Ask HN :Why didn't you sign prenup? You regret it now?
I mean most people here otherwise so analytical about almost everything here. Writing code that covers negative cases, edge cases, failure, rare event etc. Why don't then they secure themselves in marriage? It seems counter-intuitive.
Yeah I know "Love is transcends all dimensions ..blah blah". I get it but still hard to understand considering, at least in west marriage fails more often than not and people still don't protect themselves using prenup. A lot of it depends. The benefits of a prenup can be marginal depending on the laws of the state if both parties have similar assets and income. Of course there seems to be gender bias in the courts, and even abuse of process (restraining orders based on fictions to gain control of the house, etc). Some states are fillial responsibility states. I wanted a prenup to protect our assets during the marriage, so that the state wouldn't be able to come after stuff in my name to support her deadbeat dad. We're protected in a different way because his prior actions was considered abandonment. If we had any "real" money (wife's mother was very dismissive about the amount I saved up), then i guess I could still set up a trust. I still think a prenup would have been good. Why not decide on what is fair and reasonable when on good terms and you're not clouded by hate or resentment? It would save massively on legal fees. My wife didn't want one. She never gave a reason, but it's safe to assume that the conditions under the court eiild be more favorable than a prenup that excludes alimony. Her mother made some huge deal about me "not knowing what I'm doing", even though she has a prenup and couldn't give any explanation of why it's a bad idea. So overall, it feels like I was taken advantage of and they basically bullied me (repeated unsupported emotional attacks) into not getting one. Frankly, I don't see much reason to get married in today's world. Sure, there are some minor or fringe benefits when dealing with taxes and stuff, but most companies are recognizing domestic partners for benefits even without official domestic partner certificates. Marriage is just a piece of paper from the government and shouldn't be neccessary to validate one's relationship. "Why not decide on what is fair and reasonable when on good terms and you're not clouded by hate or resentment?" This is also great advice when forming a business partnership. It was a great help to me when I was ready to leave a business I owned 50-50 and saved us from ending up in a lawsuit. I don't understand anyone's argument against a prenup. common argument: > If you want a prenup you shouldn't get married. That's as nonsensical as saying if you want to wear a seat belt you shouldn't get in a car. Some of us would like to drive a car and avoid unnecessary injury. They are not mutually exclusive. There are already rules about what happens during divorce. If a partner does not a want a prenup it does not mean they don't want rules. They merely want the "default" rules of divorce. Likely because those rules favor them at great expense to their partner. Alimony, gaining assets they did not contribute to obtaining, etc. The current laws around divorce are medieval in cruelty and are modern day indentured servitude. With suicide being the only escape. If your partner prefers these laws, they are either ignorant, or do not truly care for you. > marriage fails more often than not That's only true if you include all marriages. People who have been divorced tend to get divorced again if they get married. First marriages are more likely not to get divorced. And to answer the question, I didn't sign a prenup because I went through a period where I dated a bit and my wife was much better than everyone else I had dated. We'll be celebrating our 10th anniversary in a few months. I saw some study that said if you do 3 things odds are your marriage will work: Have a university degree + get married over the age of 25 + women have a job Do these and its ~80% success rate That's not a linear relationship that one can extrapolate indefinitely. These days, we're also seeing an increase in so-termed "grey" divorces (divorces for individuals aged 60+ or near/past retirement) among those same individuals. Your prescription may lengthen a marriage but it's not going to prevent a divorce. Instead, it is more economically sound to obtain a divorce at one's earliest financial low points than, despite efforts to the contrary, being served one at his/her most financially stable,but most emotionally and physically exhausted. The family courts incentivize robbing Peter to to pay Paulina. Peter's solution is to minimize ownership and financial security as much as possible when the Day of the Shakedown occurs or to make it so that Paulina suffers a greater economic loss in his place place.. Yep + college educated people in the tech profession have a much lower divorce rate than average. When I got married, we had no pre-marital property to speak of, and were still early in our careers. Spending money on lawyers to hash out a plan for how to split up unknowable things doesn't seem like it would have been a good investment. The default rules seem reasonable enough that trying to do better for both parties without knowing specifics seems unreasonable. Comingling finances is a useful reduction of the total burden of financial management, and wouldn't be possible if you were trying to keep separate accounts. In this instance, I was the breadwinner, and I would have no problem with an equal split of marital assets, plus or minus making adjustments to keep things easy: no sense giving each person half of three cars, can sell one and give one of the remaining to each spouse, the house might be challenging to split, but we're both reasonable and could figure something out that's more beneficial to both parties than a legal battle. If I wanted a prenup, I wouldn't have gotten married. Nothing wrong with staying together without marriage. Married 10 years here. I've said in an anniversary speech that you should marry someone who you'd bring to a zombie apocalypse. Not just someone who can fight or fix cars... you know, worldly stuff. But someone who's not going to abandon you when things get rough. And someone who you'd risk your life and the lives of your team to rescue. I think whenever someone says that it defeats the purpose of marriage, what they mean is you probably shouldn't marry someone who doesn't bring you forward and someone you wouldn't want to give more than half your stuff to. You can both trust someone and have a prenup. The reasoning is that no one is 100% infallible with perfect judgement. Recognizing that you don't have perfect judgement doesn't mean you trust your partner any less. I'm not sure we align here. I'm saying that under a prenup, I'd probably be more generous than the laws would allow for. If you're not marrying someone who you would be generous to, why marry them? If anything, it's the time of marriage that's when I don't have perfect judgement. Pre-nups would be the worst time to sign a contract. Most of the time what is in a prenup should be part of your state law anyway. Write your congressman (state not national) and get reasonable laws in place. Most people shouldn't need one. While it's true that most things in a prenup are also in law, this overlooks one benefit. I would say that the benefits would be marginal if the two parties have similar assets and incomes (and being rational helps). The laws are generally guidelines. Judges can basically do what they want and make exceptions. There can also be fights in the undefined areas and proving ownership of specific items, etc. I would think business ownership would be a big one for many people on this site. If divorce under the law was straightforward, then it wouldn't cost tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to navigate the system. If you have a prenup, the terms are more settled and more specific to the individuals. Courts are generally more compelled to honor the terms under contracts that are consistent with law than making those same determinations through examination and application of the laws alone (I've witnessed many incompetent magistrates and judges). This can also avoid some of the nastiness that can come up in court testimony that may impact/involve any kids involved. Divorce rates peaked in the 80s, and have been declining for decades. It is still not a good statistic, but we're getting better, and more than 50% of marriages last. Part of the reason they are lasting is that being in a non-married relationship is gaining more acceptance, so there is not such a drive towards marriage. I'd say that at this point, if you feel that you need protection from your spouse, you simply should not be getting married in the first place. Think about how to do the risk calculation and figure out if it’s right for you. Roughly what’s your expected worth times the subjective probability you’ll get a divorce. Also should probably include a scale factor or term to account for the up front legal fees and the later fees. Now if not having a prenup come out as a risk adjusted loss say… -150k, then ask yourself if you’re willing and it’s reasonable to give your partner a gift of that size right now. Half of first-time marriages fail, so it's not more often than not. People also don't sign prenups because they expect that their marriage will last for the rest of their or their spouse's lives. Marriage is not supposed to be a short-lived of frivilous thing. My wife and I have prenup. Good to hear. Maybe follow up questions: Was it hard decision? How did you approach it? Does it affect 'dynamics' of the relationship as soon as you bring the subject into discussion? If you don't have trust in a relationship you don't have anything. In my case we were both broke when we got married anyway so nothing to prenup about.