I seem to be attending a lot of weddings these days, and it made me start to wonder...if I remarried, would I want to get a pre-nup or not?

I can see the need for one if you have children from a previous marriage or a business to protect. However, my instincts tell me that if you need a pre-nup, you DON'T need to be getting married...

But, individuals and couples I know who have a pre-nup say it has nothing to do with trust and everything with taking care of yourself and your spouse. I can see the logic in this, because I know firsthand how drastically feelings can change when divorce is in the water.

Even financial planners such as Suze Orman recommend getting a pre-nup. But attorneys I know say its a waste of time and money if there aren't substantial assets to protect - or unless one spouse stands to gain a lot financially in the event of divorce.

Where does everyone here stand? If you remarry, are you going to get a pre-nup? What is the reasoning behind your choice?

Hey girl, you know my stand on this ... no-prenup. Why ? If I can't trust her with my money how could I trust her with my heart ?. SO has to earn that trust and you have to think with your head between your ear.

Now, it is different if you share asset before M ... you have to draft up an agreement like any other contract.

JMVHO
-rh-

if i ever remarry i will definately have a pre nup...i have a mil and a half home and a good portion of it is equity....i have no desire to give an exwife part of this when she had nothing to contibute to it to begin with...if we buy something else 50/50 then it gets split accordingly....trust and love get thrown out the window in nearly EVERY divorce...not planning for divorce, just protecting in the event it happens...why do people buy insurance?...for the unlikely event something happens

I have struggled with this too. It is easy to agree with both viewpoints, which redhat and ka1 have expressed well. It almost seems like the answer really reflects how we make relationship decisions. If we make them with feelings and emotions, then trusting (the essense of marriage) says we place no boundaries between us, and I believe that wholeheartedly. I don't think a relationship with a prenup will ever, can ever, be as rich and rewarding as one where you risk all and trust completely. On the other hand if we use our brains to choose, we can envision all sorts of scenarios where a prenup is essential. Doesn't even have to be about a failed divorce/relationship can be related to death of spouse, and unexpected consequences arising from the legal realities. Or maybe even other things like law suits against one of the marital partners that sucks in the other one. So how to figure this out, so ones decision isn't just a kneejerk reaction to how one tends to make choices.

I haven't had to deal with this, so my thoughts are theoretical, and who knows, could change when confronted with the real deal. But for now, my inclination is a prenup destablizes a marriage emotionally, interferes with bonding and becoming one, is a strong statement saying I don't really trust you, or even, I am incapable of fully trusting you. This is not a good thing. However, any emotional decison to be valid, must past the "smell" test, that means it has to make rational sense too. Otherwise the feeling choice needs to be overuled by reason (that is why we cease dating people we "feel" attracted too, but are clearly unworthy in some significant way).

What is the issue anyways, it seems to be primarily economic, so we have 3 conditions.

1. Both are equally "poor", more or less, having no significant assets. Prenup seems moot.

2. Both have substantial assets, but equally "rich" more or less. This creates an inheritance issue, not a marital issue, since a divorce would split "equally" anyways. However death might see one parties assets being diverted to the other persons heirs and disinheriting the first to decease's heirs. This is a big problem. Not even necessarily becuase the still living spouse is not a good steward, or relied on to do the right thing. The living spouse may become incapacitated, or suffer dementia, and other individuals seize control of the assets...it happens...often.

3. There is a substantial disparity pre-maritally, 1 "rich" one "poor". So now there is a divorce issue as well as an inheritance issue. If one made a bad matital choice (which likelihood should be much less likely if one has learned how to choose wisely), then they could be "robbed" as well as heartbroken.

A secondary concern is extended family, one may be equal (rich or poor), but likely to inherit substantial assets. These aren't really "marital" assets, weren't earned together, but could become joint assets, depending on how some fairly complex, and confusing legal rules are applied. In fact this can even have an adverse result on the other spouse if complex tax laws are not taken into account...but this is really not a prenup issue, and affects any couple no matter whether first or 2nd marriage or whatever.

Finally some of these considerations apply to first marriages as well, yet people typically do not feel a prenup is desireable (apparently feeling it indicates a lack of trust..which of course it does).

I am not certain, having not investigated thoroughly the legal remedies (other than prenup) to resolving the very real economic risks, but it is my sense the issues about heirs, and others seizeing control of assets, can be dealt with by employing proper legal remedies, within the context of a trusting marriage. I feel very strongly that if you are unwilling to trust someone with your money, it is foolish to marry them at all, and trust them with your very life. It is possible there may be some economic scenario that would make a prenup make sense, but if so, it should be clearly recognized by both parties as desireable, and crafted using POJA technique.

I suspect people who are adamant about prenups, without any real overriding need, are really saying something about themself, and their capacity for intimacy, bonding, and trust. They are trying to hedge their bets sort of, and that is an impediment to oneness...but then again, given the world the way it is, and the fact people often are very clever at concealing their true nature, it is not unreasonable to be concerned. A prenup does not automatically mean trouble, but it should be a tool enthusiastically agreed to by both parties, being radically honest about their position, and POJA'd. That probably works, cause it is something done together as a couple. If a POJA is imposed on someone as a condition of marriage, that is a problem I think. And of POJA can't find a solution, they probably shouldn't marry.

BTW...i had a prenup when i married in 1985...father in law was VERY wealthy and princess needed to be protected....i did care at all that i signed it...not then , not now...it wasnt about $$$ to me...

I do beleive M is union of two people into one flesh. One mind, body, and soul ... I will have to trust her w/ everything of mine before I propose to her. Financial should be no issue in the bigger picture.

Again JMVHO ... -rh-

LULU,

In practice it's another thing. I have a prenup. I'm now getting divorced. Is it doing me any good? No. Why not? Because it was simply too much work to document how much of my pre-marital $$ I put into our joint lives together, so I didn't keep good records. Also, the mindset you have to be in to keep these records is one of distrust.

However, now H is trying to take all the remaining equity in the house and wants me to give up the rest of my equity. His reasoning is that he's broke, the separation has been expensive for him, and I should share in his crisis - the one he was willing to create in order to end the M.

My present attorney is the one who drew up the prenups way back when. He intends to mention it in the official letter he is now writing - stating his opinion on who owes what to whom - and that will probably do me some good.

Just to play "devil's advocate" wouldn't negotiating a pre-nup be a sort of first concrete foray into POJA? You can really put anything into a pre-nup, it doesn't all have to be financial. Especially if it gives your partner an increased feeling of safety and security, isn't it in your best interest to sign one?

Even if, as in Deja Vu's case, it doesn't really amount to much "help" in an actual divorce? Perhaps by outlining more than who gets what in a pre-nup, one could avoid divorce altogether?

Most people who get married WITHOUT a pre-nup trust their spouses with their hearts, but in most cases, their pocketbook suffers in the end.

I say---SIGN IT or we don't marry.