal advice. When in my opinion your advice was careless.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
First off what you are describing is a Post marital agreement.
Click to expand...
No, before marriage, which is what I was talking about, it’s called a pre-nup. By not executing it until after the marriage, it turns into a post-nup. Leave this stuff up to us who know.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
You might want to check with forum rules before using this as a media to dispense legal advice.
Click to expand...
I didn’t dispense any more legal advice than you did, i.e., none. A pre-nup executed after marriage is a post-nup. That’s what I said though you failed to catch it the first and second and third times. It was a simple fact. And you restated what I had said while simultaneously disagreeing just for the sake of being disagreeable.
 
johnmann said:
No, before marriage, which is what I was talking about, it’s called a pre-nup. By not executing it until after the marriage, it turns into a post-nup. Leave this stuff up to us who know.

I didn’t dispense any more legal advice than you did, i.e., none. A pre-nup executed after marriage is a post-nup. That’s what I said though you failed to catch it the first and second and third times. It was a simple fact. And you restated what I had said while simultaneously disagreeing just for the sake of being disagreeable.
Click to expand...
I know you ego might be bruised but you do know the prefixes pre and post and what they mean right?

There is a such thing as a post marital agreement. That is what you are describing. Unless you are saying that the couple should enter into a contract (marriage) and then backdate a stipulation to that contract after the contract was negotiated? If you do that in business you go to jail.🤷
 
Not to be thread cop but this is going off the rails.

In the opinion of this canon lawyer, the answer to the OP’s question is, as usual for these sorts of questions, “maybe.” You’ll not find, in canon law, a canon saying “those who enter into a prenuptial agreement are incapable of positing valid consent to marriage.” You’ll find such things as simulation (excluding an essential element or property of marriage from consent–c. 1101.2) and conditional consent (subjecting marital consent to some future circumstance or event–c. 1102). These canons have been referenced already.

Would the very fact of entering into a prenuptial agreement mean that the person is necessarily excluding the essential property of indissolubility? No, not necessarily. Would it mean that the person is subjecting his consent to a future event? I really don’t see that. Someone would have to explain that to me.

Would the very fact of entering into a prenuptial agreement at least be evidence of deficient consent? Maybe.

The question of pre vs. post-nuptial agreements is interesting in that if a person says “I will only marry you if you will sign this agreement after we marry”, that is a textbook example of subjecting the marriage to a future condition.

Dan
 
I think I see where you went wrong. You don’t seem to understand what “nup” means. It’s short for “nuptial.” Pre-nuptial means before entering the marriage. When I said pre-nup, I meant before entering into marriage. What happens before marriage is pre-nup. Thus if you negotiate an agreement before marriage, you are negotiating pre-nup. Now, if you execute the agreement after you are married, that is post-nup. Next time you aren’t clear on a term, simply ask.
 
johnmann said:
I think I see where you went wrong. You don’t seem to understand what “nup” means. It’s short for “nuptial.” Pre-nuptial means before entering the marriage. When I said pre-nup, I meant before entering into marriage. What happens before marriage is pre-nup. Thus if you negotiate an agreement before marriage, you are negotiating pre-nup. Now, if you execute the agreement after you are married, that is post-nup. Next time you aren’t clear on a term, simply ask.
Click to expand...
😃 The misunderstanding is yours. I am well acquainted with what nuptial means. You stated that a couple could sign a pre(before) Nuptial (marriage) after (post) nuptial (marriage) that is impossible because the actual document would be a Post nup. The article I cited explains and uses the proper terms. Perhaps you could read it. This is why it is dangerous for you to not use the correct terms. You said a couple could sign a pre nup post nup. :nope: The only way for that to happen is if one backdated the nup agreement to make it pre. Which is illegal. A couple can enter into a postnup but there are some legal issues with some post nups. Mostly, you are pointing out a way to “get around” the prenup rule but really you should be focused on the necessity for a pre nup for a catholic couple anyway?🤷 As has been addressed on this thread, the Church allows for a certain type of prenup. Your advice to backdoor that is unsound.
Please read the article I posted.

You will find that, an “oops I made a mistake” Will earn you more points than being condescending.

At any rate I think the information is out on this thread now with our nitpicking on the definitions of prefixes and the article posted. So we can move on. I hope you have no hard feelings.
 
dans0622 said:
Not to be thread cop but this is going off the rails.

In the opinion of this canon lawyer, the answer to the OP’s question is, as usual for these sorts of questions, “maybe.” You’ll not find, in canon law, a canon saying “those who enter into a prenuptial agreement are incapable of positing valid consent to marriage.” You’ll find such things as simulation (excluding an essential element or property of marriage from consent–c. 1101.2) and conditional consent (subjecting marital consent to some future circumstance or event–c. 1102). These canons have been referenced already.

Would the very fact of entering into a prenuptial agreement mean that the person is necessarily excluding the essential property of indissolubility? No, not necessarily. Would it mean that the person is subjecting his consent to a future event? I really don’t see that. Someone would have to explain that to me.

Would the very fact of entering into a prenuptial agreement at least be evidence of deficient consent? Maybe.

The question of pre vs. post-nuptial agreements is interesting in that if a person says “I will only marry you if you will sign this agreement after we marry”, that is a textbook example of subjecting the marriage to a future condition.

Dan
Click to expand...
Regarding the pre post idea. I think it could be legit if the couple agreed to do so AFTER the marriage. Meaning, they did not really intend to make that a condition of their marriage. Which would probably be ok as long as one spouse never conditioned the marriage on the signing of a future document.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top