Matrimonial lawyers know that most marriages with prenups don't last. You can't govern a marriage by contract. But they'll never tell you that.
2
Pre-nups can be used to control the less affluent partner--most often the,woman. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/invisible-chains/201604/the-prenup-...
6
Very true, but a lack of one can also be just as easily used to gain assets that one (either male or female) did not earn and ethically has no right to.
6
I'd love to know who picked up the check for breakfast at the end.
17
People say why get married if you're going to get a prenup? Well every marriage comes with a prenup by default. It's how the state divides the assets, which is usually half-half. Every marriage in the country has a prenup pre-defined
Writing your own prenup just changes the state's terms from the default
If you're someone saying why get married if you're doing a prenup, the question for you then really is, "Why get married at all then?"
20
I have mixed feelings about this. I think there are cases in which a request for a pre-nup is a really bad sign--and yet I also have friends, female friends, who I wish to God had asked for one.
The truth is that the only thing that protects you is marrying someone with a good character. You might say, "But everyone thinks they're marrying someone with a good character; the problem is that it's just hard to tell how good someone is." But actually my experience is that people don't put certain vital moral traits--fair-mindedness, self-sacrifice, generosity, slowness to anger, a willingness to forgive, basic honesty--very high on their list of things to look for in a spouse. Instead they look for cheap substitutes like "Is really nice" or "Gets along great with my kids." Of course the latter two are necessities. But they aren't nearly enough. How nice is he to people at whom he's angry?--because he will get angry at you, sooner or later. How great is he going to be with your kids if you divorce?
17
I Support the “fiance’”and his decision. My husband and I luckily agreed on this topic, too bad the writer didn’t support her spouse and spewed his fears all over the place. Talk about emotional abuse .
7
This story is so depressing, so indicitative of our times. I can write it simpler.... Man has needs, woman has needs, mans needs are met, woman consents at the expense of her own true feelings. She feels happy she did the right thing, he rewards her for her good sense.... happily ever after. The end.
Excuse me while I vomit.
41
Totally agree! It's sad and sickening.
5
"Prenup" drew me in, and I've wondered whether me and my boyfriend of five years will do prenup when we decide to make the leap. I can understand the prenup's necessity/comfort features and in my case, I'm the one simultaneously with more assets and less income--the one who traded stability for passion. My assets seem like a buffer from the harsh world...maybe even more so than the beautiful human that shares my bed.
7
Of course you sign a prenup! The kind you want. And make sure you have equal opportunity at pursuing a career. And that he takes off as much time as you to care for the child. And that you don't move state to state only after the great jobs he is offered but also the jobs you wish to pursue. After all, you got to look after your financial interests, since there is the prenup.
24
Comments criticizing the author's happy hours are missing the mark. Saying poor people shouldn't spend any money on anything enjoyable is not realistic. The real problem is that the author was so averse to having any sense of her own finances. Knowing how to manage your own money gives you options. Wanting to protect yourself in case something bad happens is just common sense. It's why we wear seat belts and get insurance. The author may have thought differently if she were the one entering the marriage with money to lose. Though I was the one that suggested the prenup for me and my husband, we both had assets we wanted to be sure to keep, so having one was a no-brainer. Then again, we also weren't scared to read it, and didn't find it too confusing or incomprehensible.
15
Not mentioned as a major consideration is that this marriage will be taking place in California. California, as I understand it, is a no-fault State where after an annulment period a spouse is entitled to 50% of assets regardless of actions by either party. Hypothetically, a spouse could leave a marriage after just one year and laugh all the way to the bank with hundr da of thousands or millions of hard earned assets of their spouse.
That said, unless this guy has REAL MONEY, I agree with other comments that since this is their first marriage, no kids from prior marriage, and are a family unit with a child of their own, that a prenup seems inappropriate. My general opinion non-reflective of circumstance is that gain in assets should go 50-50 AFTTER marriage, thus protecting one’s principal assets.
3
What most people are glossing over is that Ms. Mims took care of her terminally ill mother. How much is that worth in the marketplace? I don't see too many men leaving corporate jobs to take care of terminally ill relatives. Even paid-caregivers (many of them are women) don't make much compared to someone in the corporate world. Of course there's going to be an "inequality" of finances.
Also, once you have a child, all bets should be off. Two people created that child and if one person happens to be wealthier than the other, what difference does that make now that two people are responsible for the child.
While I can understand the need to protect assets, in this case, these two didn't even own a home and neither had step-children to worry about. Btw, if this "financially-secure" guy didn't already own his own home, why not? He was 42, for heaven's sake, yet people are castigating the woman for not having much to her name at the same age.
Women often get the short end of the stick when it comes to being the caregiver of parents/children/husbands, yet no one takes that into account.
If this guy had quit his fancy corporate job to become the rock journalist, and his wife was supporting his dreams, I'll bet many people (especially a lot of men) would have been giving him the high-fives.
88
Norton a lot of financially-savvy people do not own homes because they are able to see that there is often no benefit to owning a home. People who don't understand finance are easily lured in by the logic of "rent builds no equity" and they blindly view a home purchase as the first basic step to wealth. When you properly do *all* the math you'll see that renting is equally likely to make sense as owning in any given comparison.
5
She describes what he learned in couples counseling. What did *she* learn?
6
Why did you marry this guy?! He sounds like a nightmare.
I just paid off my GIRLFRIEND'S $20k credit card debt because I didn't want her to be stressed about the debt. I've always wanted to share my assets with every girlfriend I've ever had. If I ever get married I'll sign a reverse prenup guaranteeing her half my assets if it doesn't work out.
If I love someone I want to help them, care for them and share what I have with them. Anything else would just be evil, which is what it sounds like you're married to.
47
You sound like a nice guy... Do you have a brother? ;)
19
Money isn't a special circumstance; if a person is petty, greedy, uptight and small about money, he's going to be petty, greedy, uptight and small about everything else (e.g. expecting a woman he's not ready to marry to bear his child.) These are people who deputize their spouses to make decisions on their behalf in the emergency room but don't trust their spouse to behave honorably if the marriage ends. Brilliant. People who need pre-nups shouldn't be getting married. My husband survived a financially devastating divorce and raised two kids before we met and married, but this marriage is ours. I think people ask for pre-nups because, in their hearts, they don't believe in or trust their partner's values. And, if you don't trust your partner, marrying that person is a Bad Idea.
24
She clearly did the rational thing in signing the document in order to get married. She went from being a broke single middle aged woman with an illegitimate child to being married to a wealthy (enough) man who will support her and the child. Given her age, I am guessing this was an "oops" baby so she didn't lose her chance to have children and to put pressure on him to marry her. It looks like it worked out.
10
Oops baby? Try anchor baby. I hate to be so callous, but this is reality as I see it.
13
This is a story, but not about a pre-nup, this is a story about privilege. A middle aged white woman with a child living in an exclusive community refuses to take on financial responsibility for herself or her child. Where can that happen? She takes her toddler to a meeting with her lawyer about a prenup she refuses to read? And readers are complaining about the man. She portrays the man as a villain until she signs a prenup that is adjusted to her requests, and then she allows the guy to apologize to her and marry (support) her.... Please. Can you imagine the shape of this story if it came out of some mid continent rural community? What would have happened to this story if the guy had the same resources as she did? Sigh.
63
It is important for older people who are remarrying after the death of their respective spouses to consider prenups. They may have significant assets that they want their own children to inherit. Without the prenup all assets would legally transfer to the surviving spouse and that person could then leave those to their own children. It isn't romantic of course, but death never is either.
14
A pre-nup would be a very good idea if you live in NJ, and a Post-nup if you ever move there. The divorce laws are mired pre 1950’s where there is permanent alimony for the woman (which means until death) and there is absolutely no enforcement of work requirements for her (even those in court orders). Meanwhile, the alimony is not based on what he is earning or has earned, but on what the court says is what he should, in that profession, earn. It is a state with “the poor little woman” engraved in its laws.
A good pre-nup should be de riguer for all New Jerseans. Too bad we learned ex post facto.
9
This "poor little" woman lives in NJ and has WORKED to raise decent, kind, intelligent kids. This is the deal I made with my husband who travelled non-stop. We are happily married but please don't say I have not worked hard and would not deserve support after 29 years of PTA, worries about food allergies, kid with fractured neck (fine except for plate in neck and arthritis). Let alone all the doctors's appointments for our transgendered child. All shared activities, but someone has to pay the bills and someone has to do the daily grind.
15
Things change in life. A person can be on top of their finances one day, and all it takes is a layoff, medical crisis, faulty investments, or any other unexpected crisis, to change all that. I've seen it happen to people who did everything right in terms of finance, but never expected the unexpected.
The point is life is a wheel of fortune (the ancient Greeks understood this). It's good to be a saver and financially wise; however, things change and there are no guarantees. None. A person can go from extreme poverty to great financial success--or vice versa.
Yes, I understand the need for a pre-nup (in some cases, not all) ; however, If you're so fearful that your financial situation will drastically change through marriage--just don't get married. It's better to stay single and be in complete control of your money--and I mean that sincerely, not as sarcasm.
Otherwise, accept that life is a game of chance in the end--no one can predict certainty.
14
You also have to look at what are the laws in your state regarding marital assets. Do you live in community property state? These could impact a prenup. But, still, anyone getting married, especially someone with an established career and assets such as a home or business, does need to at least look the possibility of a prenup. If there are children involved, that is also another reason to look into a prenup.
2
Pre-nups are fine, and even expected, in second marriages where children from the first marriages are impacted from the division of assets. But it seems strange to me that Matt doesn’t hold the author in higher regard. She is the mother of his child, a family unit that they created together, and no doubt is responsible for the majority of the childcare duties. He would be paying through the roof if she were not at home and he had to pay for daycare. If they were to get divorced with joint custody and no alimony per the pre-nup, she would be forced to live in a not-so-great neighborhood driving a sub-standard (and potentially unsafe) car. Does Matt want those living conditions for his son?
17
As mother of the groom, I might insist on a prenup given family inheritance or they will not inherit. I will investigate the potential bride. If she has college debt, family with criminal issues, or other red falls, I will insist in a prenup or no inheritance.
7
Lol. I'm grateful my groom-to-be and I both have parents who mind their business.
28
It IS her business - it's her money that her son would be inheriting.
10
She should submit a bill to him for the child. What is the going rate for surrogacy these days in California? $200 000? Also, her vocabulary looks quite good so I am assuming high SAT scores, so she is probably entitled to demand a high fee for her egg donation. Then there are the childcare costs and if she breast fed, she is surely entitled to what the formula would have cost him. Assuming, too, that they did not do artificial insemination and so, to be fair, one needs to add in a bill for sexual services, as well as the savings on the medical bills for the AI. All in all, it would give her a nice little nest egg and she would no longer be the impoverished, burdensome spouse. So that would resolve their difficulties and they could live happily ever after!
25
If she breastfed she should charge the cost of breast milk not formula. It rivals gold in its expense per ounce.
5
Think of college debt. Think of inheritances. Think of long term plans. If the shoe does not fit, do not commit.
9
Why would you begrudge someone getting a college degree? Would you rather your son marry someone who didn't invest in post-secondary education or are you just saying that you prefer a young woman whose parents could pay for her college education in total? Research shows that kids benefit from a mother who is educated. Your concerns sound very shallow and short-sighted. Good luck to your future daughter-in-law. Sounds like she'll need it.
8
I thought the point of getting into a marriage is because you love, support and trust each other? A prenup says exactly the opposite - that you don't trust the person you intend to marry and that you don't know enough about him/her not to take you to the cleaners if/when divorce comes.
Marriage is a huge leap of faith - no one knows how it'll turn out. We can only try our best but a prenup makes it easier to bail. The party who has larger assets will cut his/her loss and run rather than work through the long and painful process of rebuilding a marriage that may be failing.
Why do we (most of us anyway) work hard and save and try to amass a fortune (however small or large) if not to share it with someone we love, trust and grow old together with? How sad is it that for some, the preservation of one's fortune/material things is the primary concern before entering into a union.
19
Abby Mims's piece on her own prenup is ugly and disturbing. Mims characterizes her partner as a manipulative person: this process that he forced on her is "nothing short of awful," "humiliating for me in a way it [wasn't] for him." The demand to sign the document left her feeling "worthless" and "miserable and unmoored." Yet her partner persisted because he believed his needs to be more important than hers. He even wanted praise for supposedly apologizing afterwards: ""I'm so sorry . . . This was an awful thing I did to you, to us.'" He apologized, and yet he still forced her to sign and still humiliated her. Mims's partner certainly seems unkind. Marriage experts say that kindness is the #1 trait of any successful marriage. I believe she should have walked--no, run--away and found someone with kindness, generosity, and class.
24
Think of how awful and humiliating the divorce process would be for Matt is there was no pre-nup. It sounds like he's been working hard at the same company for a long time and traded his passion for stability. Invested in his 401k, didn't get to go to those happy hour outings. Probably missed out on vacations and family time and other hobbies because of his job. All sacrifices he made for his career. Imagine losing everything you've worked so hard for because you got cleaned out in a no-pre-nup divorce. I don't fault the writer for following her passions instead of a stable job, but, to quote her, "why should [she] be entitled to his money?"
14
Couldn't agree more. Yet she choose to deny her truth to herself and reframe it as having done the right think. This article makes me want to vomit.
3
CA is a community property state where assets acquired DURING the marriage are split in the event of divorce. If Matt's assets acquired prior to the marriage were kept separate, they would be his separate property in the event of a divorce. He could have kept a clear paper trail of his separate assets, spared his wife-to-be the indignity of a pre-nup and saved the attorneys fees. In my opinion, better to discuss and agree on how money earned during marriage would be handled and expectations of who would earn how much, i.e. how many years Matt would work at his corporate gig and if the author doesn't earn X per year within 5 years, then she gets a "job job". Many people spend more time planning the wedding than planning the marriage . . . .
4
I do not understand why people are so horrified by the terms of the prenup. In the event of a divorce, they each get what they brought into the marriage, and then split, 50/50, everything accumulated during the marriage. How is this anything but completely fair? We have an author who freely admits that she chose to live paycheck to check, accumulating no assets and significant debt. Her fiancé has likely accumulated at least hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably millions by choosing an opposite approach. If they divorced in 10 years, he’ll split everything he accumulated in those 10 years, the value of any home, etc. This is the fairer approach, much more so than immediately giving the author 50% of the millions acquired long before he met her. The author refers to her fiance’s “money issues,” but it seems like she’s the one with significant issues about money, which is why she manages it so poorly.
16
I agree, assuming 50-50 on gain in assets after marriage but protecting what he accumulated prior. If his invested assets are all “off the table” then I think it’s too one-sided in his favor and undervalues what she as his partner and mother of his child is bringing to their colective household.
3
The author made me really angry. GROW UP! If you want to be married with kids, then you cannot "follow your passion" right into debt. Be a responsible adult, take control of your finances, and don't expect a man that has worked hard his whole life, to take care of you. Women like you make it harder for responsible women everywhere.
31
She's writing for the New York Times. I wouldn't exactly call her a disgrace to all women.
7
I am actually appalled by this. Of he so much into security, he would have had the obligation to ensure that the mother of his child, his future wife, gets st least a decent house upon divorce - without having to fight for it. "Leaving it to the lawyers" was an easy way to distance himself from the financial oppression he was subjecting her to. A gentlemanly approach would have been to propose a figure to her as her "assets" (so that she does not have to go through her measly list of assets) and a decent proposal for the divorce. However, he subjected her to what, as a man in finance, he instinctively must have known to be a vastly uncomfortable existence. He got his way, distancing himself from the unpleasantries and apologised. He had his cake, all as he wanted. I am actually appalled. I am a post project finance lawyer and a woman - and know when we should put trust, within reason, above "contractual certainty". He should have recognised that part of his love was founded in the fact that she is a writer and woman of heart and spontaneity-and should have honoured not crushed it with stringent formulas by lawyers bashing been let off the leash. This is not a comfortable relationship to me. Hope it all end well in 20 years for you!
26
Such a great description of this whole situation.
5
Lawyers are hired in these situations to make sure both parties understand their right before signing the agreement. The proof of this is in the changes her lawyer negotiated. For this very reason, many states hold that prenups without legal representation are almost impossible to enforce against the unrepresented party.
4
How will it work in the future with separate money, separate lifestyles now? Who will pay child expenses, house, food and living expenses? Who will pay for vacations and entertainment, extra things?
None of that has been worked out. If she spends more but has less, if he has more because he spends less how will they resolve their economic and life-style differences? I’d like to know how this all has worked out a few years from now.
He feels safe about his separate money now so he is safe to marry her. But as time goes by and they both continue to be themselves, he will be paying for more of the living expenses, paying more for the child because she doesn’t have the money. That contention leading to endless fighting and emotional distance. At what point will his safety be eroded and he goes through the drawers looking for that pre-nuptial. That was his bottom line at the start of this marriage.
12
You may not know where that prenup is, but you can bet your last dollar that your husband does.
44
Prenup is a great idea for mature couples, in my experience. Young couples may find it unromantic, but marriage is a legal contract and prenup helps a lot to ease fears and resolve difficulties, especially if people worked their entire lives before getting married. Or you can marry someone in exactly same situation, if you are lucky.
6
I don't why so many people are having a tough time with Abby's decision. Last week's column by Gabrrielle Zevin was all about the choice to not marry. Both women looked at their long term relationships but came to different conclusions about the best way forward. Their lives, their choices.
1
Perhaps no physical abuse....but emotional abuse is in the air.
19
Most divorces are caused by money or infidelity. You can't always prevent the latter but a prenup will minimize money as a cause of divorce. It is a contract and should be carefully written and fair to both. The question is what's fair. I suspect it's like pornography. You can't define it but you know it when you see it. Obviously it should be scrutinized before signing but anything that keeps lawyers out of a divorce who really represent their own interests (making a bundle out of other people's misery) is a big plus.
3
Dear Abby,
The gag gift in the window was not "boxing nun action figures." Look again, please. Also, it's not the fact that he wants a prenup. It's that you don't. Look there for the trust you wish existed between the two of you.
6
As someone already pointed out, it does seem crazy to sign a prenuptial just because you enter into the contract of a marriage vow. Wouldn't cohabitation just be easier? How many couples display their marriage certificates?
3
My husband read this before I did. He was appalled! We both had the same thought. How can you say traditional vows like “for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health” - if you’ve made marriage into a bureaucracy?
We married on nothing, having fallen in love - a summer romance - and married just a bit over 2 months after we met. Like stars crossing in the night, we were from 2 different countries and knew it was now or never if we wanted to be together. That was a bit over 50 years ago.
We’ve had our ups and downs, our poverty and our wealth, our sickness and health. To our surprise we have savings, having never stopped living like graduate students. And can afford the retirement community - but it’s pretty frugal one, I must admit. Though we have a lovely view of a public park from all our windows.
I have to give great credit to the lawyer who insisted on helping the woman with regard to the house they didn’t even own yet. Professionals who stand by their ethics are rare. I too have worked with patients and stood by my ethics. So 3 cheers for the ethical lawyer! That was the best part of the story!
35
As a feminist, I'm really conflicted by this story. How responsible is it to ring up credit card debt? I don't care if everyone does it. How responsible is it to bring a child into the world with no way to support him? If I met a guy in that situations, I'd run.
46
There are double standards when it comes to the sexes and marriage and child rearing, of course. Your comment points out a hard truth for men and self-esteem in our society — men are expected to provide and not mouch financially. If the man were the one in debt with no steady income but still the father of a successful woman’s child he’d be viewed and treated as a loser (for lack of better words).
This is supported by the fact that successful women statistically feel they must marry a man with equal or greater education, while men statistically do not have such qualms.
4
There are many kinds of contracts. Marriage is a contract. Divorce dissolves that contract. Some contracts are all about payment for specified services.Would this couple hire a contractor, for example, sign a contract without reading it? Emotional overtones aside, a prenup/postnup is simply a contract that seeks to tie spousal behavior (services) to the distribution of future assets (payment). Not very romantic, to be sure, but certainly pragmatic. Attorneys create these contracts to protect the client. It is an attorney's duty to advise the client if the other party's conditions seem unreasonable & to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with the other party's attorney. Like any successful negotiation, neither side gets everything he/she wants. Some attorneys also encourage the client to simultaneously make a Will in which he/she can further control the distribution of assets. After years of working in the legal arena, I have seen clients who seek the assistance of an attorney only to ignore the advice & complain about the fee. About the fees – most lay people have no concept of the experience, time & thought required to craft & negotiate a successful pre/postnup that specifically addresses a client's current & future needs. Unfortunately, Ms Mims & her husband misunderstood the purpose of a prenup & might have spared themselves the anguish it caused if they had worked out their differences in the office of a marriage counselor instead of an attorney.
13
I admire your clear and strong outline /analysis of the situation!
2
Having paid to educate my kids so they are debt-free, I have been thinking a prenup would protect them if they married, and unfortunately divorced, someone heavily burdened by debt -- education or otherwise. You hear horror stories no matter what you do, so I guess the best would be not to get a cookie cutter prenup; if you just want to protect what you enter with, protect that.
9
For every couple there is a different reason to have a pre-nup. Where they live and different State laws, adds to the consideration. My guess is that the more equal in age and financial status, there is less reason for a pre-nup.
After my mother died in her 80's, I knew that my father would need a companion. He was still an attractive, healthy man in his 80's. Being a rather egotistical man, he needed to support his ego, and a charming, attractive, penniless woman about my age was able to convince him to marry her. Although all his friends and family advised him to just co-habit and not marry, he insisted upon a marriage. It seemed to be in his best interest to have a pre-nup.
It was only after she brainwashed him and spent most of his money, and tried to kill him that I realized that the pre-nup was useless. As dementia set in, aided by brainwashing, I found there was a loophole that allowed her to take over and drain him of all his finances: he just never complained or asked for a divorce.
4
Are you sure we are not sisters separated at birth? Same thing happened with my father: 8 million gone to her and her kids, zero to the biological children.
5
This happens every time. Don't even expect anything different. Even if the father files the appropriate paperwork the wife can take everything ... my uncle had to sue his stepmother to try to recover what he was entitled to (he never got it all). My grandfather never filed the paperwork (he told my dad he trusted his wife) and surprise, my dad got nothing, not even low cost sentimental items.
I blame the idiot fathers, not their wives.
4
Forty years old. $3,500 in savings..$10,000 in credit card debts. A child out of wedlock. Weekly happy hours with girlfriends. Exchanged stability for passion (which produced phrases like that albatross rotting on a string around her neck)... If the man is not wise enough to run for his life then a prenup sounds like the next best thing.
60
He couldn't run once the child was in the picture.
7
Frankly, I'd run the other way from a man who made a child (it takes two to tangle) and then wants a pre-nup. I'd scurry away from someone who didn't disclose his net worth to anyone, not even a future wife, mother of his child.
10
Silicon valley does not offer that much in terms of single women...the average single male six figure schlub in the valley would probably envy the guy until he found out the backstory.
I understand completely how stressful having to sign a prenup can be. I was lucky. When my late husband, the one who had the assets, asked me to sign one, we read it through together. The language made me sound money-hungry and conniving. He agreed to scratch every phrase I objected to. In addition, he explained to me that we would have a "sunset clause" which put a five year time limit on the agreement. On our first anniversary,
in a loving, symbolic gesture, he tore up the agreement.
It sounds like this writer and her husband learned something from the process- At least, I hope they did.
15
Another story disparaging lawyers or doctors. The husband required a prenup. That requirement created stress, second guessing, confusion, and anxiety. The writer and her (now) spouse have only themselves to blame. They made their own decisions, and their own mistakes. No one made it for them.
14
Yes. He gives her a prenup which he's not read. She doesn't read it. Her lawyer points out a clause that needs changed. But the lawyers were the problem.
18
30 years ago before marrying, my partner of 9 years insisted on a pre-nup. We were both broke at the time (little debt-no assets) with good prospects in business but his family was upper-class, not rich but inheritance sometime in the future. I cried because of what I felt was lack of trust of me and the unromantic nature of that contract. I resented it for a very long time and asked sometime in our 35 year together if he would consider tearing it up. Yes he would, and this is after we had made money and he had inherited significant money. He destroyed it but then I started to worry that his lawyer had a copy and if my husband died the lawyer could show up and make my widowhood hell. He called the lawyer who said they didn't have a copy.
There should be a time limit on pre-nups, say 10 years.
In earlier times these documents were negotiated by elders and not being faced with this personally would be so much better for everyone. I had no trusted elders so not a solution for me.
I completely understand wanting to protect one's assets but it makes a union of love a thing of commerce and mistrust. 39 years later, very happily married to this same man I am still sad I had to sign a pre-nup. Yes he trusts me completely and I handle all the money and have almost from the beginning.
Second marriages? Absolutely get a pre-nup spelling out where the money goes. I'll never have a 2nd marriage so no more pre-nups for me.
17
Seems to me that their differing approach to finances are the least of their problems - these two have extremely different ways of approaching life in general. One is overly cautious and controlling and the other overly emotional and haphazard. While opposites do attract (and can make life enriching) you do still want to marry a spouse that you have some agreement on regarding important life issues. You have a child with someone who isn't sure he wants children? You marry someone who humiliates you by publicly putting you through a legal wringer? This is not a marriage that will last.
30
Money didn't matter to her until, oh my stars, it was his money and it was subsidizing her.
49
And what about the child? Who pays to raise him if things go south? His money? Subsidizing her?
12
She does not know where the prenup is but I bet her husband does.
53
It seems that the fiance, Matt, had some resentment toward the author for being the grasshopper while he was the ant, and used the pre-nip to take it out on her. So long as it ended his resentment, it was probably worth it for both of them.
37
Resentment or common sense? If she's comfortable being the grasshopper before the marriage shouldn't she live with the same after the divorce? Why is it his job to subsidize her grasshopper lifestyle if and when he is no longer her husband? I think you might harbor some resentment by calling it resentment.
6
After reading all these comments, I wonder what Donald made Melania sign.
20
Is it true that Donald began divorce proceedings with Marla shortly before certain clauses that favored her receipt of income would take effect?
5
Yes.
4
My guess is that the Donald had an air tight pre-nup and that a very savvy now First Lady insisted on some changes before she would move into the White House.
2
The writer should be crying.. In twenty years, after raising a child, her husband could get bored and she could be left with nothing.
Its a whole TWO years later. Try twenty..
21
She would still get a substantial monthly child support payment if the child was under 18 or living with her and in college below a certain age regardless, I believe. But more over she wasn't doing anything with her life anyway, so?
9
She married a idiot who wanted a child without a marriage. Who cares that she didn't have a career. She still deserves to be respected and loved. I'm sorry she settled for a loser who is miserly.
19
Do we know that he wanted the child, or was it her unilateral decision or an "oops" baby? You would think that a conservative executive type guy would prefer to be married first.
3
Forget fretting about the prenup: it's the only thing in this essay that does NOT raise alarm bells. The writer moved away from her home to be with a man who was not committed enough to marry her, even when they brought a child into the world? She wanted to marry at that time, "but Matt held back"? Really? I would have been out if there long before the baby appeared. Actually, I would not have allowed myself to become pregnant. I have to wonder, was she trying to force his hand?
As the writer mentions, California law guarantees her fifty percent of assets earned or otherwise obtained during the marriage (exceptions exist for inheritance) so to some degree the prenup is unnecessary as long as they remain in-state. What the commitment-phobe husband is protecting is his assets accrued before marriage, which an aggressive divorce lawyer (and future ex-wife) might try to grab anyway. Attorney cost aside, the contract makes sense for a marriage made later in life. What I don't like is the foot dragging that led up to it. In my opinion, the writer's angst in the lawyer's office was just silly. Surely she had years to think the thing through?
48
Eventually they did get married, which means that the bells you heard seem to have been a false alarm
1
Not at all, DavidK.
5
In California, if a married person receives an inheritance, it doesn't become community property if the person who inherited it maintains the status of the inheritance as separate property. No "commingling."
3
The issue doesn't seem to be the prenup but the fact that this couple seems completely incompatible based on their views of money. He and she seem like total opposites, which doesn't bode well for the future.
53
But I still don't know what was in the prenup. I don't get why it made her so upset. I don't get why she didn't get a babysitter so she could focus on such an important question. If this essay were part of a book, I'd happily buy it & read it so I could find out.
10
What made her so upset was the realization of her poverty and how dependent she is on her future husband. Money gives you freedom. The lack of money makes you dependent on others and that dependency comes with strings. She did not have to confront the ugly truth until the prenup came up. She realized that without her husband she would be on her own and possibly without the means to support herself. SCARY.
62
I would add that his focus on money was the opposite of how she lived her life, and was going to become the promise upon which the marriage was formed. That was not what she wanted - but she loved him and went with it.
8
I read this with unease. First Abby tells she was 42 years old, has $3,500 savings and no retirement account, had racked up $10,000 debt. But she followed her passion at the expense of stability and money did not matter to her. Then money does matter to her, Matt's money. Here eyes are brimming with tears when she learns what signing the prenup means and how his money would be protected.
As a woman, I decided that when I married I wanted to contribute something so worked and bought an apartment and have a retirement fund.
If I marry a man wealthier than me, yes I would sign a prenup.
Unfortunately, here in the UK prenups are not recognised, so if I marry a Mr wrong, he will be entitled to half my assets if things go wrong.
It should be automatic to have a prenup. Family inheritance excluded, previously owned property excluded.
If you start out together with nothing, 50/50.
53
I agree with your comments on the writer. In California the split is 50-50, but sometimes lawyers push for more, especially when there is a child to support. I think prenups are a good idea for mature couples, whether their income and assets are equal or unequal. On the other hand, marriage should be entered into with love, trust and eagerness. I don't see that in this story. The husband doesn't sound like a man who is completely on board -- or at least was not at that time.
Everyone's needs and expectations for marriage are different. When I married, after having lived with my husband for some years and acquired property with him, we already had combined our assets 100 percent. We entered into a marriage contract with complete trust.
9
After reading this article, I can only say that sometimes more education does not improve a person's judgement and that sometimes women tend to see themselves as victims even when they are not (and I am a woman). Ms Mims decided to be a writer even if it means she has to live paycheck to paycheck and has almost zero asset. It is a personal choice. As we live in an open and free society, we are free to make life choice for ourselves; that also means we have to shoulder the burden of it and to live with the consequences. The article glosses over the fact that she is benefited by being with a partner of means. Her partner probably realizes that their view towards personal finance is very different and it could be a flash point in their marriage. Having a prenup is a way to mitigate disputes when the worst happens. I think Ms Mims should grow up, stop crying "poor me, poor me", and don't manipulate her own sense and ours. I don't think prenup is a bad idea. If two people, when they are in good terms, cannot have a discussion about and come to an agreement on how to part their finance should divorce happens, imagine what that discussion would be like at divorce. Thinking about the possibility of divorce doesn't mean you would and not thinking about it doesn't mean you won't.
68
Thank you. I was starting to wonder if I was the only person who saw a woman who had made her own decisions freely, and was then suddenly embarassed by the consequences.
I am a woman who is engaged and planning for my future, and I am coming to the table with many more assets than my fiance, and a prenup is planned for our marriage. It's not a big deal, it's not about trust issues, and we plan to build together, my fiance just doesn't get the apartment I worked hard to buy, and my savings. I'm doing it to be responsible for myself and my own future and that's OK even when you are uniting with someone else.
8
I'm sorry, but this turns my stomach. Not so much Modern Love so much as Modern Finance nor so much as a marriage as a negotiation. And it's much easier to apologize after you've already gotten your way.
77
Author is so overdramatic. I don't get why a prenup should be this stressful ("sobbing/eyes brimming with tears/feeling like a failure," - give me a break) - it's a piece of paper that protects the assets of whoever has more - which is fair IMO. It shouldn't be an issue, unless you are too insecure financially and relationship-wise.
I signed a prenup. I didn't care at all about it, because I knew I didn't marry for money and my primary concern wasn't to benefit from a lifestyle that my husband could afford. I trusted my fiance then, I trust my husband now. Fifteen years later, prenup is sitting in the cabinet, gathering dust - and if ever things don't work out in the future (knock on wood), the amount is now too insignificant to even fight over. As for custody, the court mostly rules in favor of the mother and I don't have addiction problems or a crime record. So, not even concerned about that at the very least.
26
Better check current CA law. Favors joint custody.
2
I think there are valid reasons to do a prenuptial agreement. But none of them are present in this situation.
The valid reasons are protecting your former children and protecting your family's wealth (parent's, etc).
What we have here is someone expecting failure and wanting to preserve his share at the expense of what could end up being a destitute ex-wife.
We don't know the terms of the agreement, but there certainly should have been a clause in the agreement that it would be null and void if the husband cheated on her. Otherwise, the wife could get nothing in a divorce that was not her fault and the next women might get it all.
I have found that the "next woman" is never stupid enough to sign a prenuptial agreement. She learned that much from watching her new lover go through his divorce with wife number one.
21
But she's already destitute. He's obviously going to be contributing way more during the relationship. Why is it his responsibility to subsidize her irresponsible behavior if and when the relationship ends? The author is a drama queen.
19
Women are poorer statistically because we don't live in a fair world. A marriage is an equal partnership. She wasn't destitute she chose to be a writer and care for her mom. I think this husband sounds like a loser. Any man who doesn't know men make more money isn't worth a dime. And the privilege women here who signed a prenup without feeling sick must also be from the kind of families who paid for their weddings and education and gave the women inheritances
8
She CHOSE not to get a real job. Stop making women out to be victims.
20
Women ( some of them )would do anything to get married . I can guarantee you if the woman asked this man to go through all of this before marrying her? He was gone gone gone long long long time AGO! But so far works for them so good !
A woman accepted a marriage proposal from her boyfriend after she found out that HE was her identity thief that had been cleaning up her bank account !! Her explanation ? I can't just broke up with him so fast because we've been together for 5 yrs! I'm telling you Some women would do anything to get married !
1
I'm in the "everyone should have a pre-nup" camp. It forces you to talk about money before you marry. Even if you are both young with not a dime to your name at the time.
It's not just about divorce, though. It asks that you contemplate things like if someone will give up his/her career to stay home with children, and how you might handle a disparity in income. Do you contribute equally to the mortgage when one of you earns more? What if one of you likes taking walks and reading books, and the other favors golf and skiing as hobbies?' Do you get the same pocket money, regardless of who earned it?
The purpose of the pre-nup is to ensure that decisions you make as a couple (e.g., having one parent stay home, or moving to another city to advance one career at the expense of the other) do not fall more heavily on one of you should the marriage end. It should be fair. It sounds like Matt wanted Abby to sign something that was unfair (hence all the "no's" from the lawyer). Red flag. He questions her expenses while they are living apart, each on their own income? Red flag. They have vastly different spending-saving styles. Red flag. I wish this couple the best, but see some choppy waters ahead.
21
You may not know two years later where the prenuptial agreement is located but I can assure you Matt knows where it is.
191
Funny! :-)
3
Pretty funny! I agree! (in response to Kathrine's comment about Matt knowing where the prenup is)
3
"love is to give somebody the power to destroy you, but trusting
them that they won't use it."
13
Many couples have no discussions about money before getting married, fight about it during the marriage, and learn their legal obligations when they get a divorce. If you can't discuss money, don't get married.
121
"The agreement was essentially California law on paper if we ever left the state, which I understood to mean that if we were to divorce, we would leave the marriage with what we had brought into it and divide the rest." So the contract is just CA community property law people. You get to keep what assets you accumulated before the marriage, and split up (in half -with nuances of course) what was made during the marriage. Why did this man feel the need to push for this somewhat redundant contract? I guess just in case they left CA. Overall, this pairing of a financially responsible and stingy person and financially irresponsible person seems risky.
10
I respect her decision. I wish them both well.
What I take issue is with men particularly who want to leave wives with children without any financial support when the wife stayed home at the insistence of the husband to raise the kids. That REALLY gets my goat.
There should be financial consequences when a spouse of any gender asks you to forgo your career or job to provide domestic support to them and any children by staying home and then ups and leaves you to poverty.
If a man asks me to stay home to raise kids, I WOULD be the one suggesting a pre-nup.
18
There ARE financial consequences. The wife nearly always gets custoday and the man is legally obligated to pay child support up to age 18 and sometimes even longer. Usually, the child support is a substantial portion of the man's income and the woman doesn't have to provide any receipts or logs as to how she's using the money. For example, she could be spending 90% of it on manicures and champagne while the other 10% goes to the kid... There's no oversight. Lastly, and this is the main point, you can't negotiate the terms of child support in a pre-nup. Only the court can decide that at the end of a marriage. A woman cannot preemptively give that away as a concession. So there really is no reason what so ever to not get a pre-nup. Unless of course you just want the option of taking a bunch of money and assets you didn't earn from your former lover.
6
@Biz Griz: So are you implying that a man should never have to pay anything for children he begot since the wife has custody since the woman *might* be spending it on manicures???? Look, just because you MAY have gotten a harpy ex-wife doesn't mean every woman is.
If a man didn't want kids and the wife insisted on having them and got pregnant, *then* I can see your point. That not what I'm talking about: I'm specifically addressing the very *specific* scenario that if a woman is convinced (or even pressured/coerced) to have children AND stay home, effectively putting her in the poor house for those years, then there should be financial compensation. Any stay at home parent is entitled to financial compensation because staying out of the workforce is a poverty inducing situation.
6
Prenup cannot override state law re child support.
2
"Those sessions helped us understand that his money issues stemmed from family dynamics and a string of former girlfriends who had betrayed him." So...you're saying....he learned from experience? That's so terrible of him.
51
If I were Abby, I would have said yeah, I'll sign it. But you have to sign my custody agreement, giving me 100% custody over the child should we divorce, with you paying your full share of the child-related expenses, including health care, orthodontist, and college. You know, because I just wouldn't feel comfortable knowing you might get more than your fair share.
The last person I dated before meeting my future wife was a dumb rich girl, trust fund baby. Grandpa had managed to back into oil wealth, and the family had pretty much been living on it for two generations. The family made it clear that there would be a great wall of legalese keeping me from the money, even if used for things like a family home. I said DEAL BREAKER LADIES, and relished breaking up with her.
If someone is already planning the divorce before the marriage, that's a really bad sign.
22
I planned for a potential divorce of my children by creating a trust which would protect their inheritance. This took the onus off of them.
20
"Prenups" for anything related to current or future children (custody, child support,college tuition) are prohibited by law. These are issues determined at the time a relationship dissolves.
8
I have mixed feelings about this essay. Witnessed a marriage end when the partner who came to the marriage with nothing, cheated and demanded 1/2 of everything which was substantial. It didn't seem fair especially given the infidelity. But in Massachusetts, infidelity doesn't matter. And, just to clarify for those who are thinking "oh, how old fashion"...I would have been fine with the party wanting the divorce...it was the attitude of I can cheat on my spouse and enjoy all the spousal benefits simultaneously and then leave with no consequences and expect 1/2 that rubbed me the wrong way. With that said, what bothered me most was decision to have a child without any clear plan - article does not make clear if there was or not. A person with no capacity to support two persons assumes child support if things "dont work out" I guess. Variations on this theme is what has got us into our current predicament as a society IMO. I guess I am old fashion!!
52
There are two people involved in making a child. You assume it was all her doing. That is old fashioned.
6
There are two people involved in the conception, but after that, it's entirely one-sided. It WAS all her doing. She, but not he, had the option of abortion. Only she had the option to choose birth.
2
Well, you sure can't deny that this essay elicited responses from all vantage points: the romantics, the financially prudent, the experienced, the hopeful, the name callers/castigators and the understanding. Whew! Exhausting just to read the heated POV's, BUT so incredibly lovely to be split on this issue rather than national politics for a change. 99 comments so far and nary a one with he who shall not be named mentioned. That alone makes the essay outstanding!
59
Why doesn't every marriage license state clearly the divorce law which will be applied to that marriage, with clear terms for financial and custody settlement spelled out, and signatures of prospective spouses required?
A standard agreement would eliminate the need for financially devastating litigation in the event of a divorce. In the meantime every spouse could make informed decisions about whether to compromise a career/financial independence to provide for childcare, whether to take on the primary burden of providing for the family, etc.
Anyone who disagreed with those standard terms could still get a prenup.
6
Moral of the story, only date people who are your social and financial equivalent. It is known as assortative mating. Run a credit check, hire a detective, ask for a blood test result. Then you don't need a prenup, which the Lawyers on this forum say are useless anyway.
26
The equivalency doesn't hold once there are children. When there is enough money on either or both sides, couples often want a parent home with the kids (surprise, it's great for kids to have a parent around). There goes the financial equivalency.
For this reason, both money and custody should be split in the event of divorce, or neither. Put the terms on the license and sign, or don't get married.
8
While I do agree with the credit and background check, I don't agree that an equal social and financial background mostly leads to a successful marriage. I've seen too many marriages fall apart - and the couples come from the same background. What matters most is intellectual, emotional and financial compatibility.
One of the greatest things about the US is that we don't have a caste system or class system that defines your worth as a person. You can be poorer than your spouse but be better at saving money, the same way that a non college grad can be smarter than someone with a master's degree. Getting along isn't as simplistic as dollar signs and which circle you belong in.
11
yeah -- good luck with that.
2
Anyone who thinks a prenup is unreasonable has never been through a divorce. My husband and I both got taken to the cleaners financially by our exes, and we both wanted a prenup. It was a really easy process for us, we even had a "prenup party" at our lawyer's house when we finished. Honestly, I think everyone should have one. I mentioned this to my lawyer, who does divorces too, and she said that if everyone had a prenup, she would be out of business - food for thought.
123
I'd like to hear your exes sides of the stories, first.
9
I hope your lawyer paid for the party.
My husband and I did not have a prenup before we got married. We did not have the need to,as we were not born with money and had not enough money to have a prenup. After reading the story, I do wonder if today Abby is professionally successful and financially stable, would she still have the same sour feeling? Probably not. But would she walk away from it, because Matt is being an insecure jerk on the issue of money, or would she cave in because she wouldn't care Matt is being an insecure jerk on the issue of money? This is an interesting question because we all know there are only two outcomes, yet the reasoning of accepting the prenup can be very different.
Another of my question is that would Matt asked her to sign a prenup at all if today she is successfully, but doesn't have enough put away as comparing to him?
6
Are you or your husband going to draw social security? How about any type of pension plan-defined benefit, 457,403b,401k? All oi those are subject to scrutiny in a divorce. In my opinion, every one who will retire someday or who has a bank account should bet a prenup before marriage.
5
A completely financially irresponsible person is marrying someone ultra responsible with finances. Good luck with that.
89
I don't care how bad the mother is with money, he has a duty to support his kid.
4
all people have a duty to child support, but whoever has custody over the child doesn't have to provide documentation the money is being spent of the child, and not on wants vs. needs.
2
I second that, it's clear they have very different values regarding money and she seems to be completely financially irresponsible, yet holding him to a different standard because he chose financial responsibility over giving up his pipe dreams of a creative life. She gets it all, money, security, and her dreams, and he gets to pay for it! (I am a woman)
8
I would have found the hungriest family lawyer out there and threatened Matt with a paternity suit if he didn't drop the prenup nonsense. If you were not the mother of his child, then, yes, it would have been more reasonable to have asked you to sign a prenup. But you two had already had children together. Once that happens, it's a whole different ball game. He has a duty to provide support for his children, and by extension, their mother (who will do all the actual work of caring for the child).
31
You kinda sorta missed the point about their deep caring for one another - and their child ( singular). There is no bad guy here, jus two different people struggling to make a go of life together, and, as we all do, inadvertently hurting on another.
9
So how many kids do you have? And given her sketchy history of debt, a court might not have looked kindly on her shake-down attempt. You really put women back 50 years ...
6
Sketchy history of debt? $10,000 in credit card debt is nothing - nothing! She made her payments, didn't she? When you have half a million in debt and a terrible record of making payments on time, then yeah, I can see things not going your way. But the simple fact of the matter is that she is the child's mother and unless she is mentally unstable she is entitled to her cut, no matter what, prenup or no prenup. Spend some time in family court, there is a consistent and justified tendency to favor the interests of the mother.
A paternity suit would have ended any talk of a prenup right then and there. She was holding all the cards, she just didn't chose to play them.
Women are setting themselves back 50 years when they refuse to refuse to let men push them around.
53
Easy for her to say this since she has nothing. Some people feel secure living by their wits (or looks) alone. Having savings and a security blanket is a very big deal in today's uncertain world. If she should every experience a tragedy, she will understand the value to a nest egg (i.e. the untimely death of a spouse).
24
I gently suggest to Ms. Mim that she read legal paperwork before signing it. And she work with a therapist on her emotional blockage around dealing with the material aspects of life. She will be better off (intangibly and tangibly) if she understands how financial life works and takes some control. I know it's hard to do and send her sympathy. This sounds like a very uncomfortable situation.
86
Brilliant.
1
He should not have married Abby or had a child with her. There is no excuse for her financial irresponsibility at age 42 and I bet she is expecting him to pay off her credit card debt. I hope he doesn't regret his decisions but he can't walk away because of the baby. Sad situation for him.
42
You bet that, do you? Pray tell what expertise do you have that makes your "bet" valid?
3
Somehow I thought marriage was about something more than finance.
7
It is, but finance is part of them. Those things marriage IS about are not mutually exclusive from financial planning and foreseeing possible eventualities.
10
Actually, throughout history marriage was only for the wealthy , to establish paternity and bloodlines. Thus "common-law" marriage for the non-nobility. And romantic marriage for love is also fairly recent.
8
Why do I get the sinking feeling that being from Mountain View, Ca. makes this story worse (see today's NY Times article "Silicon Valley is Not Your Friend").
Should have stayed away, Ms. Mims. Marriage is about love. Not money. Especially when there is an 18-month-old baby in the mix. Shame on him.
21
These two do not seem like a good match. A prenup so that the wife won't get his money? Why get married at all.
8
So the guy does not lose his shirt when the marriage ends?
6
But there is no need for marriage even if there is a child. Especially not with someone who does not share his general orientation toward wealth and money. And there didn't need to be a child if he had taken charge there.
6
Why bother getting married if you're going to sign a Pre-Nup? It makes no sense! You sign a piece of paper to protect your rights and another piece of paper to give them away. You'd just be better off co-habitating as a Pre-nup takes away all the romance from a marriage. So what's the point of any of it?
42
She had sealed the deal once she got pregnant. The paperwork that comes afterwards is just details.
3
Actually in case of death, a prenup can be used to determine inheritance rights,also if the husband causes death or injury to others, a prenup can protect the wife from civil litigation.
6
Women want to make it hurt in case the man leaves them for a younger woman. It's one of their greatest fears. That's the root cause of their protest to a pre-nup.
1
This piece didn't bother me nearly as much as it did most readers. Except for her not reading the document of course. (!!) And apparently he didn't either, since there were conditions he didn't request. Our situation was similar in that I had a flaky financial past and he had significant assets, but I still wish we HAD signed a pre-nup. He was the one who found it too unromantic. Which I appreciate, but it makes me antsy around his family. I'd relax more with written proof I'm not after their wealth. Also, if something did go horribly wrong, I wouldn't trust expensive lawyers to not find a way to give him half my 401k and generally leave me with less than I entered the relationship with.
39
If she had nothing to begin with then why wouldn't she just sign the pre-nup and get on with it? Unless of course she wanted the option of taking half of his hard work with her in a divorce? Matt did the right thing.
59
Think, monkey, think, as young Sheldon explained to us not long ago.
So Matt fathers a child and still pretends he does not know how to protect the mother of his child from unnecessary humiliation and shame from lawyers? And he works in finance?
Abby is faced with a man child who is shaking with fear from unresolved issues in the past, which, it appears he was too scared and cowardly to address. He now lets Abby bear the brunt of this via his financial anxiety. As I am at a loss to find a politically correct way to state this, I marvel at the fact that Matt had the wherewithal, for lack of a better word, to father a child.
But by all means, Biz Griz from Gangtok, go back to your fingerpainting now!
8
I had the reverse situation, being a woman who requested that my fiancé sign a pre-nup. Nothing whatsoever to do with his being in terrible debt, but rather that I had worked hard to create my nest egg and felt that, in the God forbid category, if we parted ways, my money would stay with me. I married for the first time at age 50, so had long managed my own finances and felt protective of them. It isn’t always about men asking for pre-nups! Women do too.
263
Completely agree. For a long time, I was against pre-nups. However, the more I talked to my married friends, the more the pre-nups made sense to me. When I'll marry, I'll be the one asking for the pre-nup for similar reasons.
2
I would love to hear THIS perspective; I am in a similar situation as Giligan and I worry that I shouldn't ask for a prenup because it will make my significant other unhappy and distrustful. Especially because traditionally men have the financial security and it's women in less powerful positions. If it is a blow to his ego, I suppose he's not the right one, but it's also terrible to find that out at such a late stage. I wish prenups didn't have such stigma for the person receiving the request.
1
you should absolutely ask for one. you worked hard to create that wealth and you are the one who should benefit from it.
3
I would have sent this fellow packing.
27
So, he was nervous about money and forced you into what sounded like weeks of lawyer's visits and anxious thinking, while not even coughing up money for a sitter so you could go to and focus on an extremely important meeting that could have implications for you and your child later on?
And then over coffee he says "Sorry" - and that's OK?
I thought this was going to end with him ripping up the prenup and saying "we never really needed this". Instead, he has his signed agreement, you get to "hope I never need to know" where it is.
You can have Matt; I don't like him at all.
132
Yup. I'm surprised how few comments focus on the complete disconnect between these two people.
Prenup shmenup. This essay is really about communication (the lack of), empathy (Matt has none), and doormats (the author).
26
You have seen too many rom-coms.
2
Reading this made me hate your husband. My wife was in the same boat as you; dying father, no life lessons on finance. I could never ask her to make those decisions without the requisite understanding. Now, the actions of your husband are the actions of a greedy person, man or woman. I worked my entire life, forgoing the same passions as your husband to build what I have but that doesn't give me the right to deny the claim to what I have built to the woman I chose to marry. Even if she did something to end the marriage. No matter what happens and how much I hate her, she deserves half of whatever I brought to the marriage because I brought all of it FOR HER! I built all of this to protect my family from the greedy people of this world like your husband who works in finance. I'm sorry you went through that. You will one day be in a position of greater wealth than when you started and he will wish he could rip up that prenup because he may have money but you have a sense of humanity and that can never be taken away from you dear, sweet girl. Keep living your passion because without people like you we are just living in a world full of empty, soulless and greedy people working in finance.
39
And without people like Matt she would be unable to pursue her 'passion.'
28
I am always amazed that people leave 9-5 jobs with good benefits to pursue "passionate" lifestyles or blithely amass 5 and 6 figures of debt. The cost of living in the US is extremely high, there is no safety net really and one misstep could result in a person living in their car or under a bridge. Sad to say but people do have to live defensively these days to avoid ending up in bad situations.
15
He fell in love with her because of the way she is. He had a child with her. It sounds like Matt needs help figuring out his personal issues surrounding money and career. Lester Bangs is very far away from a career in finance.
3
Had this couple not brought a child into the world, I would not write this, but good grief, they are infantile! The writer is unable to take responsibility for her career, her retirement, or anything related to money. At 42, doesn't even know how few assets she has until she is forced to confront the issue, and her refusal to read the prenup or to make sense of what her lawyer is patiently telling her shows all the maturity of an 8 year old hiding under the bed. The husband is no better. He feared marriage more than fatherhood, a horrifying inversion of priorities, and he fixated on money rather than on his wife's childish inability to deal with reality.
I don't believe the happy ending, not for a moment.
150
It's also scary that she was almost angry at the lawyer for literally doing what she paid him to do - fighting for her to get the best deal possible.
4
As a divorced woman with assets, there was NO WAY I was going to marry without a prenup. I had the larger salary and the most assets. Also given that he was in the legal profession, I wanted to protect my assets from any possible malpractice claims. We have been happily married for 20 years. People need to realistic - when such a larger number of marriages end in divorce you have to be idiotic not to protect yourself - man or woman.
59
I totally agree. People don't realize what becomes "divisible marital assets" in a divorce. Everything can be up for grabs, even pensions and retirement accounts. In particular, for older people in serial marriages, who have amassed large portfolios, retirement assets and pensions, prenups are essential.
Marriage might be for love, but divorce is all about money.
18
I was one of those foolish husbands who allowed his wife to seek gratifying 'work' while I stayed in a job I hated. So she flitted from low paying to low paying job with no benefits while I commuted an hour and a half each day to a well-paying job that I hated. But when we divorced, at her request, she got half of all the assets, including my 401K that I was the sole contributor to. I can't say that I wish I had a prenup--I can say I wish I'd never married.
75
I believe the expression is, "that's on you". Your wife is not blame for you keeping a job you hated. And unless she did not do anything contributory to your life, that 401K that ways YOURS, was not.
3
I beg to differ. I was the one with the secure job and meeting all the financial obligations while she tried first this job and that. If I had practiced the same employment attitude, we would have been homeless.
20
I am more curious about how you got together in the first place -- if you were so far apart? Was it part of your cultural background or hers? I have had differences with my significant other - - You chose each other for some reasons---?
1
A pre-nup is just a contract. Contracts do not dictate behavior. So long as behavior on both sides is acceptable, the contract remains “in full force and effect” but dormant- in “the drawer,” out of sight, and out of mind. When behavior is no longer acceptable, then the contract, agreed to at some prior time (with little real understanding by the author in this case), is scrutinized to determine the rights and obligations owed to the “aggrieved” party or parties. The article mentions nothing about the author's behavior during the two post-contract years. Did she find a job with benefits and a 401(k)? Is she still spending large dollars each "girls night out?" He thinks the agreement will protect him. She has not modified her behavior or given the pre-nup or her lifestyle any subsequent thought. Pretty much a useless exercise and a waste of legal fees.
Assume they divorce. She has no understanding of the pre-nup. But the pre-nup is immaterial. The overriding ongoing obligation on both sides here is the child, pre-nup or no pre-nup. He boxed himself out of an effective pre-nup by breeding.
38
I would never marry a person who is financially as irresponsible as the writer (with or without a prenup).
75
Exactly. This is a fantastic recipe for disaster. Unless he is an independently wealthy person. In that case, a prenup is very practical.
13
You should have never married this man. The security and lifestyle you and your child enjoy today could easily be gone in a heartbeat. Do you think that this is what you deserve? Is this what your child deserves? This man had an empty life because he sold his soul to make a living. You were the heart and soul put back in his life. I can't believe you couldn't see your own value. This is very sad. You deserved 1/2 of all and any shared marital assets, and all should flow to his child. I hope you demanded this, but doubt it. The man did not and does not deserve you.
8
Child support laws were designed precisely these kind of situations.
5
They both want to live like bachelors while using the other. Grow up!
6
She should have dumped him. Anyone that controlling is not worth being with.
10
As opposed to someone who is willing to fund your irresponsible lifestyle so you can do what you want without any repercussions....
18
No, he should have dumped her. Someone that immature and financially irresponsible is not exactly good marriage material.
7
I didn't see it specifically mentioned here, but there's no indication that this man, the father of her child, had been paying her child support payments up until their marriage.
If he had a good salary then those 18 months of support would amount to a sum greater than her total assets. He may have helped her here and there, but I doubt a court would have been so forgiving. Perhaps if he had helped more her assets might not have been quite as dire as they were. And if they weren't to marry his financial obligation to their child would have remained regardless.
It's just something to consider, but I will, however, hope for the best for her and her family.
15
The odds are that they're already living together, so child support is moot.
8
I am an older (45+) and never-married woman who has worked hard for the assets I have accumulated. I have also acquired assets (after their death) from older family members (aunts and uncles without spouses or children) who felt is was important to build wealth within the family. It is a value I share and even though I do not have children of my own, it is important to me to pass a financial legacy to my nieces and nephews as my family did. I would absolutely want a prenuptial agreement if I were to marry. It isn't that I wish to be unfair to a prospective spouse. Marriage is truly an obligation to care for each other and I would commit to that, but I also want the security of knowing that a designated portion of my wealth would be passed to the next generation of my family as it had been passed to me. I have always been a persons who has contingency plans that address important possible life scenarios. A prenuptial agreement would give me a desired comfort level and make my wishes completely transparent.
I find it interesting that the author acknowledges that the agreement had the benefit of helping her husband feel comfortable. I understand the idea of finding that comfort and there is a something to be said for that.
31
If he paid for her lawyer, she might be able to contest the agreement as the lawyer was working for him, not her.
12
In California, there is a separate document about right to individual counsel. (Since the Barry Bonds case.) The problem with prenups is that we used to do them to prevent litigation, now we do them to guide litigation. They are much weaker than they used to be.
Did Matt feel safe because his money was protected or because he could see that you were commited enough to the relationship to go through a complicated and emotional process with him?
11
It wasn’t an emotional process for HIM.
2
I think the lesson to take away here is the same for men and women. That it makes no sense to have complete financial dependence on your partner. That you can stand together and hope it stays that way, but you must not leave yourself vulnerable to crashing if you eventually have to stand alone. If either partner stays home with children, they lose power in the marriage. They lose social security income. They lose career opportunities. Which sometimes means they lose the option to leave. A prenup can mitigate that. A prenup can keep a predatory spouse from cleaning out the wealthy spouse. Prenups ...no they are not romantic. So what? The point of a prenup is not romance. A prenup is reality. A prenup is your way out if the marriage does not work. This is not a Disney movie. Not having a way out makes zero sense for men or women. It is so easy to get into a marriage, and so hard to get back out. There is an entire industry that thrives on divorce. It would make great sense to have the divorce terms laid out before the marriage. For everyone.
49
I understand your POV, but non-stop work means that her infant son would be in daycare 8-10 hours per day. Seems a little ridiculous for her to be working full time when he can afford to ‘give’ her that time to spend raising their child instead of having a stranger do it.
4
David- this is not the 1950s. Women have expensive educations, the same as men. They have careers before having children, same as men. When they stay home to care for children, who unfortunately require care and often transportation to school, they compromise or sacrifice their careers and earnings capacity. This sacrifice is a liability incurred for the sake of the family-- the children, and the working spouse's career/earnings capacity-- not for herself. Why should she bear the cost of that liability by herself when it was incurred for the sake of her family and apparently with your consent? You get the asset of your children, and their children, etc., for ETERNITY, which were the product of her labor. Why on earth should she not share in the product of your labor? This isn't hard. Apply Partnership Law in divorce and end the senseless litigation and destruction of children's lives.
30
Staying home to take care of kids these days is a luxury that very few can afford!
3
It seems that Mims felt humiliated because the process forced her to take stock of her life assets. She didn't like what she faced. If a woman with a lot more assets wanted to marry me, and wanted me to sign a prenuptial agreement, I would not hesitate.
44
This is exactly the truth. It made Mims take a real look at reality. Was it it uncomfortable? Yes, but that is life.
2
...cannot imagine anyone, at any age, any gender not having a prenup before getting married these days. Its nuts.I concede its stressful - heh spoiler- so is marriage ! - and gets into questions most couples, esp those just dating or living together, don't wish to discuss. But they NEED to be discussed, especially if you care about the relationship and want it to endure in a genuine and meaningful way. Implicit in this article is however, a real need to select the right lawyer, both in style, specialty (family vs estate ) and even gender, and a need to reign in costs and the time it takes. Unexpressed, but salient in this presentation is that getting married much later in life, second marriages let alone the complication of children, make such marriages far more complicated and challenging than tow 22 year olds getting married. Our post modern society fails to acknowledge that reality. NB as well, most lawyers will tell you drawing up a prenup for 22 year olds is much easier than for 40 year olds - of course it is. On final point-get this asap, arguably before you even start planning the wedding. part of this authors angst is that it went down to the deadline date for the wedding and contaminated the wedding process. Nobody should start planning their wedding until they have at least discussed/agreed on children (how many) religion, where holidays vacations are spent, join versus separate accounts, and purchases without spouses consent-prenup just structures that.
16
Gwe-- NY State enacted a law in October 2015 that terminated your economic partnership in marriage, eliminated alimony (in favor of extremely little "rehabilitative support" for a couple of years), and cut child support by 70%.
You are entitled to almost no support and only what assets you litigate for. Since the dirty, open secret of the NY divorce process is that it is a system of forced arbitration benefiting whoever has the money to litigate longer, you will get exactly the support and assets that your working spouse decides he wants to give you. When you can't afford to support your kids, he's going to take them too.
Who wrote this law? A "Matrimonial Committeee" made up of Judges (who apparently think the separation of powers allows them to have a legislative agenda) and divorce attorneys, who directly profit from the litigation.
Why haven't you heard about this? Because no public hearings were ever held, and the media didn't write a single thing about it.
20
You are right - I had never heard about the changes.
4
This is appalling. Starting a marriage with distrust literally codified into the relationship. What a first world problem.
17
no it's not appaling that he would want to protect something he took a long time to build. Yes, it's not a lovey dovey story, but half of all marriages end in divorce. getting a pre-nup is just a dose of reality.
2
This article ended in an odd and unexpected way. All the dread and unhappiness. She seemed to abhor her fiance for it, but all he had to say was "sorry" and all is well? And I don't understand how he could propose for "love" and she would accept for "money". The idea of a prenup is insulting.
9
I had hoped this story would end with the tearing up of the prenup.
The statistics about the impoverishment of divorced women who raise the children fathered by their ex-husbands are pretty grim.
Requiring a pre-nup, but not a condom: says it all.
38
Prenups are common, granted, when one of the parties claims wealth...and the other 'just love' (I say 'just' as a cruel joke of course, in irony, as love should be the best, if not the only, reason to get married, not the lousy money), an odious arrangement to denote the raw and unmitigated lack of trust in the current or future 'partner for life'. Although its true that a marriage may not last for ever, especially due to 'his' infidelities, not hers, the risk must be accepted as part of the deal. In her case, I would have refused the lousy proposal of a prenuptial agreement, as an insult to the love or feelings of friendship, even the obvious financial and emotional benefits of sharing one's life, supposedly a redemptive measure to gain relevance in our by-force limited access to happiness, And money, however revered under the tutelage of a jealous god, greed, is a poor substitute of a human being who has your best interests in mind. Unless you are selfish enough to think we, as individuals, are better off than two souls committed to sharing the 'pie'.
4
Decisions that this couple will jointly make for the rest of their lives together will at time impact her, and her son. This is a huge power imbalance. She married a man who fathered her child but refuses to fully commit to the relationship.
And she didn't read or understand the document she signed?!
Afterwards he apologizes and she forgives - but no mention of tearing up that document that cost more money than she had and a lot of emotional capital that would have been better-invested in their future.
13
On what basis are you assuming he hasn't fully committed?
8
Well, she could get more education, work from home, or get a job and get daycare. Then she would not be in an unbalanced position.
5
Perhaps more than any other reason, people who marry and have children from previous relationships benefit from prenuptial agreements. It is the surest way to insure your children get what you leave them in your will, depending on what state you live in.
12
My ex-husband and I had a post-nup drawn up shortly after we married. His behavior throughout the entire process proved to be indicative of the kind of man he would be in our marriage. Which is to say, not a very good one. I was the one with all the money, and he acted like a spoiled brat. I refused to sign it, in the end. We were only married a few years, but right up to the end, he still assumed I would pay for everything. When I told him I couldn't afford the spousal support he demanded, he told me to get the money from my parents. I'm so glad that all of that is behind me. It has soured me on marriage.
16
This is what is wrong with culture: marriage is not a financial document, at least not to sensitive people. NEVER get a lawyer involved in personal things: they are only in it for their own benefit (read: fee). If one partner insists on a pre-nup, run away, that person is more self-interested and unworthy of a marriage with anyone.
8
Marriage is what the individuals who enter into it define it to be. Not you.
15
As a retired Attorney, I disagree with your comment that we lawyers are only interested in the fee. Of course there are a few, as there are in any profession but most of us are primarily interested in helping our clients. It is hard to do right by a client that doesn't know what they really want.
Most of the fights in a marriage and the most prevalent cause of divorce is about money. Setting fair and reasonable ground rules, AKA a pre-nup. that a couple work out in a collaborative effort can strengthen a marriage. If I were ever to get re-married, I'd want a prenup.
16
Marci- you have no clue what happens inside that walls of another person's marriage. You speak from your own experience. Others will certainly have different experiences that don't align neatly with your myopic viewpoint.
10
Forty-three years ago I was faced with a similar situation. I had quit my job to become a full time student to earn a BA and then an MA. On unemployment and food stamps, I began a relationship with a college professor--not one of mine--who was substantially better off financially. He insisted that we keep our finances separate when we started to live together--separate bank accounts, etc.
In the morning when I got up and looked in the fridge, I'd ask myself, "is that his yogurt or mine?"
Soon, within months, after I graduated and got a good paying job but still earning less than he did, I told him that we either co-mingled our money or the relationship was over. He agreed and we never looked back. Money was off the table and we could focus on being together as equals. We married 25 years later and are still together.
If a man needs a pre-nup to feel secure in his relationship, there is something seriously wrong with his ability to give and share. Don't kid yourself that it's all okay--it isn't.
33
I am a woman who demanded a prenup, for exactly the same reasons as the writer's husband: childhood poverty, many sacrifices, and a need to feel safe. For those who condemn prenups, I throw my hands up in complete bewilderment. A prenup in no way means I expect the marriage to end or that I am not committed. A prenup is a seatbelt. When I buckle in, I'm don't intend to crash my car into a wall that day. But anything can happen, and when the marriage laws are a blunt tool, it is completely sensible and thoughtful to set up paperwork to reflect your individual circumstances.
There are good prenups and there are bad prenups. One can judge one's future spouse by what kind they propose. Yes, run away from the bad prenup! California's marital laws are actually quite generous (in some states, you are NOT entitled to half of what is earned during the marriage). What the writer signed seems very fair.
Society is changing...most new physicians are female. Women stay in school longer. There are more marriages where it is the woman on the higher-earning side. And when they take a look at the marriage laws, who can blame them for making this choice?
I am where I am not only because I made so many sacrifices, but because my parents also made many sacrifices; I want to ensure enough to take care of them in their old age. I understand a spouse who later makes sacrifices needs to be protected--that's where postnups can be useful!
96
What seems lost in all these white middle class norm introjects is, that the prenup more than anything PROTECTS BOTH of you, not only against each other, but against forgotten or never declared creditors. Bad or just unexpected issues from any of the parties pasts ever so often become present, and you may in fact NOT find yourself on the street, thanks to this document.
14
Before her marriage Mrs. Mims was in financial trouble: in debt, a young child, no solid work experience, refusing to read legal documents. Now that she's married to a man who manages his finances well she has some room to breathe. (The opposite of what her mother warned.) Hopefully she'll use the next few years to become financially responsible. Her husband, and perhaps a therapist, will be glad to help her learn, if she's willing. Then divorce will be less likely than it seems now. Bonus: Jamie could follow her example and learn to build a solid financial base for himself and his future family.
24
Married now nearly 20 years, and having been through serious challenges (health, marital, substance, not to mention kids), I'd view the process described here as just one more challenge among many that may (or may not) occur in a marital relationship. That you successfully negotiated it--despite misgivings and doubts--bodes well, I think, both for the individuals and the relationship.
21
When I read the story, I was tearing up. I went through almost the same process as her but chose to not sign the paper in the end. The prenup was not the sole reason for the breakup, but it was one of the most important ones and it had a huge impact on me. He was 14 years older than me and was financially stable, while I was starting my professional career. I had to leave my home country half of the globe away where I was born and raised. When he was off to work, I stayed home cleaning, waiting and cooking for him most of the time. I was extremely humiliated when he brought it up. I was willing to live far away from my family and friends and discarded the connections I built hard at work. I felt the same disgusted by the notion of having to pave the road for divorcing even before married. Thinking how desperate I would be in a country I barely knew anyone and had no family and friends around if a divorce happened frightened me. It has been a year after the breakup, and it is still hard to rebuild my career path after the connection was lost. The breakup left my heartbroken still, but I am grateful I stick to fight my right and not to marry to him. Because if the situation was reversed, I would consider the my partner's situation before requesting the prenup.
91
I was reading this with an uneasy feeling and hoping she would walk away. Instead, she caves, signs, and he feigns remorse. And she tries to justify his actions. If you need to sign a pre-nup before marriage, that's a red flag. As another commenter stated, if he cares more about his stuff than about you it's time cut your (emotional in this case) losses and move on. I would never have considered doing this to my wife. It doesn't matter how common it is, it still doesn't make it right.
89
It's way more nuanced than you suggest. Life is never as simple as "just walk away." You have no idea what goes on in other people's marriage. Judge not, lest thou be judged.
6
And there was the kid, no small detail...
6
They had a child. There is no walking away.
4
As with many other comments, the following is only barely relevant, but you might enjoy a story about a simpler time. When we married, my wife was 22 and I was 21, a law student. We would have married sooner, but my parents wouldn't sign and we'd have had to run away to another state, so we waited. I had as assets the clothes on my back and a truly decrepit Peugeot that I had to start with a crank because the starter had burned out and I had no money to get another one. She was a school teacher and had a new Chevy, which was pretty much a requirement for a new school teacher in those days. We agreed that we would sell it right away to get money to live on. Two and a half years later, both students, we had our first child, a truly bouncing baby boy. At that time our assets amounted to about $100. He is now 46 and we are still happily married. We never contemplated divorce, so we had no need for a prenup.
Isn't that nice? Boy and girl fall in love and live happily ever after. As I said, not relevant, but perhaps it will reduce the stress you got from Ms. Mims' article. And if it is too late for you, then I wish that all of your children and grandchildren will be as lucky as I was.
104
Thank you for this. I have to say, however, that even though you and your wife were in your early 20's, you were a heckuva lot more mature than the 40-something cases of arrested development in this essay.
38
My husband and I both married for the first time when I was 37 and he was 40. I am the one who suggested the possibility of a pre-nup, since he had far more assets than I did. He refused, so that was that. We've been together 23 years.
I wouldn't have been offended to sign a pre-nup. And don't understand why any person would be. And if I have an inheritance to leave my children, I will insist that they sign one. It's just common sense.
65
You know, I was right with you until you said you'd interfere in your children's lives at the end.
7
@Jennie
I am guessing you are under 40. Maybe, I’m wrong... but just a hunch. When you have worked hard & even done without throughout your life to save, you do not want a significant portion of your savings to end up in the hands of a total stranger who divorced (and possibly even mistreated) your child.
I have no intention to ever interfere with my kids’ lives. If my kids do not want to sign a pre-nup, any money would pass directly to grandchildren and be stipulated for use for higher education.
Unfortunately, there would be no way to ensure that the inheritance was not to be included in joint assets unless it was stipulated in a pre-nup. It’s not an emotional decision, it’s strictly a business/financial one.
11
Any relationship or marriage will work if you give without expecting anything in return and that is where we mostly fail because we want to get without giving up anything. Our relationships with our children and pets work because we sacrifice selflessly but with our spouses we start calculating if we are indeed ahead. In the case described here, he had her move in with him, trying to get a spouse without giving her the stability of a real relationship. She forced his hand by getting pregnant (probably without his knowledge and concurrence), and having a baby. All the while she was nagging him and giving ultimatum to get married, or else. He felt cornered and decided on balance, he was on the hook for child support anyway, so he might as well tie her down. He consulted with his Lawyer and sprung the prenup on her as a precondition to get married. The expectation of divorce is already there before marriage has taken place. They both feel trapped even before marriage. It is not the the individuals who are to blame, it is a self absorbed society where it is felt people can be used for a purpose and discarded. In the end, only the Lawyers make money and the clients are left counting the meager leftovers, alone.
28
You mean he got her pregnant, not the other way around. Pregnancy is difficult and expensive, not a trick that women play on men.
14
Wow. What a way to jump to conclusions.
3
Did you read the story? Sounds like you made up your own.
6
For about 90% of this column Mims feels humiliated by the pre-nup legal process, and correspondingly her feelings towards her fiance are sketchy, but in the last few paragraphs she does an unconvincing 180 turnaround about the importance of the pre-nup. I am skeptical of her concluding happiness and this column's fairytale ending. I question the stability of a relationship where the spouses see the financial aspects of their marriage so differently, and where one spouse is so financially dependent on another spouse. It sounds like Matt felt bad for the process, but not bad enough to stop the legal process, and it sounds like Matt prioritizes his "stuff" above his wife and marriage. That is not a recipe for marital longevity.
189
I disagree -- the sense of security might very well make her husband more generous. I remarried (pre-ACA) in order to have health insurance since my employment doesn't provide it. My husband insisted on a prenup that basically said we both would leave the marriage with only what we brought into it, a great disadvantage to me. There was no provision for splitting what was accumulated during the marriage. I signed anyway. Since then, the fact of my commitment to him and the maturing of our relationship has apparently allayed his fears, to the point where our newly-purchased apartment is in both names even though it was paid for by proceeds from the sale of his home. Money is important in a relationship, but it's not the only thing.
11
Sorry, as a woman I feel sorry for the guy. She is useless with money,rings up debts so she can be an artist, and the guy is making she he won't end up homeless.
9
I've been a family law attorney for over ten years and believe me, most prenups aren't worth the paper they're written on. I can also guarantee that, upon divorce, the person who came into the marriage without the big bucks will always seek to have the agreement either thrown out completely or eviscerated to the point of it being useless. I always tell clients, assume the worst and if you can't live with that then don't get married.
130
The lawyer who drew up my post-nup warned me that when it came time to divorce and discuss the finances, I might not recognize the man I married. Sadly, I recognized him, and that's why I should have taken note of all the red flags prior to getting married.
22
They're not as strong in California as they used to be, but they can help by requiring disclosure of income and assets, and a discussion of money! It is amazing how many people get married without any such conversation.
3
In a situation where one partner was materially more financially responsible than the other and thereby brings a lot more financial assets into the marriage, I feel a prenup is equitable and appropriate. What if the marriage had dissolved after a year? Should the wife at that point really be able to take half of the husbands savings that were hard earned through sacrifice before the marriage as well as attach half of his future earnings?
I also question whether those who are advising women not to sign prenups would feel similarly if the situation were reversed, i.e. if the woman had worked hard and had the much higher income and the man had been financially irresponsible coming into the marriage. In that case I think many would see the woman as justifiably protecting her hard earned savings through a prenup in case the marriage didn’t work out. I believe there’s a sexist double standard at work here.
117
I am a woman. My situation was reversed. A prenup never entered my mind, and, even if I could go back, I wouldn't consider one.
I lost a LOT of very hard earned money in the divorce, and, though I am not actively suffering financially I do know that I will work much longer than I otherwise would have because my retirement accounts were split in half.
It wasn't that my now ex-husband was irresponsible prior to marriage; he simply refused to work another day in his life once we were married. I worked (extremely hard). He contributed in some other ways, but not financially. It would have helped a lot if he would would have condescended to employment, but he vowed he would never work for anyone else. Instead, I had to.
Still, I would not retroactively opt for a pre-nup.
No sexist double standard here. But thanks for assuming so.
20
Don't get married. And don't seek power and wealth imbalances in relationships unless you are truly cool with giving up that power.
5
Well stated Mike.
6
I'm waiting for the follow-up, a few years from now, when things are less rosy and this one-sided prenup comes back to haunt her.
I think that the imbalance here, and her current sacrifice for his peace of mind, tells me all I need to know about their future.
58
The article says that the prenp simply stated the law of California, which is where they live. If she had not signed it, and they married, the situation would have been identical so long as they still lived in California (and, I believe, any community property state).
But I agree that the man's insistence on the prenup, given that all it did was restate the law of the state in which they lived, is mean-spirited. But look at it the best light----he just wanted to make sure that she was marrying him for love and not for his great wealth. [I couldn't quite keep a straight face when I wrote that].
Could you describe what her sacrifice actually is?
14
If she has creditors,( a good chance she does) who decide to go to courts, it would protect the guy from having his money go down the drain.
3
I kept waiting for the writer to acknowledge that her ability to have her child and still be a writer rested on her husbands financial choices, not hers. And in fact, that signing the prenup was probably a mature way to acknowledge the consequences of choosing a financially risky career path. She should not feel entitled to the benefit of his choice, but grateful. If the roles were reversed, meaning a man with no money and the women with the stable finances, I think people would see that clearly. To me there was some traditional gender role bias in her thinking that wasn't conscious.
179
Perhaps he should also be grateful -- he also chose to have a child and is receiving free child care from Abby. Price that on the open market.
8
But I think its also important to note that it isn't "her" ability to have "her" child or his ability to preserve his financial choices... It is their child, who they should raise to the best of their ability, and she wouldn't need to be concerned with being a writer and simultaneously raising a child if they hadn't both engaged in a relationship and had a child together. It's not that she's getting the best of both worlds by getting to have her job and a child. They are both lucky and bearing the brunt of childrearing (or should) because it isn't just her child, and that's my concern for her whole relationship.
3
It is human nature, after a hard decision is finally made, to convince yourself you made the right choice. That's why the couples on the house hunting shows always say they picked the right house. In general it is better not to have regrets so this is probably a mental health survival technique. This may not be the case here, but all my instincts were repelled by this account so it is something to consider.
79
Often times as described in the article, the prenup represents relief to those anxious of money and uncertainty. People in mature cycles of their career want to exert control and protection, which to many romantics flies in the face of what marriage has been story-booked to be solely about- love.
Personally, going through a prenup process illuminated aspects to the person I did marry. I did challenge a few provisions and discovered some of the language had not been his intention. So it was important to be an advocate to yourself. If he had not shown flexibility it would have highlighted a difference in values that would have questioned the compatibility of the marriage. Interestingly, while our economics were mostly equitable with no noticeable disparity unlike what is found in the article, I understood his anxiety about money stemmed from his childhood. I opted to respect and work with him.
40
Matt is marrying someone with no sensible knowledge of finances, as shown by her unwillingness to read the contract. He was right to ask her to sign it thereby ensuring his ability to care for their child should a divorce be in their future. I would keep a separate account that can't used for non-essential since money flows through her fingers. I hope they never have to use it! By the way I am a realistic feminist.
16
When my wife and I split up, we divided our assets nearly 50-50 with 55% going to her and 45% to me plus two years of spousal support. But that was in New York. In another state like California, the law is likely to be quite unfair to the husband.
Ultimately, women fight for their rights, collectively. Men fight, but only one man at a time. No man fights for other men. Rich men can afford to hire smart lawyers. But poorer men are left to fend for themselves with prison often being the end of the road. Legislators are aware of this imbalance in political clout. Thus the need for prenups.
My ex-wife and I are excellent friends. I had a wonderful experience when years after the divorce she was in Ecuador. Suddenly there was call from there that there was a coup but that I should not worry. And why did they call ME? Because according to her passport I was the person to contact in case of emergency.
I do believe in prenups. Not unfair prenups, but in case the assets at marriage are greatly unequal, then the partner with the larger assets at marriage should still receive the larger share at divorce.
And these days it could well be the wife.
I DO trust women, by and large. But I do NOT trust legislators greedy for the female vote. They just cannot be relied on to be fair to the gender which does not vote for its rights.
25
I wish I’d been prescient enough to demand a prenup before getting married. I had saved all the money, made the investments, scrimped on spending. I had a lot to show for it. And I loved and trusted my wife completely.
You know the rest. She took me for quite a ride, cleaning out the bank accounts, demanding the house, full custody of the kids, etc.
The judge didn’t buy it. He awarded me financial restitution, full ownership of the house I paid every cent for, and shared custody of the kids.
Why do readers necessarily assume it’s the woman who gets the short end?
168
Exactly. This is what family law is, in this country. And I don't appreciate people paying next to no attention to it. The only mistake here is that this guy married her--but he did have a child with her.
People with shoddy finances have no business being married (in general). If they want a marriage, they have to face up to the financial choices they have made. If they thought marriage is their vehicle to freedom from debt, well, shame on them.
The icing on cake is really what the mother said. Cute. Maybe if she had raised her daughter to be more financially responsible, this wouldn't have been the daughter's predicament.
15
I sincerely wish you well. Thanks for sharing your story, it was profound.
This is a cautionary tale, for all Women. Think hard, then think some more. Imagine yourself, and any children, in 20 years. Or 40 years.
13
This woman, at 42 years of age has a net worth, and I'm being generous here, of about $7500. In addition, she has a young child. She has this child with a man who has a good income and assets.
From what she has shared, if she were not to have married and continued on the path she is currently on, she would probably still be living hand to mouth with limited assets. A choice she has made....that's fine.
Signing a pre-nup and marrying will provide more security for her than not marrying. Let's take a leap here and assume that her child will be taken care of no matter what they couple's marital status is.
Her choice to live a fiscally precarious life is her own.
She admits to not fully reviewing the pre-nup.
Personally I see a person who has a lack of common sense. This has nothing to do with her being a woman....nothing.
I don't see a big financial risk for her.
Her partner, yes, an enormous risk he takes on by entering into marriage.
It appears that the pre-nup has provided a sense of comfort to both and that's all that matters.
207
Pre-nups that are inequitable to women only not men do not stand up in family court and it becomes invalid.
5
I had a pit in my stomach reading this and was really hoping this essay ended a different way.
Please understand that the word "marriage" implies a coming together. If you have a child together you are a unit, a family. When one member of that family exerts more control than others the equilibrium is upset.
I personally would have walked away. I realize that's not the choice for others but for me, I would have walked away.
Why? Because marriage is NEVER perfectly equal. He gives, you give. IN our relationship my husband makes the money but I have sat at home like a bird over the nest so he could soar. I have advised him, stood by him, and took care of the children, the finances, the house, etc. Now the kids are getting older, and our roles are starting to switch. Sometimes I do more than him in some areas, sometimes he does more than me. But our family, our finances, our homes are fully merged and whiting that merger, there are back and forth on responsibilities and tasks.
For Ms. Mims, the die is cast. But for any young woman reading this, think twice about a prenup. The law is set up a certain way to protect women--mothers in particular, who LITERALLY bear the costs of children. When and if society changes so that women have equal opportunity to advance, make money etc, then sure, whatever. But until then, there is a reason for alimony.
......one I learned from my grandmother who was tossed out like yesterdays news after 20 years for a "younger model" and left poor.
361
I understand, and applaud your comment to the article. Yes, women do bear the costs to create a household family unit. However there is always the other side of the coin, that men like Mr. Mims in the article have experienced..
Men, getting ripped off in divorce court, and the woman taking half of everything he worked for. Even in cases with no children, there are women out there -- not all or most I might add -- who fish for men with money and aim for divorce to cash out.
Mr. Mims, as stated in the article might have been overly cautious but for good reason. He got ripped off before, and making money -- unhappily by his admission, in finance -- he has to protect what he worked hard for. He apologized for the grief but in the end it worked out didn't it?
26
I don't think the issue you're talking about (each spouse contributing in different ways) necessarily applies to this case. There are really three categories of assets: (1) assets each person brings to the marriage, (2) assets each person acquires during the marriage, and (3) assets necessary for raising the children and paying alimony. The points you make about an equal division totally make sense for #2 and #3, but not necessarily #1 (which is what pre-nups usually affect).
For most people (myself included) it may not be significant, but for some people it is and a pre-nup makes sense. To use an extreme example, if a person spends 20 years saving up while their partner saved nothing and they are married for six months, does it really seem fair that each person walks away with half of the assets that took the first person 20 years to save? Common sense says no.
58
I couldn't agree more, Matt didn't sign an agreement that made him feel "safer" -- he was already plenty safe because he holds all the cards -- and she shouldn't have signed because now she and her young child are less safe. It's a good thing she couldn't sign away child support. If she devotes years of her working life to tending the children and maintaining a home (as I did, all of which works to stabilize his job and productivity and, therefore, the family), she will be left with no claim on his retirement and no retirement of her own. And I'll bet he knows where that prenup agreement is even if she doesn't. ps Thirty-seven years into it, having raised three biological children and two adopted, we have a stable and happy marriage because we both had to give and give and GIVE.
14