Pre-nup v debt

claire21

74jaz was the person you married a second marriage or a first? If you don't mind commenting.

Mattygroves2

I don't think it matters whether your new spouse has debt or assets - either way my view is that once you are married then everything becomes joint. So if I married someone with debts then I would be very willing to help them pay them off which may mean paying off more than half. I would also expect them to be factored into any divorce situation and if there were any left at that point would expect to pay half.

However, I couldn't see many instances where I would fall in love with someone with debts as it would indicate different life values. Maybe debts from a divorce or a failed business but not just overspending unless they'd had a serious lightbulb moment.

Even without a pre nup there is no reason for a 50/50 split of assets if one brought in more than the other. It is for the two individuals to agree and I can see cases where someone may want to give more than 50% to the other particularly if there are kids involved or one has been a SAH partner (not necessarily for kids) so their earning power has been reduced.

I'm in the B category married to an A but in the early days of my marriage I wouldn't have asked for half even without a pre nup and even now after 20 years I know that I still wouldn't ask for half just enough to get set up in housing plus my own pension which would be about 20% if that.

74jax

claire21 wrote: »

74jaz was the person you married a second marriage or a first? If you don't mind commenting.

oooo I like being jaz rather than jax :rotfl:

Yes 2nd marriage for me, 1st for OH.

SandC

I believe also that on marriage things are then joint - whether that is debt or wealth.

The question being asked actually makes no sense to me. A pre-nup is normally something signed to say one party will not make a claim on the other's assets. So if it's related to debt then it should be the same - agreeing to not be involved in the other party's debts. I guess what both are saying is.... what we came with, we both leave with.

So no, I would not sign anything agreeing to take on someone else's debt. I may sign something agreeing not to try to claim their wealth, but that would only be the case if my husband to be was massively more wealthy than myself, ie. a totally different status whether through their own hard work or he was born into it.

An ex boss of mine had a prenup signed by his wife purely to cover the family business - as he was one of 6 owners (his mum, dad and siblings) it could potentially get very messy if any of them were to get divorced and start having to divvy up the firm. Bearing in mind they are not legally binding it would still probably influence a judge's decision if it came down to it.

tayforth

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

That annoys me that, when women automatically expect the man to pay for everything on the first date/s. Yes it's nice and chivalrous but nobody should ever expect it IMO....but that's a whole other topic! :rotfl:

I do expect a guy to pay for dinner on a first date, if he's asked me for dinner. It's just a nice, courteous thing to do IMHO.

But I don't expect him to pay for everything all night! I'll buy drinks etc. And if he pays for dinner on the first date, I'll pay on the second. If we're going to the cinema or just for drinks, I'll buy popcorn etc if he pays for the tickets, or every second round of drinks etc.

A friend of mine (in her single days) used to go out with enough for her taxi fare home and that was it! She never paid for anything on dates. I was appalled. :eek:

tayforth

To answer the OP - I would have serious doubts about marrying someone if they had debts as a result of spending recklessly. I've always been careful with money and I would want to know that the person I was going to marry would have the same values and goals as me.

I think that it would cause resentment in a marriage if one person spent carefully and saved for their (joint) future and the other just blew every penny they earned.

I wouldn't hesitate to marry someone with a lower income or less in savings, though.

FBaby

So if we use the person B

They marry A without a prenup , they become better off on divorce and A becomes worse off.
They marry A with a prenup, both parties walk away as they came.

They marry C without anything they signed and they both walk away as they came
They marry C signing for half the debt, they become worse off and C becomes better off.

But your argument seem to assume B is making the suggestion to have a pre-nup which clearly is unlikely to be the case.

In your scenario, in the case of A and B, A will be asking for prenup and it will be for B to agree or disagree. In the case of B and C, B would be asking for one and C would agree or not.

Also, once again, your scenario doesn't consider that B or C could be in a position to inherit at some point and become A.

whodathunkit

It's strange to hear someone describe equality in marriage and life long commitment to each other as a fairy tale.

claire21

FBaby wrote: »

But your argument seem to assume B is making the suggestion to have a pre-nup which clearly is unlikely to be the case.

In your scenario, in the case of A and B, A will be asking for prenup and it will be for B to agree or disagree. In the case of B and C, B would be asking for one and C would agree or not.

Also, once again, your scenario doesn't consider that B or C could be in a position to inherit at some point and become A.

Sorry you read it that way, no that's my bad typing, yes it would be A asking B as A is likely to be worse off without it.

Yes I do understand an inheritance could come but I was just trying to keep it as simple as possible

claire21

whodathunkit wrote: »

It's strange to hear someone describe equality in marriage and life long commitment to each other as a fairy tale.

It may not have been the best term to use but you understand what I mean, on our wedding day of course we all think how wonderful the day is and our dreams for the future to death and all that.

Every time we drive our car we think it's going to be fine, we don't get in it everyday thinking we are going to have an accident, yet some of us do.

I look at all the threads here on divorce and time and time again the financial aspect of it seems to be a problem, someone isn't happy about the outcome and it all seems to have come as a bit of a shock to them. I bet all those people thought on their wedding day they were going to live the "fairytale" but unfortunately it didn't have a happy ending.