What is the issue that women have with prenuptual agreements. Women complain that men are afraid of commitment and by signing a prenup it's like he's prepearing for divorce but how many men around this country lose half of everything in the divorce? Let's see. A man marries you, you eventually divorce him, you take half of his money, you take his house, you get atleast one of the two vehicles that he may have paid for, he's paying alimony for God knows how long? What's the shocker again? Men are afraid of commitment. No kidding! What man wouldn't be afraid of commitment if he's going to lose half of everything he's worked for. Yet women don't seem to have a problem with prenups when it's them who has the money. Why are you such hypocrites?

Hey Rick - I just have to add my 2 cents in here...it is not just the men that lose half of everything they worked for.....Just for the record here.... back in 1989 my first husband died and with his life insurance money I bought a home in the country for myself and our 2 children...two years later I married a man I thought I would retire with..I put his name on the deed..and now 14 years later the man of my dreams left me for a married co-worker and now my home is half his and is part of the division of settlement.. I stand to lose more then half of what I helped to build..he came into this relationship with nothing.....so it is NOT just women who are the ones to screw the men over...it works BOTH ways...EVERYONE has the potential to be hypocrites.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do.....I wish you healing..

Take care,

Jamie

Rick, your bitter post is so full of myths and misconceptions. One of the things that has always amazed me is that so many people go through the entire divorce process without once ever studying their state's divorce laws.

One of the biggest misconceptions about family law is that women are automatically entitled to 50% of the marital assets. This is only true in community property states, and even in then, divorce law reform has made it rare for a divorcing woman to get half of the assets unless she contributed half of the capital to the acquisition of the assets. There are only nine community property states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. All others are equitable distribution states, in which marital assets are divided based solely on individual contribution to the aqcuisition of assets. In both kinds of states the grounds for divorce have no bearing whatsoever on the division of assets. These are two seperate proceses and have seperate governing law.

Women will often demand half or more of the marital assets and often spousal support (alimony). They are usually shocked and dismayed to learn at some point in the divorce settlememt process that they are actually entitled to far less than they believe. For example, if a man has accumulated of $5M in cash assets before marriage and the interest and dividends on that basis increases the value to $7M by the time of divorce, women will often believe they are entitled to $3.5M in the divorce settlement. Actually, in an equitable contribution state, they have no claim at all on the $5M basis. They do have a claim on the $2M in accrual since the start marriage, but only to the extent of their contribution to the increase in those assets. Similar tests are applied to all marital assets and obligations. In a community property state, assets are only split 50-50 when the demonstrated contribution is 50-50.

Another common misconception women hve about contribution is that they believe that in-kind contribution (housekeeping, parenting, even sex) carry far more value than theuy really do under the law. Family courts now reject most in-kind contribution claims because their view is that, married or not, you will still have to maintain your household and it is nearly impossible to quantify the extent to which each partner contributed to the parenting of their children (it's assumed 50-50).

BTW, in most states, alimony is a thing of the past. It is very hard for a spouse to convince a court that they are entitled to it, since women have just as many career opportunities as men. A college educated woman who is filing for divorce after less than 15-20 years of marriage has almost no chance of being granted alimony. This is epecially true if she works. Alimony now is granted to women who have been married a long time, who have spent their married lives as housewives, and who have no marketable job skills. Even then, they rarely recieve long term payments. Rather alimony is granted as either a lump sum amount or as monthly payments while they complete an educational or job training program. A woman who has been married for 30 years and her husband files for divorce may receive long term payments, but a working woman who has only been married three years has no hope for it.

So, in an equitable distribution state, a couple married seven years in a situation where the husband earned $150K/yr. and the wife worked part time, earning $20K/yr., the wife would be entitled to only about 12% of the accumulated marital assets. This amount is reduced for such things as down payments and additional payments on real property made from the husband's non-marital assets.

So why do men loose so much in a divorce? Because they GIVE it away. Women often have no real idea of what a gut-wrenching experience a dicorce is for men. Women file for 75-78% of all divorces. They are only thinking about getting out of the marriage and moving on. It may be painful to them, but I've never met a woman who is divorcing her husband who isn't more excited than hurting. Men who file for divorce are similarly motivated. Divorce is always easier on the filing spouse. While divorcing women may not understand the emotional turmoil their husbands are experiencing, their divorce lawyers most assuredly do and they use it to their best advantage. They know that the man is disdraught and probably not thinking rationally. So they make unreasonable demand after demand, schedule hearing after hearing, and often instruct their client to deliberately keep the emotional turmoil going -- tightening the thumb screws so to speak. More often than not, the man will agree to giving up far more than he should in an effort to get it over with and end the conflict. I don't know how many men I've known who at some point will say "Oh to ****** with it! I can't take this anymore! I'll just give the b*tch what she wants and be rid of her." Bingo! The lawyer's tactic worked. This is why I advise men to seperate emotion from the legal proceedings, hire a good lawyer, and refused to discuss the divorce settlement with his STBX if her demands are excessive. Let the cool-headed lawyer deal with the legal issues and limit contact with your wife until the settlement is in place. I advise a woman to do the same thing when the roles are reversed.

But you were talking about prenuptual agreements. I think that you can see that in a community property state, it is to the man's advantage to have a prenuptual agreement, while in a equitable distribution state, it is often to the woman's advantage, especially if she desires to be a stay at home mom.

So why are women so offended by prenuptual agreements? The answer is in the starry-eyed romanticism with which most women approach marriage. Think of how they want that big white wedding, with the princess gown, big reception, showers, flowers, gifts, nuptual dinners, etc. They aren't thinking about money and finance at that stage. They don't want to spoil that moment with something as cold and calculated as a prenuptual agreement. It's different for a man, especially a man who has alread accumulated some wealth. This is because, unlike it is for women, there is absolutely no financial advatage in marriage for a man. Quite to the contrary, marriage itself puts a financial strain on a man.

But women think about money, too. They will preferrentially choose a mate they think is going to be able to provide for them and their children. Remember financial security is an emotional need for a woman - and for good reason. Nowadays, women, too, can contribute significantly to the accumulation of marital assets. One will find that women who have themselves accumulated some wealth prior to marriage are far more open to a prenuptual agreements. They understand that love and money don't really mix.

Yet prenuptual agreements aren't just about money. The are also used to fomally define roles, expectations and responsibilities. One thing that people do not understand about prenuptuals is that they cannot supplant established family law. When a prenuptual agreement in in direct conflict with the law, it is unenforcable and established law takes precidence.

The biggest myth I know is that "men are afraid of commitment." This is so untrue. We aren't afraid of it, we just won't do it until we are absolutley positive we are ready to do it with the right woman. Even with our reluctance and care, it appears that as a group we still make a lot of wrong choices. And there is a new phenomenon that is growing: a reluctance to marry at all. Men who decide to put off marriage to focus on their careers and establish financial security before marrying and start a family have an opportunity to observe their friends and collegues experience the horror that is the modern American marriage. Many of these men ask themselves why they would ever subject themselves to that. And it isn't just men either. Professional women are doing the same thing. Ten years ago, I knew one man older than 30 who wasn't married. Today I know about a dozen men between 30 and 40 who have never been married and have no intention of marrying. In my office alone, there are six women in their mid 30s who have no intention of ever marrying. They just don't see the advantage and are not willing to risk it. This is very sad, but it is a monster that we ourselves have made.

Rick -

Don't think it only happens to men. I lost the money from my home that I sold while we were married. We bought another home, but the $100,000. I put in was considered a gift to my husband. Here in California, they have changed the laws since then. The thing that drives me crazy is that we had agreed that the home would be kept for our boys.

I will never marry again WITHOUT a prenup.

By the way, there is nothing like discussing an agreement before marriage to figure out where the person really stands. I backed out of one marriage just because of my fiance's attitude while we were writing up the prenup.

Rick,

Thanks for a very informative post. There is one error that I found concerning community property states(especially California, my home state)

Quote:In a community property state, assets are only split 50-50 when the demonstrated contribution is 50-50.

I believe this is not a correct statement.

WOW. You're my new hero! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

CheckUrHeart -

Not to nitpick...but another statement is a little off - at least in my home state - Texas...

If the D is filed on the grounds of "Adultery" the BS is entitled to a disproportional distribution of assets...the judge decides exactly how disproportionate it gets to be.

I know this because I filed on these very grounds...



TM