Fluffy stuff! :)

There is merit to this.


Imagine for a moment that you, the MAN, weren't the bread-winner. Would you sign a pre-nup to prove to your future wife you wanted her, and not a bunch of money?

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'll be fine.

I'd be fine with it also but most women would be offended that you even asked IMO.

I remember an episode of Sex in the City. They were actually talking about exactly how much her time was worth to her perspective husband.
They threw some figures around and from memory she wanted $500,000 if the marriage lasted less than 5 years.

I know it's only TV but a lot of women watched that show.

Also... That alimony thing must be a huge pain in the butt for you guys.

Pre-nups are wonderful things except they mean nothing in a divorce. You can write anything you want in them but what determines how things are divided is what the law says where you live.

And if there are kids involved a per-nup really means nothing.

Didn't Marla Maples angrily throw Donald Trump's engagement ring back at him (loudly, and across a hotel lobby I think) because he said no pre-nup, no marriage?

Paul McCartney was urged by many to have some sort of legal protection for his estate before marrying that one-legged homeless woman. Paul, ever the optimist, said no, not necessary. I think that error cost him at least 50 million dollars.

Tiger Woods. Like him or not, he blundered into marriage with Ellen Nordegren, she popped the required two babies, and then slammed her legs together. Tiger started looking elsewhere and it made Ellen 100 million dollars richer. I think they did have a pre-nup.

Trump has said (in an interview with CNBC's "money honey") that a pre-nup is "essential." I suppose he sees it as being smarter to have a pre-nup and pay less to defend it (her lawyers attacking it/his defending it) than to not have one at all and have to pay millions more.

Oh, and Mick Jagger's recent girlfriend. Fashion designer, I think, who was 5-6 million in debt. Mick wouldn't marry her (and pay off her debt) so she committed suicide.

Found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_divorces

I almost hate to weigh in on this, being one of those blood sucking, scum bag attorneys. I've drafted and defended several pre-nups. They really are a useful tool for an individual in situations where the individual is older, may have children from another marriage and want to insure the wealth they created prior to the marriage is preserved for their children. There are several other reasons for a pre-nup, but that is the one I have dealt with most often.

Kurt makes a valid point.

I will also add that to anyone would opposes a pre-nup....they should be reminded it's a moot point............................................. ..................until such time as the relationship falls apart.

So why, in theory, would anyone be opposed to one?

We all know who would oppose it and why.....I'm just stating it as an advisor would state it.

What about a Family Trust? Is that an option in the US?

I did a pre-nuptial. As part of the process of making it water tights I included a small interview on video of each of us with our lawyers describing exactly what we were doing, why we were doing it, consequences, etc.

Pre-Nupt + Video-Nupt. I'm sure somehow, some way they could try to over turn it...but I don't think it would be easy or cheap.

Don't forget realdoll.com ;)