My FDH is more financially developed than I am (I'm still in grad school, while he has owned him home for several years) and I offered him a prenup if he wanted one.
I pretty much said that I don't plan for us to ever split up, and I am not the sort to take advantage in a breakup, but I understand that we are in different financial situations, and any lawyer would advise that it would be wise of him to protect himself.
He said that our financial differences aren't substantial enough to worry about and that he realizes that getting married is agreeing to give me half his house, so he doesn't want one.
That's fine by me.

I think it is a touchier subject when the one with more money brings it up, because it is often perceived as "I don't trust you" even though it is just being responsible. TBH, I probably would have been a bit taken aback if FDH suggested it, even though I logically know that it would be wise of him and would have been fine with it.

This is hard because every situation is different. I would say use your judgement. If the man/woman won't work or hold a job I would consider that a red flag. If there are adult children involved with a bad case of gimmie gimmies I might demand a prenump and keep seperate accounts to assure my children are cared for properly. Gender shouldn't matter.

Personally I don't see the big deal with signing a prenump. Divorces happen. Nobody gets married thinking "YIPPIE!!!TEN YEARS FROM NOW WE GET TO DIVORCE!!" but it happens all the time. Whats the harm in making sure all parties,including the children,are protected?
That's just my opinion. I don't look at prenumps as a marriage death sentence but rather insurance for your family if worse was to come to worse.

It's such a personal decision that there is no right answer. It would depend on the motives and priorities of everyone involved. My uncle is in his 70's and was widowed last year. He has two grown kids. His daughter decided to leave her unhappy marriage, just after her mother died. Her kids are grown and I'm not sure what her financial situation is since she isn't local. His son is in his 40's and has never been 'on his own'. He's been in and out of prison and on drugs. His parents have bailed him out (enabled him) for far too long. My uncle is getting remarried on Saturday. He asked me about rewriting his will. Presumably, he is now going to either provide for his grandkids or leave everything to his new wife. He may leave it all to their church (he's asked for donations to a church charity in lieu of gifts at the wedding). But, whatever he decides to do is a personal decision. He has worked all his life for what he has but that doesn't entitle his children or grandchildren to it.

When you have younger children, then yes, it's very important that they are provided for first.... through at least college. However, my husband and I don't have a prenup. Maybe I'm a fool, but my kids are grown and his daughter isn't. If we split up, I would not want to put him in a position where his daughter would suffer because of it. That's the kind of person I am. I'm not worried about him taking advantage of me. My business is in MY name. He would have to prove his contribution to it's success and because of the nature of my business, he can't. We maintain some separate bank accounts. Anything we buy together is community property. As for worrying about him taking things that should go to my kids... well, as I was raising my kids, I've always told them that they are not entitled to what I work for. A gift is a gift and if I want to give to my kids or help them, it's a choice I will make at the time they need it. Now that they are adults, if they want to guarantee an inheritance, they can insure my life and pay the premiums. Otherwise, they can work hard and build their own life. I don't get why grown kids worry about what the parents do with their money. (or why anyone would worry about parents leaving grown kids anything. Not all grown kids are deserving of what their parents worked for)

Obviously, there are situations where a prenup or postnup would be appropriate. If my husband and I got into a financial position where a divorce would devastate one of us, I'd certainly consider signing a post nup to protect either or both of us. One party should never feel they have to stay in the relationship because they have to because leaving would be financially devastating. Both should feel secure and if a prenup or post nup makes them feel secure, then they should have one. I agree with doodle, it can be seen as insurance.

Sorry for the rambling on inheritance. But, finances are such a personal thing.

Ima, it is personal. I hope you suggested your uncle see an attorney who knows both family law and elderlaw.

I think part of the problem is without a prenup or postnup, a spouse can lose options. For example, my understanding is that in some states, a married person must leave a specified part of estate to spouse. Without prenup, you lose the ability to decide on your own. Whether you want to leave assets to child or spouse, you might want that to be your decision.

I think just talking with spoouse as to commitments to child, business etc helps.

I doubt I will ever remarry, but even if I married a billionair, I would bring up topic of prenup and would want one. I dont care if I am never wealthy, but at this point in my life, I cant afford to lose my house, my pension etc. If I were to marry I would share my lifestyle, but not willing to commit to more than that. Even if I were to live with someone, I would have a written agreement. Far better to discuss and agree on things than leave them up to fate (or state law).

As I mentioned in the post that probably spawned this thread, I'm getting married next month and I, w/the prodding of several friends, got up the courage to ask for a pre-nup. It was really something that I wanted to avoid because I felt that I appeared greedy and lacked faith in him/us. This is not true of me or how I feel. I mistakenly thought that if I was smart about things and never commingled our money and kept his name off of everything, then I would be protected in case of a divorce. Not true. The clincher for me were my IRA's. I also got burned in my previous marriage.

I am self-employed. It is tough being chief cook and bottle wash, much harder than being an employee. I don't get vacation or sick pay, I elected not to buy worker's comp for myself, I pay both sides employer/ee of FICA/Med taxes, when work is slow or somebody forgets their appointment, I don't get paid. To that there is all of the overhead. I don't live extravagantly and the one thing that I am determined to do every year is to fund my Roth and my SEP IRA's to the maximum allowable amount. I am counting on this money to see me through my "golden years" - not for trips, but just for survival. My job is very physical and as I am aging I am getting little injuries that don't heal as quickly. This is why I am in school again b/c I physically won't be able to continue my current occupation much beyond the next few years.

I know that STBDH wants everything he owns to go to his Adult D's and he has said so many times. I agree that it should go to them. We are both to inherit real estate - the homes that each of us was raised. My STBMIL wants the house to be passed down to his kids, technically I would be entitle to half of it if we don't have an agreement before hand, and he would be entitled to half of mine. To add to this, the older DD is quite selfish and both STBDH and STBMIL realize that there will be a problem when they die b/c she will try to screw her sister our of everything.

Both young women also don't know about our marriage plans next month (I think they should, but not my decision nor for this thread). When I asked him about a pre-nup, I mentioned that we should do this because his DD's will probably be very unhappy when they find out we got married and be even more insecure about me "being entitled to things that they believe are rightfully theirs", plus I explained the above. We came up with an agreement that is non-offensive to either of us, protects both of us and especially his kids - and I made extra sure to have a special clause that mentions his kids so that they know we considered them.

In the eyes of the law marriage is a contract, although we know it is more than that, and I would have to say that a pre/post nup is just an addendum to that contract. If STB DH refused to do this, I think I would have retained an attorney for options and probably set up a trust for myself. It shouldn't be about business, but when money is involved that usually how it works. We've all heard about high functioning, intact families that come apart at the seams over the family estate.

Frankly, I think it's very much dependent on the age and stage of the people getting married.

- For two young people just starting out, it seems pretty pointless unless one of them has reason to expect a sizeable inheritance.

- For two middle-aged or older adults who each have kids and property, it would be pretty foolish NOT to have one.

- For everyone else, it's a matter of individual circumstances and personal views.

As someone who is currently administering an estate and who recently helped administer three others, let me say how helpful it is when things are spelled out clearly and legally, and how awful it is when they're not. And this was in families where the heirs did not fight about belongings. It would have been infinitely more important if the people involved were prone to fighting.

Folks - We are all going to die. Every one of us. Clean up your paperwork!

Everything gets tougher when you get older -- LOL.

As TOS will tell you, you cant even use a prenup to avoid certain student loan issues. And a prenup cant help with certain health care issues -- as to responsiblity for a spouse. These and other reasons lead to some middle aged and older people not wanting to get married.

" And a prenup cant help with certain health care issues -- as to responsiblity for a spouse."

KKNY, please explain this to me. I don't have a prenup but a friend does and I'm interested in knowing about this. I've never heard this particular thing.

My understanding is that if a spouse would otherwise qualify for certain govt programs for low-income persons, including Medicaid, certain jointly held assets must be used to pay for health care. while the house doesnt have to be sold, it will go to the govt at the death of the second spouse, and a prenup will not change that. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but I wouldnt want my assets to pay for long term health care of a recently married spouse (OK, OK, I dont have a spouse). That is why I suggested that Imas uncle be advised to see an attorney who is experienced in elder care and family law.