The usual objection to pre nups is that they immediately imply you don't trust each other and need elaborate safeguards to stop the other person behaving badly.
I guess most couples assume the marriage will work out just fine and there's no need to provide for all sorts of unlikely situations. Even if they know how many marriages collapse, they still don't think their own marriage might crumble.
I had a look at what pre nups usually cover:
- Rights over property, inheritances and other assets
- Protecting each spouse from the other's debts
- Each spouse's entitlement to the other's support
- How assets will be split if you divorce
- Providing for children by a previous marriage
People do add some unusual provisions to pre nups. An American couple agreed that if one of them cheated on the other, they would then have to pay all the household bills. Other pre nups have included the right to random drug tests on a spouse, the condition that a husband watches only one football game a week, and restrictions on the use of social media.
Pre nups might very well avoid some of the nastier marital bust-ups. But who wants to envisage bust-ups when you're still besotted with each other?
I think it's something that couples with a lot of money and property tend to do.
ReplyDeleteColette: That seems likely. You wouldn't want your spouse to walk off with a few million pounds!
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge, we don't have them over here.
ReplyDeleteRamana: Interesting. I found this comment online: "Such agreements are not legally tenable in India as the law doesn't consider marriage as a contract". How can marriage not be a contract?
DeleteAgain, to the best of my knowledge, since there are different types of marriages in India, Hindu, Muslim and Christian, it is cultural and not legal except when the couple go through what is known as a Civil Marriage by registering their marriage with the Registrar. It is however in the process of being changed and there is a move to bring about a uniform civil code for all religions.
DeleteI imagine a uniform civil code for marriage would make things a lot easier.
DeleteIt makes sense in some cases, where one person has an inheritance or kids. Two young people just starting out, it does seem sad that they are anticipating disaster.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: Indeed, sad if it's two young people feeling the need for extra legal niceties before they marry.
DeleteIn the work I was doing I saw so many instances where a pre-nup would have saved the day for the spouse, usually the woman. My contract would often stipulate a forensic on the errant spouse and yes, secret bank accounts, stocks and real property. Usually, but not always, with a lover on the side and a few times children.
ReplyDeleteTrust can be thrown out the door when a third party enters the picture. Even in "good" marriages.
XO
WWW
www: Yes, I can imagine a third party might really throw a spanner in the works. But how many starry-eyed couples take such a possibility seriously?
DeleteTo me, a pre-nup says you shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Why would you commit your life to a person you can't trust?
ReplyDeleteLinda Sand
Linda: Basically I agree with you, but I suppose some people like to plan for the future rather than just assuming everything will be fine.
DeleteIf a couple thinks they need a pre-nup, they do. I read that Melania revised her prenup when the D was elected, and again when he left office.
ReplyDeleteJoanne: Very sensible of Melania to update her pre nup, knowing how totally unreliable her husband is.
DeleteMy husband and I didn't have a pre-nup either. I suppose there can be situations when they might be a good idea if both parties agree that wouldn't reflect poorly on trust between the two.
ReplyDeleteJoared: I suppose you could argue that a pre nup is just an agreement about possible practical arrangements rather than a lack of trust.
DeleteIt's probably the right way to go for some couples, and none of my business!
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: As I said above, if it's just a question of making practical arrangements for the future, maybe that's sensible.
DeleteI had just turned 20 and she was 19. We were far away from our families and, a few weeks after our courthouse wedding, boxed up what little we had and got on a bus out of Illinois, heading for the future.
ReplyDeletePrenups are for people of means and more forethought than our 5 week engagement and marriage 7 weeks after we met... in 1972.
Mike: If you married seven weeks after you met, it's worked out pretty well! Maybe a pre nup would have been quite unnecessary.
DeleteKen and I didn't have one but we both came into the relationship with practically nothing. lol So it really wasn't needed.
ReplyDeleteMary: Having practically nothing certainly avoided a few knotty problems!
ReplyDelete