what do you people think of pre-nups?

[cong]

pre-nuptial agreement.

does it cancel the purpose of sharing everything in a marriage or does it protect both partys individual interests?

speak up. :)

[piglet]

i was kinda' ok with this before but then i've read about some really ridiculous pre-nups... like there's this thing that the wife shouldn't exceed a certain weight while she is married to her husband, i.e., she shouldn't get fat! duh... isn't that just sooo pathetic? :bonkself:

[cong]

Originally posted by piglet
i was kinda' ok with this before but then i've read about some really ridiculous pre-nups... like there's this thing that the wife shouldn't exceed a certain weight while she is married to her husband, i.e., she shouldn't get fat! duh... isn't that just sooo pathetic? :bonkself:

so you dont think that it cancels the point of sharing everything in a marriage?



people speak up!

[pinkmoon]

Yes. It also indicates that material gain is given more importance than the union itself.

[cong]

Originally posted by pinkmoon
Yes. It also indicates that material gain is given more importance than the union itself.

so you think its absurd to have one, correct?

[pinkmoon]

Originally posted by cong


so you think its absurd to have one, correct?

In the TRADITIONAL senes of marriage where the emphasis is placed on the relationship as a complete union, yes.

But in these modern times where more and more people are getting married for purposes of security such as furthering a career, purposes of companionship, etc., then it is only practical. These aren't necessarily sham marriages, simply sort of mutual arrangements between two consenting parties.

[cong]

Originally posted by pinkmoon


In the TRADITIONAL senes of marriage where the emphasis is placed on the relationship as a complete union, yes.

But in these modern times where more and more people are getting married for purposes of security such as furthering a career, purposes of companionship, etc., then it is only practical. These aren't necessarily sham marriages, simply sort of mutual arrangements between two consenting parties.

okay.

my girlfriend and i had a discussion about this last night. im for practically and all, but i dont know about this issue, parang, it cheapens the whole marriage process. i mean, i look at marriage as this institution where everything is shared, on the other hand, youre right, mutual arrangements should also be in place to protect individual interests.

[pinkmoon]

Well, it's not a requirement naman eh, it's an option. So by opting not to draw one up, then you and your "betrothed" are exercising your right to engage in a traditional type marriage. And anyway, marriage is mostly a legal issue that at many times has no bearing on the couple's relationship. So many couples out there have carried on beautiful relationships without actually getting married.

At saka I've seen these mutual type arrangements work out naman eh. One of my ninangs who is a successful doctor in the Seattle area got married in her early 40's to a guy who had attained equal success in his own field. Neither party wanted to have children, but were fond of each other and got together for the companionship and the security. So yes they signed a pre-nup kasi they already had their own assests going into the marriage. And they're very frank about their relationship, they're not hypocrites about it. At least they're getting along where many other couples in a traditional type marriage don't.

[cong]

Originally posted by pinkmoon
Well, it's not a requirement naman eh, it's an option. So by opting not to draw one up, then you and your "betrothed" are exercising your right to engage in a traditional type marriage. And anyway, marriage is mostly a legal issue that at many times has no bearing on the couple's relationship. So many couples out there have carried on beautiful relationships without actually getting married.

At saka I've seen these mutual type arrangements work out naman eh. One of my ninangs who is a successful doctor in the Seattle area got married in her early 40's to a guy who had attained equal success in his own field. Neither party wanted to have children, but were fond of each other and got together for the companionship and the security. So yes they signed a pre-nup kasi they already had their own assests going into the marriage. And they're very frank about their relationship, they're not hypocrites about it. At least they're getting along where many other couples in a traditional type marriage don't.

okay. thanks, as usual.

[NOKiE]

I see pre-nups as insurance for at least one of the two in case of divorce or separation...why get married then?

[RalphLauren18]

cong: im not sure about prenuptial agreement here in US but as far as i know the couple can share each of their assets so that if they've got divorced they will still be able to have it.

But I know sure about "Absolute Property" before marriage is like they have to settle things bago ikasal.

That's why we can't be able to say "Kaya sya pinakasalan dahil mayaman" We just don't know what's the truth behind those hearts. And bihira na pinakakasalan dahil sa money coz there's a law that could support your assets. Wonder why malaki nakukuha ng girls sa alimony .... tsk tsk wawa naman tayong mga lalaki?!?!

[Lush]

Personally, I think a pre-nuptial agreement is a bomb waiting to explode. I would probably be insulted if my significant other suddenly shoves one in my face after our engagement because it would imply that he doesn't trust the strength of our union, that it won't last forever. If he doubts it, I would wonder why he does and subsequently doubt it myself, which could lead to the (further?) weakening of our relationship, which could lead to our breaking up completely!

I'd rather let the law prevail if we separate after marriage instead of letting my partner intercept it with a pre-nup.

[Clover_Gurrll]

A prenup won't hold water in the court anyway, especially in the States. Its just a waste of time, effort and money.

BTW, here's a story told by an aunt and it happened in the 80s. This item made it into a social column in one of the leading newspapers in Manila.

The day before the wedding, the groom--a scion of a rich Chinese family and sole heir, went to visit his bride--the daughter of a rich Chinese family and their unica hija. The purpose of the visit--the groom wanted the bride to sign a prenup stating that their (his family's) properties/riches/money stay within his family. The bride was hurt but was too proud to show it. She signed the prenup. The day of the wedding came--the basilica is filled with guests/friends/relatives. The bride was late. After about an hour of waiting--the groom received word that the bride went to the US and that the wedding is off. The groom and his family went to the reception that they paid for with their dignity dashed to the ground. Kahiya-hiya! Bee buti nga.

[kurnel]

First off, a prenup <b>will</b> hold water in the Philippines so long as the proper legal measures are taken (which these are exactly, I don't know. You'll have to get a lawyer to tell you)

On my end, I don't think that there's anything wrong with a pre-nup. In fact, I'm totally for it (and to tell you frankly, in the Philippines, I can't find any reasons for not wanting to have one other than greed or a misinformed decision making process).

If the couple does break up, the pre-nup could save a lot of costly litigation, and at the very least, make sure that the least amount of each spouses' estate would be lost, and either side gets what was rightfully theirs before the marriage. Letting the law prevail will just make sure that BOTH of you have next to nothing in the end due to lawyers fees and stuff (and besides, the pre-nup IS the law prevailing!)

More importantly, the pre-nup is more useful if the couple DOES <b> NOT </b> break up. By Philippine law, the estates of each spouse are joined as one during marriage unless there is some sort of agreement otherwise. When one spouse dies, half of the estate goes to the surviving spouse, and the other half is divided between the spouse and the children. BEFORE THAT HAPPENS THOUGH, THE ESTATE IS SUBJECT TO TAXES. When the other spuse dies, the estate is TAXED <b><i><u>AGAIN</u></i></b> before it goes to the children. Furthermore, the taxes will be considerably smaller if the estates are cut in half before the marriage (because, for example, the taxes for 2 1 million peso estates when added are smaller than the taxes for a 2 million peso estate - especially if its taxed twice!). The pre-nup will make sure that more of your hard earned money goes to your children (or whoever you decide on) instead of the government.

[Lush]

Yes, I understand the legal implications of pre-nuptials. My main concern is that although each pre-nup is different, they are avenues for stipulations and conditions in the interests of property, ownership, worth, and/or custody. Being presented with a pre-nup implies that "security" is more important than anything else and practical as that may be, I would still feel somewhat offended if that happens, personally. It totally flies against the face of the concept of marriage.

Call me old-fashioned, romantic, whatever -- I still think that if someone is banking on the failure of the marriage or is marrying for the wrong reasons, then they shouldn't get married at all. You can't have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it, too. :bleh:

[DELISYUS]

i think pre-nups are a great way to minimize material fears.....and i'd go for it myself when i get married...not because i have much property.....but because am also not marrying the guy for his property/ies :)

and it gives me great pleasure that if ever i come into money....i'd decide to share it with my husband.....and not the law!!!

[cong]

Originally posted by Clover_Gurrll
A prenup won't hold water in the court anyway, especially in the States. Its just a waste of time, effort and money.


i talked to four lawyers so far about this and two of them said the same thing, prenups can be disputed in court.

interesting. well, thanks for responding.

[cong]

Originally posted by DELISYUS
i think pre-nups are a great way to minimize material fears.....and i'd go for it myself when i get married...not because i have much property.....but because am also not marrying the guy for his property/ies :)

and it gives me great pleasure that if ever i come into money....i'd decide to share it with my husband.....and not the law!!!

good point.

[BadGiRL]

Well, I'm all for it. Why not d ba?

I mean, this way, the guy and his side knows I'm not after his money if he is much more monied than I am. And if he isn't exactly on the same financial standing as I am, the people around us will know and keep their mouths shut since they see na the guy didn't marry me for my money.

And I think I can make my own money. Not naman siguro to the extent of owning half a town (but then again..malay mo db? :D ) but I can always live comfortably on my own.

The most important thing is............ since there looms the possibility of termination and eklat, both parties will work harder to make the marriage work. Parang mas ok kung may divorce, kasi there always looms the possibility of divorce..kaya d mag papabaya ang both parties.

One of the reasons marriages fail in the rp is because feeling nila since sila na forever and ever without escape... papabaya na sila...pumapangit na sila (d lang hitsura.)

[kurnel]

Originally posted by cong


i talked to four lawyers so far about this and two of them said the same thing, prenups can be disputed in court.

interesting. well, thanks for responding.

Yup. Anything CAN be disputed in court. The point of putting in the legal safeguards beforehand is to make sure that the disputes get thrown out the window if ever they materialize. If your lawyer knows what he or she is doing, its almost certain that whatever dispute can be averted. (some things are just beyond what can be put in pre-nups, such as for example in the Philippines, what the couple makes TOGETHER cannot be added in the pre-nup. If the lawyer knows how to do things, things like that won't be added)

[kurnel]

Originally posted by Lush
Being presented with a pre-nup implies that "security" is more important than anything else and practical as that may be, I would still feel somewhat offended if that happens, personally. It totally flies against the face of the concept of marriage.

Call me old-fashioned, romantic, whatever -- I still think that if someone is banking on the failure of the marriage or is marrying for the wrong reasons, then they shouldn't get married at all. You can't have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it, too. :bleh:

I don't agree with this. You CAN have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it too.. that's the whole point of it. A pre-nup can be made to make the marriage more secure. Just because you have a pre-nup doesn't mean that your banking on the failure of the marriage. I even think that your banking on its survival given the fact that the pre-nup gives you the chance to leave more for your children and/or spouse.

Lastly, I really don't think that a pre-nup goes against the concept of marriage. A marriage is the union of 2 individuals - not 2 halves that make a whole, but 2 wholes that make an even larger whole. The individual doesn't cease to be an individual. Just because the other person doesn't pool their material properties with yours doesn't mean that he or she isn't sharing himself or herself. So, where does the pre-nup go against this concept? :bleh:

[DELISYUS]

wonder if i can put a clause in it that will say....that if my husband ever hits/batters/beats me up.....and i decide to get an annulment/divorce/separation because of that reason.....eh i can also get all his properties :)

la lang.....

[kurnel]

Originally posted by DELISYUS
wonder if i can put a clause in it that will say....that if my husband ever hits/batters/beats me up.....and i decide to get an annulment/divorce/separation because of that reason.....eh i can also get all his properties :)

la lang.....

hehe. even if you could (which I'm not sure if you can - better ask a lawyer), he still has to agree :p

[cong]

Originally posted by kurnel
Lastly, I really don't think that a pre-nup goes against the concept of marriage. A marriage is the union of 2 individuals - not 2 halves that make a whole, but 2 wholes that make an even larger whole. The individual doesn't cease to be an individual. Just because the other person doesn't pool their material properties with yours doesn't mean that he or she isn't sharing himself or herself. So, where does the pre-nup go against this concept? :bleh:

good point.

i am torn when it comes to this issue. but then again, im never getting married, so it doesnt matter.

marriage is just too sacred to put up a barrier. on the other hand, theres really nothing wrong in protecting your intrests.

[cong]

Originally posted by DELISYUS
wonder if i can put a clause in it that will say....that if my husband ever hits/batters/beats me up.....and i decide to get an annulment/divorce/separation because of that reason.....eh i can also get all his properties :)

la lang.....

you can put include anything you want. provided, of course, that both parties agree.

[Ally_McBeal]

it contradicts the what's-yours-is-mine-and-what's-yours-is-yours part in the couple's vows... and it just gives us this notion that the marriage is bound to end somehow...

but for practical purposes, ok na rin yan...as long as both parties give their consent with the arrangements...:D

[kurnel]

Originally posted by Ally_McBeal
it contradicts the what's-yours-is-mine-and-what's-yours-is-yours part in the couple's vows...

well, think of it this way, it can be "yours" without you having ownership of it. it can be shared with you still...

[Clover_Gurrll]

Got this gem from a friend:
---------
Under most circumstances prenups aren't worth the legal fees or the potential damage they do to a relationship. In California (I'm sure cong will attest to this), they can't protect you from alimony, child support, or your responsibilities under the affidavit of support. Unless your state laws are different, what's yours going into the marriage is yours coming out (good idea to fully document your assets before marriage) so you don't usually buy yourself any more protection with a contract than you already have.

One other thing that at least two attorneys told me is that prenuptial agreements can be voided by a court if they are deemed to be unfair. The "gentleman" with the contract that states that his wife would get nothing in the event of a divorce has probably ensured that the contract will be thrown out of court by making it so one-sided.

I think there are two circumstances in which a prenuptial agreement is a very good idea. One is when you're a business owner, especially in a partnership with someone. You wouldn't want an ex-wife being part owner of your business. They could severely hamper your ability to make a living by interfering (legally) in the business. If you have partners, you could be damaging them as well as yourself with a bad marriage.

The other circumstance where I think it's a good idea is when you have heirs you wish to leave something to in your will. I believe most states entitle the surviving spouse to the entire estate. A contract can insure that at least part of it goes to your children for example. Don't try for all of it or the old "unfair contract" could get it thrown out of court. Would you really want to leave your wife destitute in the event of your death anyway?

I've never heard of anyone really wanting a contract for these two reasons. What I generally hear is men chasing women 1/2 their age who are afraid that the woman is using them. They want to marry the young stuff without losing anything when she dumps him. That's a crude way of putting it, but I believe it captures the heart of the matter. Generally these types are so selfish and paranoid that they inevitably create a contract
so unfair that it effectively guarantees it could be thrown out of court if the wife finds an attorney willing to represent her.

[cong]

thank you for sharing that, Clover_Gurrll.

youre right about the first part. no matter what it says on your pre-nup, you will pay vaginamony a.k.a. alimony and child support. a pre-nup can only go so far, at the end of the day, you will be required to pay up a "fair" amount.

[Lush]

Originally posted by kurnel
I don't agree with this. You CAN have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it too.. that's the whole point of it. A pre-nup can be made to make the marriage more secure. Just because you have a pre-nup doesn't mean that your banking on the failure of the marriage. I even think that your banking on its survival given the fact that the pre-nup gives you the chance to leave more for your children and/or spouse.

Out of the many things that make a pre-nup, these two are most notable: 1) conditions and the consequences of violating these, and 2) establishment of wealth, property, and/or worth. How does it make a marriage more secure? Is it because a couple will keep thinking about it whenever something negative pops up? "Oh God, I can't do this or that because blah pe-nup condition blah." That's precisely why I don't want a pre-nup. It's naive to think that it won't be hanging over your heads during the entirety of the marriage, and being mindful of the marriage only because of the pre-nup clauses instead of the actual marriage vows is just wrong, to me.

Most pre-nups are designed to address the issue of what will be done in case of the dissolution of the marriage. Let me ask you this: were there ever pre-nups before the issues of legal separation or divorce ever popped up?

Lastly, I really don't think that a pre-nup goes against the concept of marriage. A marriage is the union of 2 individuals - not 2 halves that make a whole, but 2 wholes that make an even larger whole. The individual doesn't cease to be an individual. Just because the other person doesn't pool their material properties with yours doesn't mean that he or she isn't sharing himself or herself. So, where does the pre-nup go against this concept? :bleh:

When people marry, they are supposed to stay married "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health" until death do they part. That was the original idea, anyway. :rolleyes:

[tr|n|ty]

without reading all the posts here,
i think pre nups are very much welcome at this day and age. It maybe something that connote an impending divorce in the future but it's just a precaution especially for couples who are equally successful. Getting separated is something we have to take into consideration. it's not like we are surrendering to the inevitable but hey, i'd rather be prepared. I don't mind signing a pre nup as long as it's fair for me, my husband and our future kids. The most important thing for me when i do get married is providing my kids the best possible future and that means financial security.

[kurnel]

Originally posted by Lush

Out of the many things that make a pre-nup, these two are most notable: 1) conditions and the consequences of violating these, and 2) establishment of wealth, property, and/or worth. How does it make a marriage more secure? Is it because a couple will keep thinking about it whenever something negative pops up? "Oh God, I can't do this or that because blah pe-nup condition blah." That's precisely why I don't want a pre-nup. It's naive to think that it won't be hanging over your heads during the entirety of the marriage, and being mindful of the marriage only because of the pre-nup clauses instead of the actual marriage vows is just wrong, to me.

Yes, i agree with you, using a pre-nup that way is totally against what marriage is supposed to be. There is the opposite end of the spectrum though, a lot of your conflicts on how to use your what you have can be avoided because of what you put in the pre-nup.

Take note, that small example above is only the tip of the iceberg and there are A LOT more avenues I can think of that will show you how it can make a marriage more secure WITHOUT having to use the concept of fear.

Originally posted by Lush

Most pre-nups are designed to address the issue of what will be done in case of the dissolution of the marriage. Let me ask you this: were there ever pre-nups before the issues of legal separation or divorce ever popped up?

That's the operative word, MOST . Just because you have one doesn't mean yours has to be like that. Like you, I am totally against unfair pre-nups. So my question is, "just because others HAVE one like that, do you have to have one like it too?"

Also, it isn't fair to ask the question "Let me ask you this: were there ever pre-nups before the issues of legal separation or divorce ever popped up?". Since the concept of marriage was accepted by society, marriages have broken up and failed, albeit in different ways. History will attest to that. A more concrete example from history being King Henry VII of England having his wives beheaded - thereby ending the marriage by death. Since now, people can't have their spouses beheaded, and since marriages are still breaking up, pre-nups are there. I am totally for the institution of marriage and every part of it standing up to the test of time, and it being an avenue to share yourself not only with your spouse, but also with your children. That's why I think a pre-nup helps by making sure you leave more for your children and even your spouse.

As you hopefully have seen above, there are benefits of having a pre-nup. Just because others abuse the benefits doesn't meant that YOU should throw out the whole package. A pre-nup doesn't have to a "be-take-it-all-or-take-nothing" unless YOU want it to be, and that's why you can have your pre-nup cake and eat it too.
You can get the benefits if you use what you have properly.

Originally posted by Lush
When people marry, they are supposed to stay married "for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health" until death do they part. That was the original idea, anyway. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Like I mentioned before, just because you promise to stick together doesn't mean that you HAVE to pool what you have together to keep that vow.

My point: Look at the whole picture :)

[Lush]

Originally posted by kurnel
A pre-nup doesn't have to a "be-take-it-all-or-take-nothing" unless YOU want it to be, and that's why you can have your pre-nup cake and eat it too.
You can get the benefits if you use what you have properly.


Ah, but my problem with the pre-nup is that it is one party who presents it to the other -- the party usually being the more financially advantaged one. It's like saying, "You can marry me for my money but only if..." or "You can marry me, but I need an x amount of money/sex/children over x amount of time..." hence my assertion of "you can't have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it, too" because, let's face it, it's naive to think that this doesn't happen. I think that if you're going to marry someone with these conditions, then maybe you shouldn't get married at all.

As for the big picture, the pre-nup may very well be the 20th/21st century's portrait of practicality amidst human relations. And it goes against every ideal that I stand for.

[kurnel]

Originally posted by Lush

Ah, but my problem with the pre-nup is that it is one party who presents it to the other -- the party usually being the more financially advantaged one. It's like saying, "You can marry me for my money but only if..." or "You can marry me, but I need an x amount of money/sex/children over x amount of time..." hence my assertion of "you can't have your pre-nuptial cake and eat it, too" because, let's face it, it's naive to think that this doesn't happen. I think that if you're going to marry someone with these conditions, then maybe you shouldn't get married at all.

As for the big picture, the pre-nup may very well be the 20th/21st century's portrait of practicality amidst human relations. And it goes against every ideal that I stand for.

Well, its also naive NOT to think that there will be no problems along those lines. At least this way, both of you accept the possibility that problems like that could occur, and you are both taking steps to address those problems before the occur. (and as I mentioned, even if they don't occur, you still have the benefits that it brings)

Still and all, I'll still repeat what I said before, you don't have to look at it the way you are looking at it. Try to see the good side, and accept that it could be bad when its abused. After that, just be careful with it after.

[Lush]

Of course problems can, will, and do occur -- that's all part of a marriage. Marriage involves hard work; the two people in it have to MAKE it work. It's all about togetherness and sharing, and that includes not only the good but the bad, not only the emotional but the material. It's not a joke. People should know not only what they're getting into but also each other. Trust is involved in a huge chunk of it: themselves, the future, etc. Nobody can predict what will happen in a marriage but with a pre-nup, you are in a way trying to define what might happen and what to do, just in case, and that undermines the whole thing. I don't think that people should be able to waive (some of) their marital responsibilities with a pre-nup. I don't think that people should attach material conditions to a marriage. :disgust:

Just plonking down my 2 cents, again.

[kurnel]

Originally posted by Lush
Of course problems can, will, and do occur -- that's all part of a marriage. Marriage involves hard work; the two people in it have to MAKE it work. It's all about togetherness and sharing, and that includes not only the good but the bad, not only the emotional but the material. It's not a joke. People should know not only what they're getting into but also each other. Trust is involved in a huge chunk of it: themselves, the future, etc. Nobody can predict what will happen in a marriage but with a pre-nup, you are in a way trying to define what might happen and what to do, just in case, and that undermines the whole thing. I don't think that people should be able to waive (some of) their marital responsibilities with a pre-nup. I don't think that people should attach material conditions to a marriage. :disgust:

Just plonking down my 2 cents, again.

I hope you believe me when I tell you this, but I'd want my marriage to be as ideal as that. Still and all, even you admitted that a marriage just isn't like that. Marriage HAS material conditions attached, and a pre-nup doesn't cut them out, but defines them and makes them clear beforehand. (For whatever reason, and from the posts above, you have acknowledged that some of those reasons indeed can be beneficial to the couple as well as their children).

I don't see anything wrong with that. To me, I think it is a measure of how much the couple are indeed aware of what they are getting into, making the necessary preparations (whatever those preparations may be, that's up to them. Like I mentioned, the pre-nup doesn't have to follow the negative norm that people assign to it)

Anyway, thanks for your two cents over and over again. I guess we have our own opinions on things. I may not agree with yours, but I'm glad that you "spoke up" :) . Thanks for the cute discussion :D

[congster]

bump

[makata]

pre-nups are a must however, i think they arent really there to test another person's interest in what you own. here's the thing, i worked my a$$ of to have what i have and im pretty much sure that it works the same way with the one i would want to be with. if that is not the case, then dude, you'd better think twice about being with the chick and vice versa. whats yours is yours and what's mine is mine. money should never be an issue in any relationship, once it does, then thats where everything falls apart. kapag wallet ko na ang pinaguusapan, eh wag na tayong mag-usap. u have your properties which i dont think ill ever be interested in, likewise i have mine. "owning" as much as "sharing" should be discussed especially when it involves a deeper and more serious relationship. it's okay to share but to act as if everything is conjugal, er.... di kaya pagpapakagagow na yon? i would really hate to be blunt but if one is better off than the other and one acts as if everything is theirs, obviously one is in the relationship just for the dough. ito nalang to, simple way to describe people who are in it for the money "para kayong mga langaw na naktungtong sa likod ng kalabaw, at kung magsisiasta kayo, kala ninyo na kayo mismo yung kalabaw".

[congster]

Originally posted by makata
whats yours is yours and what's mine is mine.


doesnt it cancel the purpose of sharing EVERYTHING once a couple is married?

money should never be an issue in any relationship...

be careful, some people will argue that by drafting a pre-nup, youre already making money an issue. works both ways.

[LaTtE`M]

The unity mentioned in marriage is something more pertinent to "spiritual" and "emotional" unity, as well as a precursor to the concept of "family." If it is forced upon the concept of "private property", it would seem that the marriage was in fact done to serve THAT particular purpose.

The issue that has to be clear when marriages are drawn up are on which property becomes conjugal and which property remains personal/private.

And yes, MONEY IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN MARRIAGE. Unlike in lovelives, when you're married, you are earning not only to sustain yourself, but to sustain your wife as well. It's not like you're on an eternal date where you simply decide who treats who.

Anyone who denies the place of monetary issues in marriage is as naive as a moron born yesterday.

[congster]

Originally posted by LaTtE`M
The issue that has to be clear when marriages are drawn up are on which property becomes conjugal and which property remains personal/private.


again, dont you think this cancels the purpose of sharing EVERYTHING in a marriage?

Anyone who denies the place of monetary issues in marriage is as naive as a moron born yesterday.


agreed. this is the reason why were having this discussion right now.

[LaTtE`M]

Originally posted by congster

again, dont you think this cancels the purpose of sharing EVERYTHING in a marriage?



No.

Of course the legal obligations to provide would still exist, but to surrender all your private property to your partner is never advisable. It shouldn't be an issue anyway.

My parents have accounts for themselves besides their joint account. They've lived in harmony for the past 22 years. As far as I'm concerned, at least in the past 10 years or so, that decision to keep separate accounts was never an issue.

[congster]

Originally posted by LaTtE`M
No.

Of course the legal obligations to provide would still exist, but to surrender all your private property to your partner is never advisable. It shouldn't be an issue anyway.


okay. i just think that surrendering and sharing are two different things.

but thanks.

[LaTtE`M]

Originally posted by congster


okay. i just think that surrendering and sharing are two different things.

but thanks.

That was exactly my point. Some people equivocate sharing to surrendering. Sharing implies a voluntary act and should result in mutual benefit in the financial sense: I chip in my fair share, you chip in yours, life is a breeze. No one has to put ALL the money into one bank account or something.

That's what happened in the case in your "half? half!" thread isn't it? The guy was ordered by the court to surrender his property to the woman.

[congster]

Originally posted by LaTtE`M
That was exactly my point. Some people equivocate sharing to surrendering. Sharing implies a voluntary act and should result in mutual benefit in the financial sense: I chip in my fair share, you chip in yours, life is a breeze.


in theory, of course.

i get you, dude. thats why youre all for pre-nups.

i can understand that.

No one has to put ALL the money into one bank account or something.


agreed. but were not talking about bank accounts here. were talking pre-nups.

That's what happened in the case in your "half? half!" thread isn't it? The guy was ordered by the court to surrender his property to the woman.

because there was no pre-nup, more than half of his total worth. jeesuz h. christ! i still cringe at the thought.

good point.

i still see it both ways.

[LaTtE`M]

Originally posted by congster

agreed. but were not talking about bank accounts here. were talking pre-nups.



I just happened to blurt that out because usually the people who don't believe in pre-nups are also the people who believe that they should pool absolutely everything into a joint bank account. (read: wife blurting out "oi badong, sweldo mo ngayon ah, akina pera mo!")

Oh well, that's another thread :glee:

[makata]

Originally posted by congster


doesnt it cancel the purpose of sharing EVERYTHING once a couple is married?

i meant originally mine. what i have before i met you. sorry bout that. my parents have separate and joint accounts. think that works best. how it works is they use the joint account to pay for utilities , the mortgage... split everything fity percent. but other than that, what's mom's is mom's and what's dad's is dad's. worked for them... i think thats a good arragement.



be careful, some people will argue that by drafting a pre-nup, youre already making money an issue. works both ways.

i agree. should i say prevention from further monetary issues then? just sign the damn paper, everyone would be happy! i know i would! haha

[nakupo]

I do not hv a lot of assets & i do not expect 2 receive any great inheritances so i think i really do not need 2 bother with a prenuptial agreement. :glee:

Those who wld benefit from this agreement r the enormously successful business person who has acquired a "trophy wife" — a beautiful, glamorous partner 2 enhance his public image — would want an agreement "very badly". :)

But what about d less moneyed ppl like me? Frankly, in a 1st marriage, for a young couple just starting out together, it's insanity. Most people shld think long & hard before they decide 2 hve a prenuptial agreement. They're going 2 try 2 build a life together based on mutual sharing and trust. They hve 2 learn 2 deal w/ each other as best they can. If they can't make it, they can't make it.

Even in relationships where there is a substantial disparity of money & power, I still wonder whether it isn't an undue burden on 2 marriage 2 hv a premarital agreement. I believe, it's important 2 be very careful of whom u marry & get 2 know them as well as you can. But 2 say that d agreement is going 2 solve d kind of problems that arise after marriage, I just don't think so.

I dont want 2 negotiate a separation in advance of my marriage. It always gives that partner the feeling she's/he's not really part of a marriage. There always seems to be mistrust after that, and it's a difficult way to start a marriage. :)

[congster]

Originally posted by nakupo
I dont want 2 negotiate a separation in advance of my marriage. It always gives that partner the feeling she's/he's not really part of a marriage. There always seems to be mistrust after that, and it's a difficult way to start a marriage. :)

gud pt. ur ok, f only ull ryt d ryt wy.

tnx.

[lilsue]

this thread should be up there...where everybody can see it.

Love makes a lot of people stupid most of the time. Based on family members and people I know...Pre-nup agreement should really be done. I just can't imagine myself if I worked so hard for my son/daughter to give them everything and sudddenly when they marry their bf/gf and the family is not well-off...I wouldn't want them to take advantage of my kids inheritance...believe me, i know a lot of people who did this and I feel sorry for the parents.

[Shokosugi]

Wake up, love/marriage is not a fairy tale. Having a pre-nup is the responsible thing to do, specially if you're involved in business transactions, etc.

[tidus1203]

I am also in favor of pre-nup. Hell I wouldnt be offended if my supposed to be wife ask me to sign a pre-nup.

[City_Girl]

It's necessary if you have any asset to protect.

[darth_vader]

i've got no problem with this.....

my wife and i have pre-nup. it was kinda hilarious when i knew i had to sign. it wasn't even her who told me...it was her brother, :lol: ....i called and informed her family we're getting married and he asked "did your lawyer check the papers already?"

and i said.."huh, what papers?"....:rotflmao:

and nope, i wasn't offended because i already had an idea that something like that was already prepared years ago..... no other than the man who spoiled my wife....the daddy...

besides, i haven't heard anyone of my friends who got hitched without one....

[dalepatrick]

it does mean that you don't have mutual trust to each other

[mrunner]

i think it is a must if you are a millionaire. i remember paul mccartney when he married his ex, he said it is not romantic and did not have one. look what happened to him now...:grrr:

[bishop]

Must-have if I were the one who had the money. Bummer if I was on the receiving end.

Kidding aside, I wouldn't mind either way. It's best to protect individual assets.

[TheEqualizer]

Anybody who thinks pre-nup (done right) is not a good idea is someone who hasn't gone through marriage yet. The person is not mature enough to realize the benefits of having such agreement.
Don't you think the best time to deal with what happens to your finances in case you separate is when you're still very much in love? If you have to wait until the bitterness of the divorce/separation, you'd not be treated fairly. Trust me, it would be a lose-lose situation as only courts and lawyers win in those battles.
And don't give me the, "if he loves me, he should share everything he owns" ****. The door swings BOTH ways baby. IF you love him, then you should be willing to prove it is not his MONEY you want but him only!
Prenups should not only protects one party, but both. Hence, you just have to make sure it's fair and equitable. Of course, you don't sign it if it does not make sense.

[Nick_Joaquin]

these days you gotta protect your assets. you never know.

[baboibear]

pre-nups are EXTREMELY important.

did you know that without a pre-nup, you won't be able to sell/dispose of/purchase/donate any property whatsoever without your spouse's consent? and plus, pag may utang ang asawa mo (for instance, nakakalulang gambling debt or kahit anu pa mang nakakalulang kautangan), pwede ka habulin legally ng creditors nya, kahit wala kang kinalaman sa utang nya.

ang daling sabihing "edi wag mag asawa ng balasubas". hello, reality check, 99% of the time, hindi mo malalamang balasubas pala ang mapapang asawa mo hanggat hindi pa kayo kinakasal.

[asy0000]

Now a days, pre-nup is a must.
It doesn't mean that you don't trust your partner.
It is just a safeguard to those who are "gold diggers".

[gtran]

Its A Big No No For Us.before I Got Married To My Husband, He Asked My Opinion About Pre-nup.i Told Him,we Are Geting Married Bec We Love And Trust Each Other.marriage Is Lifetime Commitment So That Means If Yu Agree To Marry Someone, Trust Is There..love And Trust That Will Be Evident For The Rest Of Your Lives.

[erap_arroyo99]

a pre-nup is a legal safeguard so that both parties stay in line. sure you can argue with the trust and all that verbal jazz, but nobody knows when a snake will come. plus when it inexplicably comes and the marriage is split apart, trust me, something written cleanly and clearly on paper will save you from a lot of ambiguous bickering.

its like possessing weapons: hopefully you dont use it. at any ideally normal day for you, you dont wanna use it. but when the time comes when your safety and well-being are at stake, you will use it with full force. and in order for it to have full force, a pre-nup should encompass everything and detail everything.

[inggitera]

hindi lang para sa mga mayaman or may mamanahin ang pre-nups & post-nups. Think of Jessica Simpson, before the marriage, MAS mayaman & MAS sikat ang xhusband nya, then when their reality show airs on MTV, her career went sky-rocket. Making her a couple of times richer than her xhub. Since walang pre-nup, naging dirty ang divorce settlement nila.

plus, this will generally benefit our own children. i belong to a poor family, and if ever makapangasawa ako ng mayaman (sana lang, lols) gusto ko parin ng pre-nup/post-nup. Ang gusto ko sana, most of my hubby's assets will be legally transfered to my name, hindi dahil sa golddigger ako or what, if ever mambabae, makabuntis, may kumalat na anak sa labas si mister, i have nothing to worry na mawala or mabawasan ang para sa mga anak ko. what's suppose to be for my children will be iron-clad by pre-nups/post-nups.

sorry if i sound mean, pero kasi maraming ganitong pangyayari diba? and, one more thing, pwede ba tayong mag state ng whatever conditions for pre-nups? legal ba yon? may nakapnood kasi ako, jz cant remember her name, old na sya and babaeng politician, may postnups din daw sila ng asawa nya, handwritten and enumerated pa nga daw nung ipa-sign sa kanya. so does this mean na pwedeng whatever mapagkasunduang conditions?

[princess_pea]

For me, it depends. If you're in for a real marriage and do not even consider divorce as a possibility whatever the quality of the marriage (that's why marriage is NEVER to be entered into lightly for wrong reasons) -- then why have a prenup? It assumes that you MAY or MAY NOT dissolve the marriage. If you want a real marriage and you're thinking it may or may not dissolve, then marriage isn't for you.

But if you ARE entering marriage for all the wrong reasons (with all the best wishes of MAYBE someday having the right reasons) but wish to enter it anyway, then you and your spouse better have a good prenup that protects both parties.

[rendaku]

A pre-nup is a document 'expressing' selfishness, doubt and distrust. Why marry if you are so married to what you like and to your possessions? Why marry if you doubt that your spouse would cling to you and protect each other and each other's inerests? Why marry if you distrust your spouse and think he/she would steal your possessions if the relationship turned bad? If a marriage contract does not prove love and hardly signify commitment, a pre-nup erases the very essence of marriage, that is, decisive love, commitment to one another, oneness and sharing. Now, if one doesn't take this as the truth, he/she should not even use or talk about "marriage." He/she might only be good for live-ins, sex, or gamitan.

[blue_tracer]

pre-nups..

parang eto yata yung pre-nups eh:

ladies and gentlemen, in case of an emergency and water landing, the life vest is located under your seats. enjoy this turbulent flight. thank you!

:lol:

[Nils]

I guess those who dont believe in pre-nups dont believe in insurance either. Marriages aren't immune to Murphy's Law and when **** happens, it's better if you have some fallback position that won't leave you empty handed.

[tina78]

I live in a country wherein the divorce rate is higher than successful marriages. I said yes to a prenup because it really shouldn't matter in the end - if you stay together. Also, you include a cheating clause where the hurt party benefits more once the union is dissolved.

If you have assets to protect, PROTECT THEM AND PROTECT YOURSELF. Better yet, it's always good to have your own contingency fund should things go wrong. Turning a blind eye on your finances is not just unwise, but downright stupid, even if you marry for the right reasons. I only know the laws practiced here in the US, and it states that a prenup mostly ONLY protects assets that were accumulated prior to marriage and anything that is exclusively under the person's name (ie. bank account), unless stated in detail, anything bought and owned during the marriage is 50/50. Also, if a woman becomes a homemaker and has no income, she can file for alimony and child support.

Unless you're Donald Trump, or have millions of dollars, I don't see the need for an iron-clad, detailed prenup, so people shouldn't view them negatively. Most standard prenups only protect assets exlusively owned by each party BEFORE marriage.

[rendaku]

I guess those who dont believe in pre-nups dont believe in insurance either. Marriages aren't immune to Murphy's Law and when **** happens, it's better if you have some fallback position that won't leave you empty handed.

Insurance potects your interests and properties against certain perils and losses. Comparing pre-nup to insurance is like comparing a spouse to a peril and cause of loss.

[YouNuhReady]

I live in a country wherein the divorce rate is higher than successful marriages. I said yes to a prenup because it really shouldn't matter in the end - if you stay together. Also, you include a cheating clause where the hurt party benefits more once the union is dissolved.

If you have assets to protect, PROTECT THEM AND PROTECT YOURSELF. Better yet, it's always good to have your own contingency fund should things go wrong. Turning a blind eye on your finances is not just unwise, but downright stupid, even if you marry for the right reasons. I only know the laws practiced here in the US, and it states that a prenup mostly ONLY protects assets that were accumulated prior to marriage and anything that is exclusively under the person's name (ie. bank account), unless stated in detail, anything bought and owned during the marriage is 50/50. Also, if a woman becomes a homemaker and has no income, she can file for alimony and child support.

Unless you're Donald Trump, or have millions of dollars, I don't see the need for an iron-clad, detailed prenup, so people shouldn't view them negatively. Most standard prenups only protect assets exlusively owned by each party BEFORE marriage.

co-sign


http://www.healthcareonabudget.com

[Epicticus]

There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by signing one. My husband and I have one ourselves, finalizing everything about a month before our wedding.

It had nothing to do with having too little faith on each other's affection or determination to make the marriage work. Basically, it had everthing to do with fate, that unforseen hand that changes carefully laid plans overnight.

About 12 years ago my older cousin married a woman who had 2 children from a previous relationship. When he passed away his wife inherited his estate including properties and very, very, special pieces of jewelry that were in my family for 4 generations. Suffice to say that as much as my cousin's parents and siblings genuinely loved the wife and vice-versa, arguments and hurtful words were exchanged when these items were not returned and when my cousin in law signified that she would want to give these to her children for their inheritance.

After that, everone was advised to have a prenuptial agreement.

[Don Vito]

i pity the people that say no to pre-nuptial agreement. they are the kind of people that use their hearts, not their brains when thinking.

be smart and go for pre-nup. its your protection from gold diggers. in this 3rd world country, people will do anything to live and that includes using other people to their advantage.

if your soon to be wife/husband reacts badly or violently when you tell them to sign a pre-nup, its safe to say that they are after your money and they're mad coz they wont get any of it if they leave you.

[booblehead]

it is only good if you have assets prior to getting married to protect. it is also good if you have countless debts to your name prior to getting married, and should the marriage not work out, that your spouse gets to pay half of them!

[CoolCucumber]

Game ako sa pre-nup. Kasi...

...'pag mayaman mapapangasawa ko ayokong isipin ng mga tao na pera lang habol ko. :D Tsaka para walang sumbatan. :D

...hindi kami mayaman na mayaman na mayaman. Kaya what little properties we have, I don't wanna lose... in case patay-gutom na mukhang pera ang mapapangasawa ko. :D


:rpflag:

[tonio_d_monio]

Well, i believe it is to combat the modern divorce procedures...

Kasi most of the time, with the current divorce legal system, there is very little to win for the male part of the relationship. Or is it the "bread winner" yung palaging talo? Need to read it up...

There were cases where wala na ngang ginagawa yung isang party, tapos kelangan pang bayaran ng former bread winner ang alimony at a fixed amount, at a certain number of time -- at times years pa.

Look at OJ Simpson -- walang ginagawa asawa nya, nan-lalaki, nag-divorce and kelangan ng USD 30K per month alimony. Pinatay na lang nya... Note: the courts weren't able to prove OJ guilty of the murder.

Look at Sir Paul Macarthney and Heather Mills. Thats another case that went terribly wrong. Only diff with OJ, nde nya pinatay si Heather Mills.

So, lets be honest, practical lang talaga yung pre-nup.

[bleh]

nakakalimutan siguro ng mga anti-prenup na hindi lang naman yung mapapangasawa mo makakasama mo. me mga in-laws ka pa at kung sila man me hihingin at hindi ka payag, maiipit ang asawa mo sa them or you scenario. kahit ok naman kasi mapapangasawa mo, baka me kamag-anak syang mapagsamantala at dun di ka sigurado.

[psychosonicindy]

yeah agree tonio_d_monio

I think pre-nups can't apply to everyone. If you're just an ordinary couple naman, like me and SO, there really isn't a need for a pre-nup. parang OA lang.

but in the case of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. he really made a mistake by not having a pre-nup cause his wealth was accumulated over years and years. he also has kids from another marriage. pre-nups are meant to protect your children, interests, obligations from former relationships as well as the assets you've accumulated from before the present relationship. she doesn't have a pair of normal legs but she sure was using her brain, wasn't she?

ala kaming pre-nup or whatever and is unnecessary naman but for example, in the case of my SO whose mom left him and his siblings with whatever - dehins pa rin ako nakikialam. hanggang advice-advice lang but it's "their" family's sh it so on my part, I don't feel like I have a stake in it at all. as for my sh it, well, I guess whatever is freely given by my parents to just me.....we can make a decision on it but if left to us siblings, he'd have to wait until we've all decided what to do with whatever was left to us. wala siyang say dun muna.

[xfreemanx]

Question. I have a considerable amount of savings which I have acquired while I was still single. I am now about to be married. I have talked to my fiance about this, briefly mentioning to her that I have this money which I would like to put aside for my immediate family and my personal dreams (like buying a boat or a beach front resort). I would like to have a free hand in deciding where and how I spend it. Thats all I was asking. No formal contract like a prenup agreement. I just want her to know that thats what I want. I was not asking for her permission really because its mine. However, the money that we eventually save up will be conjugal...
then she goes ballistic, saying she's insulted and that there really was no need for me to tell her that if I really trusted her.

Geesh. Women. Enlighten me please. Was I wrong?

[tonio_d_monio]

same here, psychosonicindy, wala rin kaming pre-nup ng better 1/2 ko.

But in my case naman wala akong masyandong i-pre-prenup in the first place :D

[tonio_d_monio]

Question. I have a considerable amount of savings which I have acquired while I was still single. I am now about to be married. I have talked to my fiance about this, briefly mentioning to her that I have this money which I would like to put aside for my immediate family and my personal dreams (like buying a boat or a beach front resort). I would like to have a free hand in deciding where and how I spend it. Thats all I was asking. No formal contract like a prenup agreement. I just want her to know that thats what I want. I was not asking for her permission really because its mine. However, the money that we eventually save up will be conjugal...
then she goes ballistic, saying she's insulted and that there really was no need for me to tell her that if I really trusted her.

Geesh. Women. Enlighten me please. Was I wrong?
I would say that is a sure fire sign to fo for a pre-nup. Its just an insurance kind of thing.

As with most insurance, you don't want to be in a situation to use it but when it does, you'll be glad that you did get the insurance.

Good luck on your wedding and best wishes on your new married life.

[psychosonicindy]

xfreemanx, if what you've saved up is quite substantial - oo, pwede ka mag-arrange for pre-nup but as you posted, you only 'briefly mentioned' this to your fiancee so siguro yung reaction niya medyo understandable din - nagulat din siguro. don't read too much in her reaction. now if you two have discussed it in detail tapos ganun pa rin siya na 'insulted' pa rin, doubting your trust etc - I (ako lang naman) would start to suspect something...........

maybe a pre-nup is unnecessary if you tell her this is meant for your parents etc - for their retirement, to make your siblings more comfortable, whatever.
sabi mo naman the money you guys will earn after marriage will be conjugal so for me, that would be fair enough. kung talagang mahal ka niya, maiintindihan niya that you won't just make a good hubby, you're still a good son and brother to your immediate family.

but you know, xfreemanx, it wouldn't hurt to buy her a little something to smooth things over a little, hindi ba? (hint, hint) sabayan mo na rin ng labing-labing with edible panties and - ay! sorry hindi pala 'to I&P! oops!

[beauté]

Ok, I think xfreemanx that your gf's reaction is normal. If you have an innumerable amount of money, and ganun din ang gf mo, better talk about pre-nup. Actually, I think ito ang dapat na pagusapan before marriage. It's not romantic, but it's better to be practical now kesa later on, gagastos kayo ng katakot takot for annulment. Personally, gusto ko ng pre-nup kasi my parents have something prepared for me. Depende rin sa guy na mapapakasalan ko, as much as possible, I want my money for myself. Alam ng bf ko yan, and since may kaya siya, wala namang problem sa kanya.

[xfreemanx]

Hi Guys,

OK na kami. the wtb and I sorted things out. Love is heavier than piggy banks.

[psychosonicindy]

thanks for the update!

Good luck you two!

[aticus]

I totally support pre-nups. Are you kidding me? I've seen WAY too many marriages fail for me to get all idealistic about it. I know Pinoys are all romantic, but if you love each other and the pre-nup protects BOTH of you, then what's the problem?

Let me put it another way, to all the girls who get "insulted" by it... if your family were super rich, and your husband was super poor, would a pre-nup still be as insulting to you? I mean no offense, of course, so anyone who can honestly say that they would never want it, even if only to protect their family (father, mother, etc.) then go for it. You have my utmost respect. However, for those who would rethink things... keep on thinking.

I honestly don't even know if I'm ever getting married, but as a business owner I definitely will require a reasonable pre-nup.

It doesn't even need to be something so detailed. How about "Both parties hereby agree to have their marriage governed by the Communal Partnership of Gains instead of the Absolute Community of Property"? This means that everything we earn during our union is divided up in half, and everything we had prior to that, or any gifts given to us during the marriage by people like our parents, should be own by the individual in question.

Just my two bits.

[psychosonicindy]

I hope this serves as a lesson to all you young heirs and heiresses and billionaire-entrepreneurs

Heather Mills got something in the ballpark of 48-50 million dollars from Sir Paul McCartney even though she was married to him for just 4 years (I think).

He should've had her sign a pre-nup. That's what I'm talking about, folks.

[ross2]

i have a pre-nup my husband didn't even care and simply signed it all he wanted was for us to get married

[munkytek]

I hope this serves as a lesson to all you young heirs and heiresses and billionaire-entrepreneurs

Heather Mills got something in the ballpark of 48-50 million dollars from Sir Paul McCartney even though she was married to him for just 4 years (I think).

He should've had her sign a pre-nup. That's what I'm talking about, folks.

oo nga...sa isang interview kay Mr.Trump tinawag nya si Sir Mcartney na 'shmuck' dahil hindi sya nagpapirma ng pre-nup...:bop: :bop:

[msariannexron]

mhm i didn't read any of the posts. or anything. i'm just going to say my opinion sa pre-nups, from what i personally have learned from my law class.

pre-nups, although insulting, its a practical thing to undergo. 60% of marriages end up in divorce, sadly, so its only right that you do this, especially if you have lots of possessions/money.

[psychosonicindy]

i have a pre-nup my husband didn't even care and simply signed it all he wanted was for us to get married

good for you, your highness :rolleyes: