A pre-nup agreement

[pavulon]

Tagging on to the "what's it like to be single" thread, what does it take to make a pre-nup agreement water-tight? Is there such thing? I'd imagine most going through with a second (or some other n) marriage and the remains of any significant assets would want one.

[dennis in se pa]

"water-tight". The lawyers will make you think it is water-tight so they can over charge you for the preparation and their "unequal expertise". Then someday the opposing lawyer will take half of what you have left in showing you it was not so water tight after all. Best pre nup is no "nup".

[wdfifteen]

I found out the hard way that the ante nuptial agreement must include a full and complete inventory of your assets. Anything not included in the inventory is up for dispute and you may loose it

[widgeon13]

do a mail order bride.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by dennis in se pa

"water-tight". The lawyers will make you think it is water-tight so they can over charge you for the preparation and their "unequal expertise". Then someday the opposing lawyer will take half of what you have left in showing you it was not so water tight after all. Best pre nup is no "nup".

Spot-on.

I also believe that it's pointless to be part of an institution that purports to be based on trust, mutual understanding, love, etc. and then need such a thing. If a pre-nup is required to protect onesself from the other person then it calls those founding tenets into question. Basically the whole rationale for marriage gets undermined so as I've said before, why bother? What does it really accomplish? What's the point?

Our societal values are totally incompatible with the classical notion of what marriage is or should be, which is probably why so many fail and those that don't result in mere tolerance on the part of the participants (really, how many people are together for no reason other than convenience or because they don't want to bother going through a potentially bitter, contentious and expensive divorce?)

It's outlived its usefulness in the context of our society, or perhaps our society is totally wrong (another discussion). Regardless, it isn't compatible with the way we live in this day, age and place.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

do a mail order bride.

+1
Order her from Amazon. Add Amazon Prime and get free shipping, add on Google Buyer Protection Plan to ensure you get the right item - a marriage made in cyberspace.

[dennis in se pa]

"mail order bride."

Russian?
Asian?
Costa Rican?

So many choices.

[sc_rufctr]

What about setting up a "Family Trust" instead? ... I'm not even sure that you have anything like this in the US but I'm assuming you do.
Everything you own then becomes owned by the "Trust". Normally you control the "Trust" or you can nominated someone else to control it. AT ANY TIME... (Hint Hint)
There's are not exclusive to rich people. IMO If you own your house you need a "Trust. You can also secure things like furniture and cars in a "Trust".

It's becoming more and more common in Australia for people to secure their assets this way.
That way your kids will get what's coming to them regardless of what may happen in any future relationship.

BUT "Porsche-O-Phile's" Post is worth reading over and over again.

[sand_man]

Cats are nice too!

[livi]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Spot-on.

I also believe that it's pointless to be part of an institution that purports to be based on trust, mutual understanding, love, etc. and then need such a thing. If a pre-nup is required to protect onesself from the other person then it calls those founding tenets into question. Basically the whole rationale for marriage gets undermined so as I've said before, why bother? What does it really accomplish? What's the point?

Our societal values are totally incompatible with the classical notion of what marriage is or should be, which is probably why so many fail and those that don't result in mere tolerance on the part of the participants (really, how many people are together for no reason other than convenience or because they don't want to bother going through a potentially bitter, contentious and expensive divorce?)

It's outlived its usefulness in the context of our society, or perhaps our society is totally wrong (another discussion). Regardless, it isn't compatible with the way we live in this day, age and place.

Agreed. Problem is that marriage is fundamentally and first of all a priority for women. Hence women tend to have a profound ache to get married and dodging that bullet is more than most men can handle in the long run.

[Dueller]

You never really know a woman until you meet her in court.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Dueller

You never really know a woman until you meet her in court.

A few of my friends who have gone through a divorce echoed those sentiments precisely. I am aware it is a two way street but the women in question went after these guys with vengeance bordering on glee.

To paraphrase Croce: ...when they pulled them from the court room floor
they looked like a jigsaw puzzle, with a couple of pieces gone.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Spot-on.

I also believe that it's pointless to be part of an institution that purports to be based on trust, mutual understanding, love, etc. and then need such a thing. If a pre-nup is required to protect onesself from the other person then it calls those founding tenets into question. Basically the whole rationale for marriage gets undermined so as I've said before, why bother? What does it really accomplish? What's the point?

Our societal values are totally incompatible with the classical notion of what marriage is or should be, which is probably why so many fail and those that don't result in mere tolerance on the part of the participants (really, how many people are together for no reason other than convenience or because they don't want to bother going through a potentially bitter, contentious and expensive divorce?)

It's outlived its usefulness in the context of our society, or perhaps our society is totally wrong (another discussion). Regardless, it isn't compatible with the way we live in this day, age and place.

I agree with the first paragraph. After all, how confident are you in the marriage that you are already preparing for divorce?

As for the rest, I'm sure many of the divorced crowd will agree wholeheartedly. Personally I think a good marriage reflects all that is good about humanity - trust, honesty, love, patience, kindness, etc. I am a better person in every possible way thanks to my wife.

Originally Posted by Dueller

You never really know a woman until you meet her in court.

Timely moment for you to reappear!

Originally Posted by Seahawk

A few of my friends who have gone through a divorce echoed those sentiments precisely. I am aware it is a two way street but the women in question went after these guys with vengeance bordering on glee.

To paraphrase Croce: ...when they pulled them from the court room floor
they looked like a jigsaw puzzle, with a couple of pieces gone.

I believe that would be an example of, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

[Baz]

Goes back to my three rules for survival....

[Shadetree930]

Originally Posted by Baz

Goes back to my three rules for survival....

1. Porn
2. Lotion
3. Tissues

Am I doing it right?

[Crowbob]

Any man who thinks women are not suitable for combat has not been through a divorce.

[Rick Lee]

Wouldn't a pre-nup help ensure the union really is about love instead of what the ex may end up with after divorce court? Seems to me, if a woman knows she'll walk with only what she brought to the marriage or half of what was acquired during the marriage, she'd be less likely to only go after someone with assets and less likely to give before really trying to work things out.

[pavulon]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

After all, how confident are you in the marriage that you are already preparing for divorce?

Can we presume that you are so confident in all matters that you are in no way insured? If you do own insurance, why? Do you lack confidence?

Life happens. People are not property. Everyone in this country has the right to walk on as little as a whim and there is nothing the other party can do. That is reality.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Wouldn't a pre-nup help ensure the union really is about love instead of what the ex may end up with after divorce court? Seems to me, if a woman knows she'll walk with only what she brought to the marriage or half of what was acquired during the marriage, she'd be less likely to only go after someone with assets and less likely to give before really trying to work things out.

That makes sense but I'm a man. I'm pretty sure women don't think the same as we do though.

[greglepore]

Back to the op's question, it usually requires complete disclosure of your existing assets and the opportunity for the other party to consult with counsel, acknowledged in the agreement. In that case, it is usually enforceable. State by state requirements may differ.