Prenuptial Agreement drafted

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Prenuptial Agreement drafted

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:01 am

The subject of prenuptial agreements seems to be very polarizing subject on this board, so I thought I'd share my point of view. I recently had a prenuptial agreement drafted (getting married next fall)

It should be noted that my decision to have a prenuptial agreement drafted before I got married was made before I even met my fiance. My saving habits, instilled very early on, very quickly set me apart from my peers. It would never be a situation where both husband and wife start their lives out together with nothing; I already had accumulated much and so the notion of being on equal footing financially was unfortunately not in the cards for me.

That aside, my parents divorced when I was in high school. During the process, I saw sides of my parents that I never knew existed. Hurt feelings of one party very quickly translated to trying to financially ruin the other party, with spite being the primary motivator. It was long, it was drawn out, it was messy, it was exceedingly expensive for both, and in many regards it permanently strained the relationship between my father and I. Having a prenuptial agreement in place will profoundly expedite things should the unfortunate occur.

Now, reasons aside for wanting a prenuptial agreement, my fiance's personal situation certainly reinforced the original decision.
  • My net worth is well over $500K while her's is -$10,000
    Aside from a small mortgage, I have no debt, while she has $18K in debt
    I make 2.5 times what she makes
    I don't carry credit card debt; she struggles not to max out her cards
As you can very well imagine, should the unthinkable happen, "equitable" most certainly DOES NOT translate to "fair" from my point of view. It could be argued that not having a preexisting agreement in place is foolhardy.

As for the specifics of my personal agreement, I don't mind sharing. Simply put:
  • The assets each of us bring into the marriage revert to the original owners.
    Any augmentation of those assets during the marriage also revert to the asset's original owners.
    Any equity in our primary residence will be split equally
    Any rental/investment properties revert to whomever is listed on the deed of said properties
    For every five years of marriage, there will be one year of spousal support
While I'm bias, I don't believe the above 'screws' my fiance. Rather, I think it insulates myself from getting screwed. Anyway, with over half of marriages ending in divorce, having a prenuptial agreement is, in my opinion, a very prudent step. Either way, my fiance doesn't really have any money, so at my lawyers suggestion, I'm offering her the option of taking the agreement to her own lawyer, and I will provide her $1000 to compensate her lawyer for reviewing it. Between the drafting of the agreement and financing her ability to have it professionally reviewed, this is moderately expensive for me, but the opportunity costs of NOT doing this are incalculably more.

So that's my situation. Lastly, I just want to say that the real problem is not the concept of a prenuptial agreement; it's the perception of one. As many have pointed out, detractors argue that suggesting one means one believes that any marriage is doomed from the start. In reality, the agreement doesn't increase or decrease the probability of divorce, it's just a contingency plan if divorce should occur.
Last edited by mikestorm on Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fishndoc
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:50 am

Post by fishndoc » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:18 am

That aside, my parents divorced when I was in high school. During the process, I saw sides of my parents that I never knew existed. Hurt feelings of one party very quickly translated to trying to financially ruin the other party, with spite being the primary motivator. It was long, it was drawn out, it was messy, it was exceedingly expensive for both, and in many regards it permanently strained the relationship between my father and I. Having a prenuptial agreement in place will profoundly expedite things should the unfortunate occur.
Interesting take on a prenup that I hadn't considered.

Sounds like, whatever the prenup says, you and your new spouse are going to have significant disagreements over managing money and spending.
Have you considered some sort of credit counseling before getting married? Don't know that it will prevent the problem, but it might even prove (to both of you) that you two are not compatible?
" Successful investing involves doing just a few things right, and avoiding serious mistakes." - J. Bogle

david99
Posts: 633
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:56 am

Post by david99 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:18 am

Since you have significantly more assets than she does, I think that you would be foolish not to get a prenup. Just ask Paul McCartney if you should go with your passion, love and emotions when getting married or use your logic and common sense and have a prenup.

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:22 am

I think a big part of the polarization is not the concept of the prenup per se, but the concept of marriage, and how the prenup invalidates the marriage. that is, what's the point of getting married if the commitment (financial investment) can be withdrawn at anytime?
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:26 am

fishndoc wrote:Sounds like, whatever the prenup says, you and your new spouse are going to have significant disagreements over managing money and spending.
Have you considered some sort of credit counseling before getting married? Don't know that it will prevent the problem, but it might even prove (to both of you) that you two are not compatible?
Well, it's gotten much better. Since we met 3 years ago, I've gotten her to bump (slightly) her 401(k) contribution, Ive convinced her to automatically stash $25 / biweekly in an ING Direct account, and we've taken steps to distance/minimize/mitigate her poor credit history (no such thing as credit repair) such as applying for and properly using a standard mastercard.

I've also paid/closed all of her department store cards, and rolled the balance into an interest free loan that she pays me $300 per month.

Long story short, I've made it my mission for her to be more self reliant financially, and she has made great strides. She can now handle minor emergencies, like her car breaking down last month, whereas before she could not.

I'd like to think that this is similar to credit counseling!

User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:29 am

Opponent Process wrote:I think a big part of the polarization is not the concept of the prenup per se, but the concept of marriage, and how the prenup invalidates the marriage.
The prenup does not invalidate the marriage. The prenup essentially says, "we're going to use these set of rules instead of those set of rules should the marriage end in divorce."
Opponent Process wrote:that is, what's the point of getting married if the commitment (financial investment) can be withdrawn at anytime?
Agreement or not, the financial investment is going to be withdrawn one way or the other. From a devil's advocate POV: what's the point of getting married if one party is put in a position to financially ruin the other party?

Indices
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:40 am
Contact:

Post by Indices » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:35 am

Wow, the pre-nup really seems to favor you instead of her. Did she have her own lawyer look at the agreement before it was signed? Someone as poor with money as she is I doubt could afford her own attorney.

hsv_climber
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:36 am

mikestorm wrote: I've also paid/closed all of her department store cards, and rolled the balance into an interest free loan that she pays me $300 per month.
That is an interesting concept, which I've never heard about...

User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:38 am

Indices wrote:Wow, the pre-nup really seems to favor you instead of her. Did she have her own lawyer look at the agreement before it was signed? Someone as poor with money as she is I doubt could afford her own attorney.
Not yet. Per my original post, I'm offering her $1000 so she can hire an attorney to do just that.

Now, attorneys are advocates, and he or she will most likely say, "You must negotiate for more favorable terms" which she is certainly free to do, but if she does and she exhausts the $1000 I provided to her, that's on her own dime.

User avatar
norookie
Posts: 3016
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:55 pm

Post by norookie » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:39 am

:peace
Last edited by norookie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
" Wealth usually leads to excess " Cicero 55 b.c

User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:39 am

hsv_climber wrote:
mikestorm wrote: I've also paid/closed all of her department store cards, and rolled the balance into an interest free loan that she pays me $300 per month.
That is an interesting concept, which I've never heard about...
She was getting nowhere paying down her debt with the interest they were charging. As a courtesy, I paid them (off) for her and she reimburses me the outstanding balance without an interest expense on her part.

It saves her interest charges and it costs me the opportunity cost of not being able to invest the $$ I used to pay her cards down.
Last edited by mikestorm on Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Indices
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:40 am
Contact:

Post by Indices » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:39 am

mikestorm wrote:
Indices wrote:Wow, the pre-nup really seems to favor you instead of her. Did she have her own lawyer look at the agreement before it was signed? Someone as poor with money as she is I doubt could afford her own attorney.
Not yet. Per my original post, I'm offering her $1000 so she can hire an attorney to do just that.

Now, attorneys are advocates, and he or she will most likely say, "You must negotiate for more favorable terms" which she is certainly free to do, but if she does and she exhausts the $1000 I provided to her, that's on her own dime.
If she signs the agreement under these circumstances, I highly doubt the pre-nup will be admissible. Good luck though!

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:43 am

Indices wrote:Wow, the pre-nup really seems to favor you instead of her.
I guess it's a reversion back to the days when women weren't as protected as they are now. not saying that's right or wrong, either party can get screwed. it's like labor vs. corporations.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:44 am

Indices wrote:If she signs the agreement under these circumstances, I highly doubt the pre-nup will be admissible. Good luck though!
I respectfully disagree, but I'd very much like to hear what you would recommend in this situation or are you insinuating that I'm too wealthy and she's too poor for any sort of agreement to stick?

hsv_climber
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:47 am

This whole thing seems like a disaster just waiting to happen...

What age range of the future spouses are we talking about here?

User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:47 am

hsv_climber wrote:This whole thing seems like a disaster just waiting to happen...

What age range of the future spouses are we talking about here?
Mid 30s

Indices
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:40 am
Contact:

Post by Indices » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:49 am

mikestorm wrote:
Indices wrote:If she signs the agreement under these circumstances, I highly doubt the pre-nup will be admissible. Good luck though!
I respectfully disagree, but I'd very much like to hear what you would recommend in this situation or are you insinuating that I'm too wealthy and she's too poor for any sort of agreement to stick?
Talk to your lawyer about this, but the goal is to make sure that she had every chance to help draft a contract that was fair to her. That means she had a great deal of access to a lawyer (quite a bit more than 1k budget you've given her) and fully understood what she was getting into. The lawyer you hire for her can't be working for you and really has to be independent. The terms you've set out right now really favor you, and I doubt her lawyer would accept them (if he's competent).

masteraleph
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:45 am

Post by masteraleph » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:53 am

norookie wrote: Marry in a church, not with .gov sanctioning license. Remember seperation of church and state? Its good in this circumstance. JMO- GOOD LUCK!
In several states this is illegal, at least for the officiant. The reasoning, as I understand it, is to prevent situations such as the wife claiming single-mother benefits (food stamps, WIC, etc) when she is in fact married and is staying at home because someone's paying to support her already.

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7079
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Post by Call_Me_Op » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:55 am

mikestorm wrote: I've also paid/closed all of her department store cards, and rolled the balance into an interest free loan that she pays me $300 per month.
Technically (legally), I believe you are supposed to charge the prevailing interest rate - but that's neither here nor there.

I am in a similar situation, except I have not found a partner as of this instant. But I am sure if/when I do, there will be the type of imbalance in net worth that you are faced with.

I think you are doing the right thing. Just make sure that you are careful as to how you execute this prenup. You want to ensure it will not be challenged should the need for it arise.

By the way, I assume that $500MM is $500K. Is that right?
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

hsv_climber
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:56 am

Indices wrote:Talk to your lawyer about this, but the goal is to make sure that she had every chance to help draft a contract that was fair to her. That means she had a great deal of access to a lawyer (quite a bit more than 1k budget you've given her) and fully understood what she was getting into. The lawyer you hire for her can't be working for you and really has to be independent. The terms you've set out right now really favor you, and I doubt her lawyer would accept them (if he's competent).
Yes, I've just googled it and there are many sites claiming that if the lawyer is working for you or she does not have enough money to hire a lawyer then the agreement can be invalidated.

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5897
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by bottlecap » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:56 am

Opponent Process wrote:what's the point of getting married if the commitment (financial investment) can be withdrawn at anytime?
That's more a societal or legal problem - with a prenup or not, the reality is that marriage is a commitment that can be withdrawn at any time. The question with respect to the prenup is do you want to make people stay in marriages that they would prefer not to be in by making it financially disadvantageous to one party? No one feels bad for someone with money, so generally, society has largely answered "yes."

As to the OP, he's certainly mentioned some good reasons to get a prenup. He also mentions a few things that should not make any difference. His salary being 2.5 times higher than hers? That one's pretty transparent and it would have never flown with my wife!

JT
Last edited by bottlecap on Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gill
Posts: 4824
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:38 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Gill » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:59 am

Indices wrote:...I highly doubt the pre-nup will be admissible. Good luck though!
First of all, I believe you mean enforceable, not admissable. Secondly, although it's difficult to anticipate a court's decision, it appears to me the OP is being very fair in every respect. He has every right to draft the agreement as he proposes.
Bruce

Indices
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:40 am
Contact:

Post by Indices » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:01 am

MBMiner wrote:
Indices wrote:...I highly doubt the pre-nup will be admissible. Good luck though!
First of all, I believe you mean enforceable, not admissable. Secondly, although it's difficult to anticipate a court's decision, it appears to me the OP is being very fair in every respect. He has every right to draft the agreement as he proposes.
Bruce
And the court has every right to throw it out!

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11942
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Prenuptial Agreement drafted

Post by HomerJ » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:01 am

mikestorm wrote: Anyway, with over half of marriages ending in divorce, having a prenuptial agreement is, in my opinion, a very prudent step.
FYI - Just to make the people who quote this statistic feel better, it actually breaks down alone age and education lines...

People who get married out of high school at 19 have marriages that end in divorce like 65% of the time...

People who get married right out of college at 22 have marriages that end in divorce around 50% of the time...

People with high school educations who get married in their late 20s have around a 40% divorce rate...

And people with a college education who get married in their late 20s only have like a 25% divorce rate...

Basically, the longer you wait, the more mature you and your partner are, the less likely your marriage will end in divorce...
Lastly, I just want to say that the real problem is not the concept of a prenuptial agreement; it's the perception of one. As many have pointed out, detractors argue that suggesting one means one believes that any marriage is doomed from the start. In reality, the agreement doesn't increase or decrease the probability of divorce, it's just a contingency plan if divorce should occur.
I agree with you... My wife and I got a pre-nup... She had money and kids to protect (from her first marriage), and I had basically nothing...

Friends said that she must think the marriage is doomed from the start if she wants me to sign it... I said, I must think the marriage is doomed from the start if I DIDN'T want to sign it...

Since I know our marriage will last forever, the pre-nup means absolutely nothing to me... so of course I had no problems signing it (besides, it IS fair if something happened, I should have no right to her money from before the marriage - although it might be tough for us to figure out how much it's grown apart from all our combined money)

12 years in and still going strong...

hsv_climber
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:03 am

bottlecap wrote: As to the OP, he's certainly mentioned some good reasons to get a prenup. He also mentions a few things that should make any difference. His salary being 2.5 times higher than hers? That one's pretty transparent and it would have never flown with my wife!
JT
My wife is stay-at-home-mom, so my salary is infinitely higher than hers. So,what should I do about it? :?:

Gill
Posts: 4824
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:38 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Gill » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:09 am

Indices wrote:And the court has every right to throw it out!
Not if it conforms with state law it doesn't!
Bruce

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5897
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by bottlecap » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:11 am

mikestorm wrote:She was getting nowhere paying down her debt with the interest they were charging. As a courtesy, I paid them (off) for her and she reimburses me the outstanding balance without an interest expense on her part.

It saves her interest charges and it costs me the opportunity cost of not being able to invest the $$ I used to pay her cards down.
Man, I think you're headed for trouble, but not because of her. "As a courtesy?" "Costs me the opportunity of not being able to invest?" That's some pretty cold calculating.

Aside from that, starting out a marriage with a debtor/creditor relationship with your wife is probably not a good idea. Unless she's a saint, she will no doubt grow to resent your continued "courtesy" while reminding her she shouldn't spend because she is currently in debt to you.

You have a great opportunity to sit down with her and say, "Sweetheart, I will pay your debts (perhaps as part of the prenup - $18,000 is pretty good consideration to firm up the enforceability), but we have to get on the same page financially if we are going to get married."

I think that will save you a lot of grief and heartache that you might otherwise be headed for.

Good luck,

JT

User avatar
norookie
Posts: 3016
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:55 pm

Post by norookie » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:12 am

masteraleph wrote:
norookie wrote: Marry in a church, not with .gov sanctioning license. Remember seperation of church and state? Its good in this circumstance. JMO- GOOD LUCK!
In several states this is illegal, at least for the officiant. The reasoning, as I understand it, is to prevent situations such as the wife claiming single-mother benefits (food stamps, WIC, etc) when she is in fact married and is staying at home because someone's paying to support her already.
I'm sure thats the case, Might be different in different states but essentially the same. As co-habitation was in the 80s in MA. I do not know if it still is. I know this because a male and a female police officers from different neighboring towns were co-habitating. Both depts knew this and overlooked it. However if your not collecting the federal/ state benifits I doubt there'd be a issue. Laws are responded to, ....... if reported. OP Stay single, marry in a church only if needed/wanted. I'd bet its not your idea to get married anyway. Why do people let the .gov tell them how to manage their lives without breaking laws. Its still a law in MA no spitting on the sidewalk. I should look for that link. :lol: http://www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws_massachusetts.htm
Last edited by norookie on Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
" Wealth usually leads to excess " Cicero 55 b.c

User avatar
bottlecap
Posts: 5897
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:21 pm
Location: Tennessee

Post by bottlecap » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:12 am

hsv_climber wrote:
bottlecap wrote: As to the OP, he's certainly mentioned some good reasons to get a prenup. He also mentions a few things that should make any difference. His salary being 2.5 times higher than hers? That one's pretty transparent and it would have never flown with my wife!
JT
My wife is stay-at-home-mom, so my salary is infinitely higher than hers. So,what should I do about it? :?:
I meant should not make any difference...

hsv_climber
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:13 am

MBMiner wrote:
Indices wrote:And the court has every right to throw it out!
Not if it conforms with state law it doesn't!
Bruce
Not if she (or her lawyer) will be able to prove coercion.

And there are already bunch of red flags here like: she already owns money to him, she relies on the limited budget that he has provided to hire a lawyer, etc.

sscritic
Posts: 21858
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Prenuptial Agreement drafted

Post by sscritic » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 am

mikestorm wrote:
  • The assets each of us bring into the marriage revert to the original owners.
    Any augmentation of those assets during the marriage also revert to the asset's original owners.
    Any equity in our primary residence will be split equally
    Any rental/investment properties revert to whomever is listed on the deed of said properties
    For every five years of marriage, there will be one year of spousal support
If property that you currently own is kept in your separate name, then in California, a community property state, you don't need a prenup for the first two items (you could also include gifts and inheritances - so add that to your prenup). Separate property is separate as long as it is kept separate. [read it again and it will make sense] That means you have to pay any mortgages on your separate property with your separate money and not use marital assets.

As for the 4th item, the question would be whose money was used to purchase the property. Are you saying you are going to buy a rental property with your money and put it in her name and then she can keep it after the divorce? Or, more likely, you are going to use marital assets to buy the property, title it in your name only, and then try to keep it all for yourself after the divorce. If I were she, I wouldn't sign under those conditions.

As for the validity of pre or post-nups, answer me this: Who owns the LA Dodgers?

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11942
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Post by HomerJ » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:26 am

bottlecap wrote:You have a great opportunity to sit down with her and say, "Sweetheart, I will pay your debts (perhaps as part of the prenup - $18,000 is pretty good consideration to firm up the enforceability), but we have to get on the same page financially if we are going to get married."
Yeah, you really need to get into a "team" mentality or your marriage will never work... You don't loan money to your wife...

She needs to control her spending as part of her commitment to the team, but you can't be in charge of all money matters just because you make more money and have more assets...

You really are doomed if you can't wrap your head around this... She's not your child or your employee, she's your partner.

aviator
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:28 pm

Post by aviator » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:26 am

Mike, yours is an exceptionally well written and well reasoned post. Not much I can disagree with.

I do, however, have a couple of questions. Your comment about the cost of having your lawyers involved in drawing up the prenup struck me as odd. You're worth $500mm (which I'm reading as half a billion US dollars), the cost of legal advice is a pittance compared to what's at stake. Would not be a consideration for me...

Further, please shed some light on your will. Will your new spouse inherit all your assets? Is she -- or has she been -- part of the planning process regarding disposition of said assets? Does she have any say in who gets what, and when?

Clearly, in your relationship, there is an imbalance of financial power. Does that imbalance penetrate other parts of your lives?

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11942
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Post by HomerJ » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:38 am

Since I was in a similiar situation... let me tell you how my wife and I handle it...

We have three accounts, mine, hers, and a joint....

All household bills are paid from the joint, and we put money in roughly based on our respective incomes (we make about the same now, so it's 50/50, but at the beginning of our marriage, she made twice as much as me, so she put twice as much into the joint).

It's important that each partner has some extra money left over each month that is THEIR money to spend however they want...

I had some large student loans that I continued to pay off from "my" money... When we bought our new house, we took equity from her old house (technically her money) and paid off my loans...

But we didn't consider it a loan from her to me... I just upped my contribution to the joint by the amount that I was paying for the loans, and we upped our monthly payment for the mortgage by that amount...

So technically, I guess I was paying her back for her loan to me, but it didn't feel that way... there was never a "balance" that I still "owed" her...

In fact, it's been quite a few years... I probably paid off that "loan" a year or two ago, and now she's getting free money from me!!!

Oh wait, we're a team, and it's OUR money, and OUR house that's being paid off faster...

Anyway, that's just how we handled it. We started out in very different places financially, but we're a solid team now headed towards early retirement.
Last edited by HomerJ on Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11942
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Post by HomerJ » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:41 am

aviator wrote:I do, however, have a couple of questions. Your comment about the cost of having your lawyers involved in drawing up the prenup struck me as odd. You're worth $500mm (which I'm reading as half a billion US dollars), the cost of legal advice is a pittance compared to what's at stake. Would not be a consideration for me...
Whoa... I just assumed he meant $500k ($500,000) but looking up MM on google tells me it DOES mean million in some countries... Does this guy really have $500 million?

hsv_climber
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:54 am

rrosenkoetter wrote:Whoa... I just assumed he meant $500k ($500,000) but looking up MM on google tells me it DOES mean million in some countries... Does this guy really have $500 million?
If he really does then he better hires bunch of good lawyers and not just ask question on this message board.
I do trust the wisdom of this board, but it can only go so far.

tomd37
Posts: 2886
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:39 pm
Location: Middle Tennessee

Lady - Start Looking Elsewhere

Post by tomd37 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:58 am

I'd strongly suggest the OP's lady start looking elsewhere for another man. IMO this relationship appears to be doomed from the beginning. Wonder if this is the first marriage consideration for the OP?
Tom D.

User avatar
pointyhairedboss
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:47 pm

Post by pointyhairedboss » Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:05 pm

If I were the prospective wife - which is weird for me to state as I am a guy - I would want a cut of all the post marital earnings, perhaps as much as 50%. So, if you bring $5 million into the marriage, and we later divorce and say you have $7 million, I would want a million of that.

User avatar
Noobvestor
Posts: 4754
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:09 am
Contact:

Post by Noobvestor » Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:08 pm

I'm seeing a lot of fascinatingly varied responses here, many negative. What I'm wondering is: what would *you* do in his situation, assuming *only* the financial information provided (and not anything about his tone or strategies so far). In other words: if you make lots of money, your significant other makes none or next to none, there are no children to be thought of either way ... how would you approach a marriage? No pre-nup? Or, if one, what is equitable? I'm surprised that anyone would suggest that a pre-nup of any kind is, in such a situation, completely unreasonable.

So for anyone willing to look past interpretations of the more emotional/subjective content posted by the OP, I'd be curious to see what you have to say more generally. Feel free to picture yourself on *either* side of the equation - as the person with money and a high salary, or the person without.

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11942
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Post by HomerJ » Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:19 pm

noobvester wrote:I'm seeing a lot of fascinatingly varied responses here, many negative. What I'm wondering is: what would *you* do in his situation, assuming *only* the financial information provided (and not anything about his tone or strategies so far). In other words: if you make lots of money, your significant other makes none or next to none, there are no children to be thought of either way ... how would you approach a marriage? No pre-nup? Or, if one, what is equitable? I'm surprised that anyone would suggest that a pre-nup of any kind is, in such a situation, completely unreasonable.

So for anyone willing to look past interpretations of the more emotional/subjective content posted by the OP, I'd be curious to see what you have to say more generally. Feel free to picture yourself on *either* side of the equation - as the person with money and a high salary, or the person without.
Like I said, I'm 100% pro pre-nup.

I do think he needs to be very careful about how he treats his wife... He's not the parent, she's not the child... If he can't trust her with money matters IN the marriage as a equal partner, then he shouldn't get married to her at all.

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7079
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Post by Call_Me_Op » Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:25 pm

Based upon his first post to the forum, I would say his net worth is $500K, not $500 million.

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... ht=#673320
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

aviator
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:28 pm

Post by aviator » Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:28 pm

rrosenkoetter wrote:Whoa... I just assumed he meant $500k ($500,000) but looking up MM on google tells me it DOES mean million in some countries... Does this guy really have $500 million?
Well, there's a HUGE difference between $500k and $500mm. Obviously the stakes are much higher and so are the complexities that come with managing that much money. Mike, the OP, perhaps you can clarify exactly how much is at stake?

IMHO, $500k is nothing to get worked up about. Yes it's a lot of money, but not enough to jeopardize a relationship with a woman (who I'm assuming) is marriage material. $500mm, on the other hand, is serious money which can make otherwise rational people irrational. Along with the prenup comes a whole slew of important legal issues that should be considered.

Regarding the use of a prenup or not: I think it depends entirely on the players involved. Second marriages, kids from previous marriages, debt obligations and so forth are important in determining who you're marrying and how financially responsible they are. Hard to determine all that from an Internet board.

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:48 pm

Call_Me_Op wrote:Based upon his first post to the forum, I would say his net worth is $500K, not $500 million.
I wonder if his fiancee knows this. :shock:

if I was rich enough to have to consider a prenup, I just wouldn't get married. I would assume that my partner would be smart enough to realize the risks. basically, like I said before, a prenup makes the marriage null and void IMO. marriage is itself a prenup that states that you are now equal. if you are not equal, you are not married. you're just exchanging access to wealth for sex, which is fine (normal, actually), but I don't know what that has to do with marriage. marriage is a complete non-sequiter in this case.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7079
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Post by Call_Me_Op » Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:54 pm

Opponent Process wrote: if I was rich enough to have to consider a prenup, I just wouldn't get married.
So anyone who has wealth should not get married? This seems like a very limiting point of view.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

User avatar
Noobvestor
Posts: 4754
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:09 am
Contact:

Post by Noobvestor » Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:54 pm

Opp Proc: I couldn't disagree more. What you seem to be saying is that the semi-arbitrary, definitely-changeable, state-dependent definition of marriage is somehow absolute and infallible. Just for philosophical fun, let's say marriage law changes in the future (as it has in the past) ... technically, on your position, that would make current marriages null and void, no?

Aviator: $500,000 not money much? That's enough for someone to retire on (albeit modestly). Cut it in half and that's a big deal to someone to whom that is all the money in their world. I agree, though, that there are complexities based on specific situations that are hard to thoroughly evaluate here.

RRosen: I also agree it is a tricky situation, and having an imbalance is what should be avoided if at all possible. That said, assume the worst-case scenario (too horrible for most here to voice, apparently): she really is using him to get to his money, and plans to divorce him as soon as legally able and take half. She is a sophisticated con artist, or perhaps just sociopathic. What then? I'm not saying it is trivial either way, but no matter how much you love someone you can't know with 100% certainty what they are like deep down - we all have our mysteries, which can be beautiful, terrible, or both. Also, while the odds do improve as you age and become more educated, a 25% chance of divorce is still quite a whopper of one if you consider the incredible economic implications of splitting up and giving away half your accumulated wealth.

Call_Me_Op
Posts: 7079
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:57 pm
Location: Milky Way

Post by Call_Me_Op » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:11 pm

Two people who love each other should be able to marry without one having to worry about losing his or her hard-earned money (earned prior to the marriage) in the event of divorce. This is not the 1950's, where everyone got married at 19 and both parties had nothing going into it. The prenuptial agreement is a wise thing to have, IMHO, in a situation such as the Op finds himself. It's the only way to assure that a level of fairness will prevail in the event of dissolution of the marriage.

I think it is also an insurance policy against bad intentions on the part of the prospective spouse with the lower net worth. I find it hard to believe that there are people like that (willing to rob another) in the world, but the reality appears to be that they exist and that people do get taken-in by them occasionally.

I know that in many cases, a prospective spouse will be "taken aback" by mention of a prenuptial. They interpret it as a vote of mistrust in them. What must be explained is that it has nothing to do with not trusting them, but it is an acknowledgment of the realities of love and marriage. Marriages do sometimes end, despite the best intentions of both parties.
Last edited by Call_Me_Op on Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Best regards, -Op | | "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." Einstein

Indices
Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:40 am
Contact:

Post by Indices » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:14 pm

Opponent Process wrote:
Call_Me_Op wrote:Based upon his first post to the forum, I would say his net worth is $500K, not $500 million.
I wonder if his fiancee knows this. :shock:

if I was rich enough to have to consider a prenup, I just wouldn't get married. I would assume that my partner would be smart enough to realize the risks. basically, like I said before, a prenup makes the marriage null and void IMO. marriage is itself a prenup that states that you are now equal. if you are not equal, you are not married. you're just exchanging access to wealth for sex, which is fine (normal, actually), but I don't know what that has to do with marriage. marriage is a complete non-sequiter in this case.
You're confusing things. A pre-nup just circumvents the laws on the books concerning division of property in a divorce or annulment. You can write a prenup to give more to a spouse if you like (though I'm sure it is rarely done). You're adding a moral element there that doesn't really exist.

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:18 pm

Call_Me_Op wrote:
Opponent Process wrote: if I was rich enough to have to consider a prenup, I just wouldn't get married.
So anyone who has wealth should not get married? This seems like a very limiting point of view.
noobvester wrote:Opp Proc: I couldn't disagree more. What you seem to be saying is that the semi-arbitrary, definitely-changeable, state-dependent definition of marriage is somehow absolute and infallible. Just for philosophical fun, let's say marriage law changes in the future (as it has in the past) ... technically, on your position, that would make current marriages null and void, no?
marriage=equality, or it's purpose is to equalize, to make two, one. I think this has been pretty consistent throughout history, morally and legally. correct me if I'm wrong. I just think you should call a spade a spade. if someone wants to protect their property from a fiscally-irresponsible nutcase, don't marry them. maybe I'm making it too simple. other than equality, are there any other primary principles of marriage I'm missing here? by which I mean that marriage is essential for the expression of such principles.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:20 pm

Indices wrote:You're adding a moral element there that doesn't really exist.
funny, isn't that exactly what marriage is? what is marriage without the moral element? it's just another legal agreement. then, why bother?
Last edited by Opponent Process on Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

User avatar
mikestorm
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:34 am

Post by mikestorm » Sun Oct 24, 2010 2:23 pm

Call_Me_Op wrote:
By the way, I assume that $500MM is $500K. Is that right?
Oh wow; yes. I meant to write $500M, not $500MM. Fixing now.

Post Reply