If I can't trust my new spouse with my assets, then I can not trust her with my heart.

I would not entertain a Pre-nup it as I do not think it is productive and does not align with the permanence of marriage.

I would expect my new W to love my children as I would hers. We should work together to ensure their security and happiness.

If I did not have a woman to meet these qualifications, why would I get married anyhow?

To answer your direct questions:

1. Deal breaker if one is insisted. This lack of trust would alert me to her true feelings and throw away attitude of commitment.

2. N/A due to 1.

3. N/A due to 1.

4. As soon as I say 'I do' and change the will.

Mike and I did not have a pre-nup, although I would have signed it if he had wanted one. Before we got married, we discussed at length how to provide for my children in the event of my death. Mike was figuring I'd get pretty much everything if he died, but I wanted him to work with an estate lawyer to see that some assets went back to his family if not on his death, on my death should he pre-decease me.

As it happened, Mike died before he could make the will. Because of my state's rules, half will go to his mother and half to me, excluding assets with named beneficiaries. So, it looks like most of his money will go back to his family of origin.

Pre-nupts can be an important part of estate planning depending on your state. For example, in PA without a pre-nupt, one spouse cannot leave more 50-60% of his estate way from the other spouse. If there are large sums of money involved, it may be wise to look into it for this purpose.

I had a pre-nupt in my first marriage, but would not recommend it to anyone as "protection."

I agree with Grind

It would be an absolute dealbreaker for me. If you can't trust me I wouldn't want to marry you. It's a

As with so many things in life I think circumstances dictate the need for a pre-nupt.

1. It would be important to me if I had money and property I wanted to be divided in a specific way among my children. If my spouse had assets he wished for his children to have a pre-nupt seems like the best way to accomplish that. Plus, who knows where we might end up and what the divorce laws regarding property might be there. Would it be a deal breaker...it depends on circumstances.

2. Again, circumstances and location would dictate how it would be structured. There are so many variables I can't imagine a on size fits all document working very well.

3. I would anticipate that my partner would want to protect his children's interests as much I would want to protect mine. This would depend on each child and their particular situation and equitable division.

4. I would want that settled before the marriage so as not to be surprised.

I have read many a times where a spouse married a second time and then died. Where then the new/second spouse then cut off the deceased the spouse's children from the previous marriage from getting their family wealth passed onto them.

Whatever wealth one's parents and grandparents have accumulated should be passed onto their direct heirs. Family wealth should stay within the family. The step parent and step siblings should not get a share. They same way the Step relations should not have to share their family's wealth.

Why should a adult children lose the value that their father worked for to buy the family home just because their parent remarried, and died first before the second spouse?

The new step dad did not break his butt to pay off the mortgage. Why should he get the house?

Simple.

The preexisting children get what wealth their original family accumulated. If their are children of the new marriage they get a share of the wealth that the new marriage created, but none of the original family wealth.

yup, I agree with the road

its romantic to think that each of us can select properly so that the second spouse will be ideal, but death and inheritances allow people excuses to behave irrationally and unexpectedly. .

sorry to be practical and understanding of human tendencies and behaviors. . . get a prenup and a will to insure the assets are distributed as you want them to be. . . hoping someone else will follow through with your wishes once you are gone is a crap shoot at best.

wiftty

If I ever marry again, I will insist on a prenuptial agreement. It is fine to say you wouldn't marry anyone that you couldn't trust, but I have been there, done that.

It is like buying a stock. Can you trust your own judgement so well that you are sure:

1. That stock you bought never goes down
2. Market conditions never change
3. The company never goes bankrupt
4. That stock never changes
5. The stock continues to make you money
6. The stock always goes positive
7. Your decision was and is perfect for a lifetime?

Really you cannot predict the future. It is a romantic notion to believe that if you marry someone without a prenup this marriage will be perfect for the rest of your life.

But with a prenup, you get the best of both worlds. You can focus on ROMANCE and LOVE since your financial end of things is now covered.

The prenup protects you and takes away uncertantity:

If your judgement was wrong
IF conditions change out of your control
IF someone dies
IF someone becomes mentally ill
IF someone goes off the deep end and has affairs
IF your marriage falters
IF you divorce
IF you need legal action for some reason
IF you are not seeing the truth about your spouse

In fact, it creates a nice safety net for everybody so you can RELAX and JUST SIMPLY LOVE EACH OTHER!

I have one and love having it. Any spouse who rejects the idea of a prenup does not really love you. There is no reason to reject a prenup. It can be written fairly with both partners in mind. To protect them both, and thier children and other family members.

That is one of the craziest things I have ever read on here!!

Some would say that the same could be said for paranoid potential spouses who insist on a prenup!

I do not see why one partner would reject a prenup. If they loved each other a prenup would not be a problem.

My husband loved me so much he suggested a prenup would be smart. Since I had all the assets. He wanted to prove he loved ME, not the MONEY.

Why would anyone in love and contemplating marriage reject the idea of a prenup if one of the partners wanted one? A prenup is not a bad thing!

Let's just go all the way with this. Instead of saying, if we get married, let me protect my assets because I think this will not work. Let's say, let's go on and line out our divorce agreement and terms for child visitation, potential child support, tentative property distribution, etc. To me, it simply is stating a lack of faith in the decision you are making rather than proactive protective decision making.

As a future husband, I certainly wouldn't want my wife to put money or assets ahead of myself. (This is somewhat of an idol if you ask me). If she doesn't have God first, me second, family third, and money somewhere down the line then I have no interest anyhow.

Of course, if this became an actual issue for me then I think the Policy of Joint Agreement would have to take place. Maybe there are other options which would be just as suitable to her/me?

I agree that the children of the first marriage be protected. The laws here are such that you split everything you accummulate during the marriage only, so anything you had going in is still yours coming out. The only exception to this is the marital home which is split even if one spouse owned it outright going in. That said, it can be difficult to prove what you owned many years ago. However, in the absence of a prenup, you can certainly get everything appraised and print off bank statements and keep this stuff just in case. Of course, that's going back to a trust issue but in the sense that you are not trusting your soon-to-be spouse.

Fortunately, I don't have enough to lose to worry about stuff like this. I'm also not looking to get married again. I suppose I could wind up living with someone and the law here treats common-law relationships exactly the same as marriage. I'm sure there's a form of contract that functions as a prenup for common-law as well but again, I don't have so much and though it sounds pretty crass, I wouldn't be interested in a guy who had much less anyway. My bare minimum standards for as much as a date include being employed and having his own place so that works out to pretty much equal to start with.

However, I do worry about WstbxH and his common-law OW. She makes very little money and left her M with very little.My DS is in his final year of college - fortunately WstbxH gave me his share of the tuition as part of our LSA in one lump sum because he wouldn't be able to pay it anymore now. But what if DS wants to go to grad school? With full custody of OW's DD, WstbxH is now her step-father and legally responsible for her. Yes, in this country a woman can get child support from more than one man. So not only can OW clean him out on a personal level, she can take away DS's future as well. Though he never actually said so, I can GUARANTEE there is no prenup or equivalent in that relationship.

Tabby where are you from?

Here in Pennsylvania my 2nd husband was a step-father to my son and I cannot and would not collect child support from him for my son from a former marriage.

Canada. I would say that it's not something I would do but in a sense I did with WstbxH. He paid half of my DS's (his step son) college tuition. He only did so on the threat that I could get CS for him, plus his portion of tution (about 1/3) if we went to court. However, DS's biological father (my first XH) abandoned him as an infant. WstbxH has been the only father DS has known. He calls him "Dad" and has done so since he was around 5 or so.

I personally would not collect CS from 2 different men for the same child but I know that it is done. It is also done in the US - at least in the past. When my cousin in California died 20 or so years ago, a woman came after his parents for money. He had been paying CS for 5 kids. Only 2 were his. She was making a living off multiple CS payments from a variety of "dads". My aunt and uncle were fortunately able to get custody of their 2 grandchildren but still had to pay the woman for the other 3 kids for a fixed period of time. Then again, that could have been what they offered to "trade" for custody. That type of thing was common back then even here as I gave up CS in exchange for full custody of my DS (today you can't do that here - dad has to pay CS even if he never sees the kid and they will even garnish his wages).

I should also mention that step parents have rights to custody and visitation as well. AND, though I don't know of any case personally, it is possible for an XW to file for support from their children's step mother in the event the father dies. These would obviously be rare scenarios but it's not hard to imagine circumstances where it might happen.

I do not know every state's rules, regulations, laws etc. This is why I am not a lawyer.

I am going through a dissolution as we speak and it's almost done. I DID NOT have a pre-nup!

My pre-marital assets, proven on paper, are mine!

I gained a settlement at 19 from a vehicle accident. Built a house with some of the money. That sum of money is mine off the top, then we split what is left over from the sale of our home.

Inheritances, well, we had that too. She had inheritance from a death in the family. However, she spent it. So it's gone. You cannot buy a candy bar for a dollar, eat the candy bar, then ever expect to see that dollar again. So that was dropped. However, if the money was in a savings account or was spent on an investment that yeilded a marital gain, that would change things up. Burden of proof here big time!

So do I believe in pre-nup? Well, yeah, no, kinda. Do I believe in Springfield Armory - YES!!!! (just kidding)

To be honest, I don't believe in pre-nups as a Christian. I feel that if pre-nup crossed my mind, I should not be marrying this woman.

Hope my 2 cents helps.

What state do you live in Hubiscous?