Contracts Between Sexual or Marital Partners and Romance

[lavender]

 

[Silverlily]

I wanted one for my second marriage. My husband's family has left him a great deal of which I did not feel I had any claim. (Having been through one divorce, I don't kid myself about "love conquers all" any longer.) I would rather do without than have it ever appear I got by on someone else. My husband refused. By marrying me, he took on responsiblity for me and my children for life, regardless.

Should something happen, and I find myself in a different marriage, I would again want a pre-nup. Divorce courts are too unpredictable and all too often, one spouse is left with less than he or she started with.

 

[The_old_man]

Where large finantial amounts could be involved, a prenup most probably should be in place. The situation you quoted is an example.

In states where communal property is the law, or states where alimony is generaly granted, perhaps not.

Those who take the vows seriously probably do not need one.

 

[Laurel]

I wouldn't marry someone I felt would intentionallu screw me.. Of course, people do change and anything can happen. But if my partner and I did break up and things turned ugly, I would probably be more devastated by the ugliness than by any potential financial loss. What I lose today, I can make again tomorrow. I've gained and lost and gained again before. But that's just me. I'm not a money-watcher. One of my big weaknesses is an ambivalence toward money. I like the freedom it buys me, but managing it and looking at it and sticking it under mattresses bores me. Luckily, I always manage to do okay financially, which only supports my monetary laziness. I do understand why people would sign agreements like that, but it's not my thing. babble babble babble

 

[MunchinMark]

I can see that they are sensible precautions. But they are also callous assumptions about the fate of the relationship.

A financial agreement that deals with the end of a relationship is saying, 'this realtionship will end and I don't trust you to be fair by me.'

Sensible but not very human.

 

[april-wine]

I have been thinking about your post for a bit, unsure of my answer....Immediately I thought there would be NO way I could deal with such mistrust in a relationship....That is how it hit me intially, Hmmmmm I am still unsure how I would react....A contract between partners does make sense, but the romantic in me would be crushed....

 

[cymbidia]

Interesting question, lavy, and it's something i've not only thought a lot about recently but have an answer for.

For me, in my life, if (and that's a HUGE if, boys and girls) i ever get married again, there would have to be a prenup involved. My soon-to-be-former-husband and i are in total agreement on this (like most stuff). It would simply have to happen.


The reason: We both feel very strongly about protecting the lines of inheritance from us to our kids. If i got married again, it would have to be a marriage in which the community property (and CA is a strong community property state) began accruing from the date we were married. Everything i had before the marriage would have to remain mine alone, and go straight (do not pass go, do not collect $200) to my kids when i died.

That's just the way it has to be for me.

It'll never be any kinda big deal, really.
I think.

 

[lavender]

 

[MissTaken]

I think it really depends on what state you are in and how that state protects or distributes marital assets.

In NY, when a marraige dissolves, assets accrued as of the date of marraige are, or rather, can be split 50/50, regardless of who saves what where. Then, debt is also split 50/50.

Anything accrued or owned prior to the marraige belongs to the person who brought it to the marriage.

It sounds all neat and tidy. That wouldn't be true. There are divorce cases where the definition of assets can be grey.


Laurel: reading your post reminded me of my response to my ex husband when he asked about a prenup. Feelings do change. You may find that yours might if the hurt runs deep enough. Of course, crossing my fingers that you never need to find out!

 

[JaymesBlond007]

I don't believe I could ever find a reason to draw up a contract before getting married. I certainly believe that if I were to ever find someone that I actually cared enough about, as to want to spend the rest of my life with them, I would gladly offer anything that I possessed for the insurance of their well being.

But if she felt more secure with the knowledge that, if the marriage were to falter, she would keep everything she had coming in to it...I would have no problem signing a pre-nup. I completely understand that things sometimes just don't work. No matter how hard both parties want them to.

 

[MunchinMark]

To be human is to be a wonderfully emotional and impulsive creature. They can also be hurt on a whim or a mistaken gesture.

You asked for my opinion and you got it. Forgive me if I try to make my posts more descriptive and less downright boring to read.

Go back and read the whole thing. And don't call me stupid.

I would never want to be in a relationship with someone that I didn't trust and I wouldn't expect her to remain in such a relationship with me either.

 

[cymbidia]

~sigh~

In my case, a prenup wouldn't have anything at all to do with him and me, only with me and my kids.

He's not going to be marrying me for my stuff, is he?
Why, then, would it be a problem?

It's purely and simply a device to protect my kids and insure their financial stability. Under CA state law, if i married again without a prenup, everything would go to my new husband were i to die.

That's not fair to my kids, no matter whether he would or wouldn't hand the stuff right over to them immediately after the law gave it all to him.

No.
My kids need more protection than the law allows.
Hence a prenup if i marry again.

I'm certain anyone i'd consider marrying would understand this. I'd probably be signing one myself, as well. It's only some kinda reflection on the quality of one's love for the the partner if you allow it to be seen in that kinda unflattering light. To me, it's simply about my kids, kids i had before i had the new partner, and kids that need the protections the law allows them.

 

[lavender]

 

[MunchinMark]

Er. So Wills don't work in CA, Cymbidia? That would be quite interesing to know.

And I was actually referring to my use of the word human to refer to a character than a species, Lavender. I disparage no-one else's writing style other than my own, which could easily be very dry and Boooring.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

To be human is to be a wonderfully emotional and impulsive creature. They can also be hurt on a whim or a mistaken gesture.

I would never want to be in a relationship with someone that I didn't trust and I wouldn't expect her to remain in such a relationship with me either.

I think I will get a prenup simply to avoid the possibility that if things screw up, that I get screwed too.

Of course, this is seeing it from my twisted perspective of my mother trying to do this to my father after 23 years...
(I'll take safe over sorry)

 

[Mischka]

If you love them so much and you know you will be together forever, how does signing a piece of paper really change all of that?

The idea of asking a person to sign such a piece of paper would change the relationship in my mind. Why marry a person that is already thinking of divorce before he even says "I do"? It's not about the "stuff," it's about another person's ability to trust you. Anticipating divorce could very well be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That said, pre-nuptuals are not only in preparation for divorce. That is but one of many reasons to enter into a pre-marital contract. They can protect property upon dissolution of the marriage by death, or protect a spouse from the creditors of the other spouse. If a person wanted to ensure inheritance lines, or just wanted to clarify the rights of his/her children from a previous marriage, then I see no problem with the agreement. Any provisions regarding divorce absent these other factors, however, would cause me serious doubts about the long term success of the marriage.

 

[lavender]

 

[Mischka]

You're presuming pre-nups would have solved the problems you illustrated. Most people do not provide for all situations in a pre-nup, and often they are voided by the courts anyway. Not to sound too pro-lawyer here, but if someone had adequately represented your friends (especially the one in Texas), there is no way they would have been financially screwed like that. I would chalk up their experiences to bad counsel, not to a lack of a pre-nuptual.

I won't go into the details of Mr. Mischka's parents' divorce here, but it was similar to the scenarios lavender presented. A lawyer vigorously defended his mother's rights, and that is what got her the very favorable settlement of the marital estate, not a pre-nup (which they did not have).

 

[cymbidia]

Er. So Wills don't work in CA, Cymbidia? That would be quite interesing to know.

You're right. All my remarks we meant to indicate the dissolution of the second marriage. I don't know where the "death" thing came from in my post!

Maybe some sleep is in order...

 

[MunchinMark]

In this particular area I suspect that people make life harse for themselves. Take both of the examples that you have given us, Lavender. In each case a man walks out of a seemingly settled home life that has lasted for two decades with no warning whatsoever. Why? Do you know their reasons? I find it difficult to believe that two people who have been so close for so long can suddenly have one change completely without the other noticing anything.

Perhaps it was their wives' failure to notice changes in their demeanour that made them leave. You know these couples better than I do, but I suspect that you were not party to every intimate detail of their relationship. If steam knocks a lid of a saucepan I can surmise that it was building up all along, even though I couldn't see it. I don't assume that the fall of the lid is an event isolated from detectable causes even if I don't know what they are.

Yes, people can be untrustworthy. But that is why placing such trust in one person is so special. And that is such an important ingredient romance is, is it not? Specialness.

 

[MunchinMark]

completely seperate to the above post

Vaguely related to all of Cymbidia's posts on this thread.

Is there such a thing as a post-nuptual agreement? Sort of 'you can have this, but if you get involved with anyone they can't touch it because I want little Timmy to get it when he's twenty-one.'

 

[Svedish_Chef]

In this particular area I suspect that people make life harse for themselves. Take both of the examples that you have given us, Lavender. In each case a man walks out of a seemingly settled home life that has lasted for two decades with no warning whatsoever. Why? Do you know their reasons? I find it difficult to believe that two people who have been so close for so long can suddenly have one change completely without the other noticing anything.

Perhaps it was their wives' failure to notice changes in their demeanour that made them leave. You know these couples better than I do, but I suspect that you were not party to every intimate detail of their relationship. If steam knocks a lid of a saucepan I can surmise that it was building up all along, even though I couldn't see it. I don't assume that the fall of the lid is an event isolated from detectable causes even if I don't know what they are.

My mother has done that to my father and noone knows why, and he is being torn apart emotionally and physically. Because of a forever idea, she is trying to take everything that he has while giving nothing of hers. It will eventually go to court and when they both cark it, the stuff will be mine and my brothers either way but...

Why set yourself up for the terrible stuff and having no safety net? A pre-nupital does not preclude a happy marriage... and defacto relationships are being recognised as binding too...

I'll play it safe thanks. I love, but love does not conquer all especially when you are the only one holding that love.

 

[MunchinMark]

Have you asked your mother why things have gone the way they have Cheffie? I'm not bothered about getting an answer, but it might be better for you if you could. Maybe she isn't able to voice it exactly. But this is a hell of a lot of trouble to go to for no reason. Not to mention how this effects you and your brothers, which your mother shouldn't be oblivious to.

Unrequited (sp.?) love is a tragedy in itself.

 

[daughter]

love isn't practical

Now if you want to make marriage pragmatic, a pre-nup will address the notion of "if something happens". It will not protect you against the sense of loss, devastation, failure and pain if that something happens.

My s/o has property he wants to pass on to his children. I feel like cym about passing on inheritance to my children. I'm not put off by the idea of ensuring that our children are cared for.

For me, I'm like Laurel. I could copy her post verbatim. Trust and commitment go beyond being pragmatic. Either you're going to live and work to have that or you're compromising what a relationship can be. I have been married twice. Have lost everything. Walked away from it all the first time. In the second one, I almost lost my life by my own device. I have gone from below the povery line and homeless to trippling my income in a year's time. It's relative in the larger scheme of things.

If you think losing things is that important, then you don't know what you're really lacking.

Peace,

daughter

 

[Cheyenne]

I'm a practical person. A prenup would be in order for me, without a doubt. It couldn't prepare for every situation, of course. But it could prepare for some of the most common.
If I ever got close to marrying someone, they'd already know about my practical streak and probably wouldn't be at all surprised about the paperwork required to be with me the rest of our lives.