8 ms·

SF engineer came to money and now wants wife to sign a post-nuptial agreement

65 points by waytogo 9y ago

mikestew 9y ago
The top answer nails it: the husband’s only real option is divorce if she refuses to sign, thereby bringing about the very thing he’s trying to avoid. But I’d guess here’s a good chance she can talk him down, as I’m picturing one of his tech bro’s going, “dude, you totally need a post-nup. This guy I knew...”
- itronitron 9y ago
  real curious to know if the husband works at uber
  - dang 9y ago
    This sort of throwaway flamebait is exactly what we don't need here, so please don't post it.
- gaius 9y ago
  That was my guess as well: his business partner or one of their investors is pressuring him.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dogma1138 9y ago
TBH if you have a side project or a company a prenup is pretty much a must it’s the only way to ensure you remain in control over it regardless of how financially successful it is. I’m not particularly wealthy (as in millions/not have to worry about working for the rest of my life) but have a high income and had a few side projects and I would never consider a marriage without a prenup to protect both myself and my partner from vindictive practices and petty behavior. The divorce scheme today is simply too messy without prenups.
- cjensen 9y ago
  Prenups are fine. Many people view them as just contingency planning. This is about a POST-nup, which makes no sense to me. The husband is either being an idiot who listens to idiot advice, or the husband is planning on leaving her. Either way, he needs to get his head on straight and the spouse needs to not sign this.
  - adjkant 9y ago
    How is the timing of the agreement changing the purpose inherently? To me, it sounds like he made the original mistake of not getting a prenup, and now that business interests are being risked on the relationship of two people, it makes sense to add that contingency plan.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      "I've committed to you without reserve! Oh wait, there's a pile of money with my name on it, let's negotiate this."
      - wolfgke 9y ago
        The post talks that the successful venture were two side projects that become successful very unexpectedly. At least the money was not there when they married and neither any of the marriage partners did expect it.
        anigbrowl 9y ago
        Yes, that's the whole point. The tone of my post is slightly sarcastic, perhaps this is confusing.
      - adjkant 9y ago
        How is it not still a contingency plan possibly? I agree there could be other reasons, but from the full story that's not what I would expect here. It sounds like a risk to the business that he/others want to remove. An appropriate agreement can be crafted for that. All of this really depends on the specifics of the agreement.
dilap 9y ago
Maybe I'm just too ruthless, but I don't see how I, in the wife's position, would ever agree to this. Especially considering there's going to be a huge amount of temptation for the husband to cheat now; at least get paid if he gives in and things go sideways. Too harsh?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Asparagirl 9y ago
  Absolutely not. The wife should NOT agree to this.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  If she does not sign, the only way out for him is to file a divorce, lose some money to her and start a new business venture. So if she wants to stay married to him, there is no alternative than signing. I would call this a strong incentive for her to sign.
- killface 9y ago
  Not at all. There's no reason for her to sign it.
cupofjoakim 9y ago
The problem is in perspective, right? She says it feels like he doesn't trust her when asking for the post-nup, but coming from his side a post-nup would enable him to feel more at ease with her, enabling a higher level of trust. Saying no to signing the post-nup is saying "You were right not to trust me".
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Saying no to signing the post-nup is saying "You were right not to trust me". No it isn't. Trying to bust a pre-nup says that, but refusing to sign a post-nup is saying 'you're going back on the arrangement you made.' I can't believe people are making excuses for this guy. Imagine if his wife had lucked or figured her way into money and asked the husband to write himself out of the financial picture; are you telling me you'd advise him to just forget about his rights?
- wolfgke 9y ago
  Because of the liability that no post-nup causes, not signing it is a clear message: "I am sabotaging your business ventures".
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    No, it really isn't. Because if she signed, then he's basically free to cheat on her at will, and there really isn't anything she can do about it. If she were to divorce, she would be out in the cold. Why, apparently, is it acceptable for him to have a "contingency plan", but not her?
    - wolfgke 9y ago
      > No, it really isn't. Because if she signed, then he's basically free to cheat on her at will, and there really isn't anything she can do about it. As far as I understand the Reddit post, the post-nuptial agreement is only about his new business venture and not about other, existing assets. So he still has something to lose, if they divorce.
rubicon33 9y ago
This is why I was upfront with my girlfriend (now fiancé) from the VERY beginning. I said I would never marry her, nor anyone, ever, without a pre-nub. Period. Her money is hers, mine is mine. We will forever operate like that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  I've always wondered about the timing to bring up such a topic. How "very beginning" is very beginning for you, if you wouldn't mind sharing?
  - rubicon33 9y ago
    We talked about marriage early in our relationship (within the first month). The conversation was more about marriage in the abstract sense than it was about OUR (potential at the time) marriage. I've always been a blunt, upfront person. Transparent as a plane glass window. Since we were talking about marriage, I just threw in a casual "when I get married, there 100% will be a pre-nub or it's not happening". As well as a few other "hard stops". As time went on the marriage conversations became more about US getting married... OUR marriage. I made sure at nearly every point to remind her of my "hard stops". They're the kind of thing you never want to be vague about, and are worth stating VERY early in the relationship, in my opinion.
scarface74 9y ago
When I first saw the title, I thought this guy was a jerk. My success is my wife's success. But if it is a business and she would get half of his interest in the business, couldn't that cause hardships on the other partners and allow her to make decisions that are detrimental to the business? Could he have her sign a fair postnup saying she would get half of any financial interests in the business but no voting rights or that the partners would have automatic rights to buy her out? I could see all sorts of ways that this could be fair to her but still protect his partners.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  So what? Inheritance of a partnership interest isn't a new situation (other than for these people). If the first thing you worry about with regard to a business is how to limit future involvement of other people, that suggests the objective is to hoard money rather than grow it.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    It's not necessarily to "hoard money". If I start a company with three technical people and a person with a good business background and we all have voting rights because I trust their judgement, why would I want to have someone else come in with decision making power whose judgement I don't trust? Not necessarily even because that other person as ill intent, but maybe they just don't have the background of the original founders. If I started a business with a friend because I trusted his business instincts and he passed or they divorced, I would be fine with her benefiting financially as much as she would if they were still married but I wouldn't want her being able to make any strategic decisions.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Why are you assuming the surviving partners necessarily has worse judgment than the person you originally went into business with? It sounds like you're arguing from a default position of not trusting other people and needing to defend your enterprise against outsiders, which is likely to be a limiting factor on business growth sooner or alter. You might be better off with a professional corporate structure, like a legal partnership.
methodover 9y ago
Could someone help explain this to me? I don't understand why the wife shouldn't sign. As far as I can tell from the post, she didn't help create any aspect of the apps that her husband made which made them rich. I don't understand why she would be entitled to half given that she did not contribute half.
- remir 9y ago
  It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce. Notice she said she would never hurt her husband even if the relationship ended. From her perspective, the prenup is not necessary, but she feels like her husband thinks differently and may not trust her completely.
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    > It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce. Even the legal possibility of her doing this is a strong liability for the business. So her not signing means sabotaging his business venture, which only leaves him divorce as option to save his business.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is abso-fucking-lutely bonkers. If he, or any of you honestly feel that someone would do that, then why are you marrying them? Her not signing is in no way, shape, or form sabotaging the business venture. Not in the slightest. And if he does divorce because of that, then he deserves whatever he gets, because he shouldn't have married her in the first place, and he didn't love her.
      - wolfgke 9y ago
        > I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is abso-fucking-lutely bonkers. If he, or any of you honestly feel that someone would do that, then why are you marrying them? Trust, but verify (Доверяй, но проверяй).
shin_lao 9y ago
His move makes sense if he plans to quit his wife. He knows she will get half of what he has, so before he makes a move, he tries to see if she would accept to sign a post-nup. What's the risk? Another explanation is that we have an incomplete/distorted explanation from the wife, and that she may have misunderstood the post-nup. If what he's working on is getting significant funding, during due-diligence the lack of pre-nup may appear as a problem. Anyway, I'm not making any judgment on any of the parties, human relationships are such intricate machines...
- celticninja 9y ago
  Why on earth would the existence or not of a pre-nup affect funding? The funds go to the business not the individual and wouldn't form part of their finances if there was a divorce. No due-diligence is going to raise the lack of a pre-nuptial agreement as a reason to withhold investment.
  - charlesdm 9y ago
    Half his (vested) shares would go to his wife, in the event of a divorce. As a shareholder, she would have the right to vote on certain matters. I don't think it makes sense for her to sign a standard post-nup, however, I think it does make sense to account for the fact that the husband wants to make sure he keeps control of his shares in a business he's currently building.
    - shin_lao 9y ago
      Exactly this. There are ways to do mitigate this problem without going through a post-nup though.
- dgudkov 9y ago
  >His move makes sense if he plans to quit his wife. Or if he suspects that his wife can quit him one day.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Several of the comments mention they know about startups that have been destroyed by a divorce when a party without any knowledge of the company got stock/control. Is this a real thing that has happened? Does anyone have direct experience with it?
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Yes there are even recent news articles about such situations not just startups. I think some major sports team owner had a forced liquidation like this recently. That being said post nups are weird to me, so the terms really should be spelled out to surviving prevent a business scenario but to give her some amount of compensation maybe? Idk.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Could you provide some of those situations? Was that the only thing that sunk it, or were those companies in trouble already?
dasil003 9y ago
I don't know what their relationship is like, and I don't know what prompted this, but I can't help but feel like this guy is making a huge mistake. I understand prenups for rich people because you never know why someone is really with you, but if you are with someone before getting rich, that is one of the few things you can never have again. If the relationship is good I don't know why you suddenly make it all about money and drive a possibly irreparable wedge between you. And for what? Because if things go sideways you might lose half? Half of rich is still rich and it's a small risk to take for the chance at a lifelong loving partner. Some things are worth more than money.
- waytogo 9y ago
  > but if you are with someone before getting rich, that is one of the few things you can never have again Well said and you know that this person is with you because of you (and not because of money).
- Nadya 9y ago
  >And for what? Because if things go sideways you might lose half? Half of rich is still rich and it's a small risk to take for the chance at a lifelong loving partner. Some things are worth more than money. And if they have no plans of leaving then refusing taking half when they go shouldn't be a problem - right? Perspective matters.
  - crusso 9y ago
    No, asking for the postnup is a first-strike. Before that point, there was no reason to assume that there was a problem in the relationship. Asking for the postnup introduces distrust into the dynamic. If I were the spouse being asked to sign the document, I'd say, "Nope, let's get divorced right now and split the money in half. After that, if you want me in your life, feel free to court me again."
    - wolfgke 9y ago
      > Asking for the postnup introduces distrust into the dynamic. What he is doing is just good business practice: He wants to keep the business as free as possible of liabilities. Her not willing to sign is what introduces distrust: It implies that she at least want to leave her the optinion open to run away with money from his business.
Asparagirl 9y ago
He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract. If he wanted a pre-nup, he should have gotten one before entering into that contract, i.e. the marriage. But he didn't. And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no. If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  If a change of mind is all it takes to "walk with his assets" then he doesn't really have any reason to believe his share is "50-50" does he? Marriage, for heterosexual men, is the worst kind of contract. The terms of the contract are not agreed to in writing up front. If they are agreed to beforehand (prenup), a judge can disregard the terms in part or whole during divorce proceedings. Can anyone think of a worse kind of contract than this? Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart.
  - sudosteph 9y ago
    > Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart. Eww. Do they actually call it that? That's messed up. Anyhow, nobody is forcing anyone to get married. It's no different from any other contract. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet.
    - ryanmarsh 9y ago
      If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet Thankfully many guys younger than I are waking up to the reality of marriage. Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". The truth of marriage and divorce needs to be communicated to all young men lest we continue to end up broke and unable to see our children.
killface 9y ago
So I'm not trying to scam anyone, but is there a way for a business arrangement to be made that doesn't incur this risk? I know you can put together a buy/sell agreement and have successorship/rights of first refusal documents, but is there a legal way a married person can protect assets from their partner if they wanted to, without going into complicated trusts and shit?
ada1981 9y ago
Every time we hit a new phase in life, our fears come out. My guess is that this guy might be feeling insecure knowing that his wife could divorce him. He's clearly pursued a life that is about making money and intends to keep doing so, so there is a good chance he equates having money (or both to being lovable / worthy of Love on some deep level. He may be trying to arrive at feeling secure in his romantic relationship the only way he knows how -- via a business deal. He's missing an incredible opportunity to be vulnerable with her and discover his true worth, inside.
sudosteph 9y ago
I feel bad for this couple. If I had to choose between my life partner and my business partners, it would not even be a question. Marriage is the ultimate partnership. If you aren't willing to share everything, good and bad, then maybe it's not for you. I mean, most people even say that in their freaking vows! I hope she refuses to sign and he wises up and apologizes.
guuz 9y ago
He mysteriously does not see her as a contributor to his success or is a d*ck. The impact a person has in our lives obviously cannot be calculated, but cannot be simply ignored. If they have been together for six fricking years, how can he dismiss her influence on him? Considering they have a functional relationship, she probably has been helping him on infinite occasions, from domestic chores to emotional support. This guy is being ridiculous.
huffpopo 9y ago
Sounds like risk management. I presume he wants to stay married but also wants to protect his business ventures by getting her to agree to a maximum payout. I've known many wealthy men who were completely financially destroyed by divorce. There is often no clean way of splitting a business and having to liquidate cash to buy the partner out can often sink the company. On a related note, I consider Amber Heard as a risk to the whole Mars mission and get a bit nervous when I hear rumors of them getting back together. I wonder if I'm the only one. Edit: I grew up in farming country and by far the biggest risk to farms there is divorce. This is insane given all of the other risks in farming.
pipio21 9y ago
Terrible. One of the hardest things in life is making a side project successful. The people that is with you at the hard times is part of your team and should be with you in the good times. This man probably has already a mistress. When you have a couple tens of millions in the bank and people know you have it you start attracting dangerous women, I would say professionals, gorgeous women that have experience manipulating men with sex, the PUA(Pick up artist of their sex). If you were not very good with women before marrying, and even if you are you are extremely vulnerable to them. The same will happen with men like bankers that will stalk you all day the moment you enter a couple million in a bank for doing an operation, they will even cry for you doing with your money what they say is much better for you(which is what is better for them). IMHO the best strategy is most people not knowing what you are worth. Drive a normal car, wear normal clothing, have a normal house, if you can. I wear normal clothing but drive a Tesla.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > This man probably has already a mistress. When you have a couple tens of millions in the bank and people know you have it you start attracting dangerous women, I would say professionals, gorgeous women that have experience manipulating men with sex, the PUA(Pick up artist of their sex). I would rather argue that this should actually be a strong reason for her to trust him. If he meets another women, he can never be sure that she is not into him for the money. On the other hand for the existing wife he knows that she did not marry him for the money. This fact alone should give him a very strong incentive to trust the existing wife instead of any other woman that he now meets. So the wife knows that he has a strong disincentive to leave her.
HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
To me, post and pre-nuptial agreements merely reinforce the idea that either you or your partner or both don't trust each other and are together out of mere convenience. If that were the case, why not just stay unmarried? BTW, the level of support for the husband, among the hacker news community, so far, is pretty astounding, contrasting with the support the wife receives on reddit. Not to paint with a broad brush but I think this really says something about the kind of people running things in tech, not to mention all the stuff women had to put up with in the news the past couple of years with regards to any tech workplace.
- adjkant 9y ago
  I am strongly against that first statement. My current partner and I have what we both deem a great romantic relationship and friendship. We plan to get married for legal benefits and stay together for some time. We could care less what it says about our relationship, but there are simply legal things that make sense. It's likely we will never divorce. But we both can envision worlds where divorce happens. If it happens after 30 years of great partnership, so be it. It doesn't invalidate those great years we had. But if it does happen, we would want a fair and just split after it. Not based on 50/50, and not necessarily based on "yours is yours, mine is mine". Neither of us would want to leave the other in financial trouble, but if one of us made much more than the other, we both agree that it would be fairer to give that person some sort of better split, so long as it does not dramatically hurt the others remaining life. It'd also depend on the life goals of each of us from that point and who would need the money more for their respective goals. What we find fair may be different than others, but given the scope of the agreement it's really only about what we both see as fair. We trust each other 100%. We could probably act on this type of agreement without a lawyer. But no one ever knows how divorce will go down, so why not put it in writing? All of this isn't to say that there can't be nefarious reasons at work here and is not to invalidate or ignore the terrible way tech treats women. But this is not a categorical thing, and it really comes down to the specific agreement and the two people involved, presuming neither side is coerced or uninformed about the agreement.
  - HoppedUpMenace 9y ago
stuffedBelly 9y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/7m7i5x/my_31f_husband_36m_of_3_years_came_into_a_lot_of/drry353/ https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/7m7i5x/my_31... This Reddit comment is pretty spot on regarding this case.
adjkant 9y ago
I feel like the comments here on HN are really missing at least one important angle. Frankly, I think it comes from a too closed definition of marriage and relationships. What a marriage is legally is far from reflective of most relationships. It's easy to say "well don't get married then", but there are huge reasons that legal marriage is important for couples when it comes to things like taxes, healthcare, and more. Realistically, people of many sorts need the benefits of legal marriage. For that reason, I am a huge proponent of modifying the marriage agreement to each personal case (aka a prenup, but also defining what your relationship is and not just defaulting to the societal norm. That's a conversation to be had long before marriage, but revisited at that stage.). For example, relationships don't have to be lifelong. If a marriage lasts happily for 30 years and then gets stale, that's not ideal but congrats on the 30 years of great partnership! What about people who have either romantic or sexual feelings for multiple people? I am sure that polyamorous families run into many legal issues, and while not terribly common, highlights a stark case of differing relationship style. There are many much smaller variants that can have legal implications in the context of traditional legal marriage. The idea that marriage is lifelong, unconditional, monogamous, and means sharing absolutely everything is just not going to work for a lot of people. To me, it sounds like this couple was happy, got married, and skipped this conversation. Now that a business risk is in play if a divorce happens, it sounds like they need to have it. It sounds like the husband here did not approach this well at all, but I think that a fine agreement could be reached given the right setup of legal advice and information and making sure that the wife is not pressured into it here, which if it happened, is terrible on his part. From the full story, I am inclined toward a relatively charitable reading of the agreement. I'm obviously a person reading one side of the story over the internet, so I could easily be wrong in this case.
king07828 9y ago
>"protect himself and his work" From what? The other spouse or the legal system? Most would assume it is protection from the other spouse. To verify, one could offer to sign a prenup that splits everything 50/50, i.e., that codifies what would happen under community property law. This provides the benefit of clarifying how a separation would occur to protect the spouses and their work from the legal system. If protection from the legal system is sought, then the 50/50 prenup should be agreeable. If protection from the other spouse is sought, then what is the first spouse (the one demanding the prenup) going to give up in order to gain that protection? If the first spouse is demanding a one-sided prenup that only benefits the first spouse, then it can be argued that the first spouse has broken a marriage vow by seeking to enrich his or her self at the expense of the other. [1] [1] None of this is legal advice and should not be used as such.
- gspetr 9y ago
  Pre-nups can get thrown out of courts if a court decides it was signed under "duress". E.g. less than 6 months before the marriage.
chrisbennet 9y ago
To put this in a slightly different light, suppose you entered a contract with a startup and got some equity. Now suppose the owner decided he wanted your equity back in case you left the company. How’s that make you feel? (Any similarities to Zygna is purely coincidental.)
ivm 9y ago
It reminded me how we failed to raise funding and one of the investors said that doing business together with my wife was a red flag for him because "wives ruin startups." Probably it was the same for others but they didn't say it explicitly. Oh, well.
drivingmenuts 9y ago
The answer is simple to me: the wife should get a lawyer and file for divorce and half or more of the assets. If the hopefully-soon-to-be ex-husband thinks he can talk her into a post-nuptial agreement, then he also probably thinks he can talk her down from her share of the money. Given what was described, she needs to aggressively defend herself.
welshv 9y ago
Hello My name is Welsh and I am from State, I want to give all thanks to Priest Fadhili Chausiku for helping me to recover my ex back, i was seriously in a breakup with my ex girl and i think all hope was lost until i was searching the internet and i saw a testimony that someone shared about Priest Fadhili Chausiku and i choose to contact him also to see if he can still help me, i gave him a trial but at the end joy and happiness filled my heart, i have never believed in this because i have been a victim of fake one, but Priest Fadhili Chausiku made me believe that there are still great men like him, but I must say people like Priest Fadhili Chausiku are rare to find, that is why I must not go out from here without dropping this email address of this great man who helped me get my ex back, so reader if you are out there you are looking for the help to solve your marriage problem or relationship issues, look no further, get in touch with Priest Fadhili Chausiku via his email; priest_fadhili_chausiku@priest.com once you contact him all your problems will be solved immediately. If you are interested, there is a link that I will provide to you below. www.fadhilichausiku.webs.com

65 points by waytogo 9y ago

The top answer nails it: the husband’s only real option is divorce if she refuses to sign, thereby bringing about the very thing he’s trying to avoid. But I’d guess here’s a good chance she can talk him down, as I’m picturing one of his tech bro’s going, “dude, you totally need a post-nup. This guy I knew...”

itronitron 9y ago
real curious to know if the husband works at uber
- dang 9y ago
  This sort of throwaway flamebait is exactly what we don't need here, so please don't post it.
gaius 9y ago
That was my guess as well: his business partner or one of their investors is pressuring him.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dogma1138 9y ago

TBH if you have a side project or a company a prenup is pretty much a must it’s the only way to ensure you remain in control over it regardless of how financially successful it is. I’m not particularly wealthy (as in millions/not have to worry about working for the rest of my life) but have a high income and had a few side projects and I would never consider a marriage without a prenup to protect both myself and my partner from vindictive practices and petty behavior. The divorce scheme today is simply too messy without prenups.

cjensen 9y ago
Prenups are fine. Many people view them as just contingency planning. This is about a POST-nup, which makes no sense to me. The husband is either being an idiot who listens to idiot advice, or the husband is planning on leaving her. Either way, he needs to get his head on straight and the spouse needs to not sign this.
- adjkant 9y ago
  How is the timing of the agreement changing the purpose inherently? To me, it sounds like he made the original mistake of not getting a prenup, and now that business interests are being risked on the relationship of two people, it makes sense to add that contingency plan.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    "I've committed to you without reserve! Oh wait, there's a pile of money with my name on it, let's negotiate this."
    - wolfgke 9y ago
      The post talks that the successful venture were two side projects that become successful very unexpectedly. At least the money was not there when they married and neither any of the marriage partners did expect it.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Yes, that's the whole point. The tone of my post is slightly sarcastic, perhaps this is confusing.
    - adjkant 9y ago
      How is it not still a contingency plan possibly? I agree there could be other reasons, but from the full story that's not what I would expect here. It sounds like a risk to the business that he/others want to remove. An appropriate agreement can be crafted for that. All of this really depends on the specifics of the agreement.

dilap 9y ago

Maybe I'm just too ruthless, but I don't see how I, in the wife's position, would ever agree to this. Especially considering there's going to be a huge amount of temptation for the husband to cheat now; at least get paid if he gives in and things go sideways. Too harsh?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Asparagirl 9y ago
Absolutely not. The wife should NOT agree to this.
wolfgke 9y ago
If she does not sign, the only way out for him is to file a divorce, lose some money to her and start a new business venture. So if she wants to stay married to him, there is no alternative than signing. I would call this a strong incentive for her to sign.
killface 9y ago
Not at all. There's no reason for her to sign it.

cupofjoakim 9y ago

The problem is in perspective, right? She says it feels like he doesn't trust her when asking for the post-nup, but coming from his side a post-nup would enable him to feel more at ease with her, enabling a higher level of trust. Saying no to signing the post-nup is saying "You were right not to trust me".

anigbrowl 9y ago
Saying no to signing the post-nup is saying "You were right not to trust me". No it isn't. Trying to bust a pre-nup says that, but refusing to sign a post-nup is saying 'you're going back on the arrangement you made.' I can't believe people are making excuses for this guy. Imagine if his wife had lucked or figured her way into money and asked the husband to write himself out of the financial picture; are you telling me you'd advise him to just forget about his rights?
wolfgke 9y ago
Because of the liability that no post-nup causes, not signing it is a clear message: "I am sabotaging your business ventures".
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  No, it really isn't. Because if she signed, then he's basically free to cheat on her at will, and there really isn't anything she can do about it. If she were to divorce, she would be out in the cold. Why, apparently, is it acceptable for him to have a "contingency plan", but not her?
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    > No, it really isn't. Because if she signed, then he's basically free to cheat on her at will, and there really isn't anything she can do about it. As far as I understand the Reddit post, the post-nuptial agreement is only about his new business venture and not about other, existing assets. So he still has something to lose, if they divorce.

rubicon33 9y ago

This is why I was upfront with my girlfriend (now fiancé) from the VERY beginning. I said I would never marry her, nor anyone, ever, without a pre-nub. Period. Her money is hers, mine is mine. We will forever operate like that.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
hkmurakami 9y ago
I've always wondered about the timing to bring up such a topic. How "very beginning" is very beginning for you, if you wouldn't mind sharing?
- rubicon33 9y ago
  We talked about marriage early in our relationship (within the first month). The conversation was more about marriage in the abstract sense than it was about OUR (potential at the time) marriage. I've always been a blunt, upfront person. Transparent as a plane glass window. Since we were talking about marriage, I just threw in a casual "when I get married, there 100% will be a pre-nub or it's not happening". As well as a few other "hard stops". As time went on the marriage conversations became more about US getting married... OUR marriage. I made sure at nearly every point to remind her of my "hard stops". They're the kind of thing you never want to be vague about, and are worth stating VERY early in the relationship, in my opinion.

scarface74 9y ago

When I first saw the title, I thought this guy was a jerk. My success is my wife's success. But if it is a business and she would get half of his interest in the business, couldn't that cause hardships on the other partners and allow her to make decisions that are detrimental to the business? Could he have her sign a fair postnup saying she would get half of any financial interests in the business but no voting rights or that the partners would have automatic rights to buy her out? I could see all sorts of ways that this could be fair to her but still protect his partners.

anigbrowl 9y ago
So what? Inheritance of a partnership interest isn't a new situation (other than for these people). If the first thing you worry about with regard to a business is how to limit future involvement of other people, that suggests the objective is to hoard money rather than grow it.
- scarface74 9y ago
  It's not necessarily to "hoard money". If I start a company with three technical people and a person with a good business background and we all have voting rights because I trust their judgement, why would I want to have someone else come in with decision making power whose judgement I don't trust? Not necessarily even because that other person as ill intent, but maybe they just don't have the background of the original founders. If I started a business with a friend because I trusted his business instincts and he passed or they divorced, I would be fine with her benefiting financially as much as she would if they were still married but I wouldn't want her being able to make any strategic decisions.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Why are you assuming the surviving partners necessarily has worse judgment than the person you originally went into business with? It sounds like you're arguing from a default position of not trusting other people and needing to defend your enterprise against outsiders, which is likely to be a limiting factor on business growth sooner or alter. You might be better off with a professional corporate structure, like a legal partnership.

methodover 9y ago

Could someone help explain this to me? I don't understand why the wife shouldn't sign. As far as I can tell from the post, she didn't help create any aspect of the apps that her husband made which made them rich. I don't understand why she would be entitled to half given that she did not contribute half.

remir 9y ago
It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce. Notice she said she would never hurt her husband even if the relationship ended. From her perspective, the prenup is not necessary, but she feels like her husband thinks differently and may not trust her completely.
- wolfgke 9y ago
  > It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce. Even the legal possibility of her doing this is a strong liability for the business. So her not signing means sabotaging his business venture, which only leaves him divorce as option to save his business.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is abso-fucking-lutely bonkers. If he, or any of you honestly feel that someone would do that, then why are you marrying them? Her not signing is in no way, shape, or form sabotaging the business venture. Not in the slightest. And if he does divorce because of that, then he deserves whatever he gets, because he shouldn't have married her in the first place, and he didn't love her.
    - wolfgke 9y ago
      > I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is abso-fucking-lutely bonkers. If he, or any of you honestly feel that someone would do that, then why are you marrying them? Trust, but verify (Доверяй, но проверяй).

shin_lao 9y ago

His move makes sense if he plans to quit his wife. He knows she will get half of what he has, so before he makes a move, he tries to see if she would accept to sign a post-nup. What's the risk? Another explanation is that we have an incomplete/distorted explanation from the wife, and that she may have misunderstood the post-nup. If what he's working on is getting significant funding, during due-diligence the lack of pre-nup may appear as a problem. Anyway, I'm not making any judgment on any of the parties, human relationships are such intricate machines...

celticninja 9y ago
Why on earth would the existence or not of a pre-nup affect funding? The funds go to the business not the individual and wouldn't form part of their finances if there was a divorce. No due-diligence is going to raise the lack of a pre-nuptial agreement as a reason to withhold investment.
- charlesdm 9y ago
  Half his (vested) shares would go to his wife, in the event of a divorce. As a shareholder, she would have the right to vote on certain matters. I don't think it makes sense for her to sign a standard post-nup, however, I think it does make sense to account for the fact that the husband wants to make sure he keeps control of his shares in a business he's currently building.
  - shin_lao 9y ago
    Exactly this. There are ways to do mitigate this problem without going through a post-nup though.
dgudkov 9y ago
>His move makes sense if he plans to quit his wife. Or if he suspects that his wife can quit him one day.

Analemma_ 9y ago

Several of the comments mention they know about startups that have been destroyed by a divorce when a party without any knowledge of the company got stock/control. Is this a real thing that has happened? Does anyone have direct experience with it?

hkmurakami 9y ago
Yes there are even recent news articles about such situations not just startups. I think some major sports team owner had a forced liquidation like this recently. That being said post nups are weird to me, so the terms really should be spelled out to surviving prevent a business scenario but to give her some amount of compensation maybe? Idk.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Could you provide some of those situations? Was that the only thing that sunk it, or were those companies in trouble already?

dasil003 9y ago

I don't know what their relationship is like, and I don't know what prompted this, but I can't help but feel like this guy is making a huge mistake. I understand prenups for rich people because you never know why someone is really with you, but if you are with someone before getting rich, that is one of the few things you can never have again. If the relationship is good I don't know why you suddenly make it all about money and drive a possibly irreparable wedge between you. And for what? Because if things go sideways you might lose half? Half of rich is still rich and it's a small risk to take for the chance at a lifelong loving partner. Some things are worth more than money.

waytogo 9y ago
> but if you are with someone before getting rich, that is one of the few things you can never have again Well said and you know that this person is with you because of you (and not because of money).
Nadya 9y ago
>And for what? Because if things go sideways you might lose half? Half of rich is still rich and it's a small risk to take for the chance at a lifelong loving partner. Some things are worth more than money. And if they have no plans of leaving then refusing taking half when they go shouldn't be a problem - right? Perspective matters.
- crusso 9y ago
  No, asking for the postnup is a first-strike. Before that point, there was no reason to assume that there was a problem in the relationship. Asking for the postnup introduces distrust into the dynamic. If I were the spouse being asked to sign the document, I'd say, "Nope, let's get divorced right now and split the money in half. After that, if you want me in your life, feel free to court me again."
  - wolfgke 9y ago
    > Asking for the postnup introduces distrust into the dynamic. What he is doing is just good business practice: He wants to keep the business as free as possible of liabilities. Her not willing to sign is what introduces distrust: It implies that she at least want to leave her the optinion open to run away with money from his business.

Asparagirl 9y ago

He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract. If he wanted a pre-nup, he should have gotten one before entering into that contract, i.e. the marriage. But he didn't. And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no. If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers.

ryanmarsh 9y ago
If a change of mind is all it takes to "walk with his assets" then he doesn't really have any reason to believe his share is "50-50" does he? Marriage, for heterosexual men, is the worst kind of contract. The terms of the contract are not agreed to in writing up front. If they are agreed to beforehand (prenup), a judge can disregard the terms in part or whole during divorce proceedings. Can anyone think of a worse kind of contract than this? Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart.
- sudosteph 9y ago
  > Every married heterosexual man has at least one acquaintance who was "divorce raped". All of the virtue signaling in the world by a man's wife does not protect him from a change of her heart. Eww. Do they actually call it that? That's messed up. Anyhow, nobody is forcing anyone to get married. It's no different from any other contract. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet.
  - ryanmarsh 9y ago
    If you don't like the terms, don't sign the sheet Thankfully many guys younger than I are waking up to the reality of marriage. Unfortunately my generation was fed the bullshit about "God's plan". The truth of marriage and divorce needs to be communicated to all young men lest we continue to end up broke and unable to see our children.

killface 9y ago

So I'm not trying to scam anyone, but is there a way for a business arrangement to be made that doesn't incur this risk? I know you can put together a buy/sell agreement and have successorship/rights of first refusal documents, but is there a legal way a married person can protect assets from their partner if they wanted to, without going into complicated trusts and shit?

ada1981 9y ago

Every time we hit a new phase in life, our fears come out. My guess is that this guy might be feeling insecure knowing that his wife could divorce him. He's clearly pursued a life that is about making money and intends to keep doing so, so there is a good chance he equates having money (or both to being lovable / worthy of Love on some deep level. He may be trying to arrive at feeling secure in his romantic relationship the only way he knows how -- via a business deal. He's missing an incredible opportunity to be vulnerable with her and discover his true worth, inside.

sudosteph 9y ago

I feel bad for this couple. If I had to choose between my life partner and my business partners, it would not even be a question. Marriage is the ultimate partnership. If you aren't willing to share everything, good and bad, then maybe it's not for you. I mean, most people even say that in their freaking vows! I hope she refuses to sign and he wises up and apologizes.

guuz 9y ago

He mysteriously does not see her as a contributor to his success or is a d*ck. The impact a person has in our lives obviously cannot be calculated, but cannot be simply ignored. If they have been together for six fricking years, how can he dismiss her influence on him? Considering they have a functional relationship, she probably has been helping him on infinite occasions, from domestic chores to emotional support. This guy is being ridiculous.

huffpopo 9y ago

Sounds like risk management. I presume he wants to stay married but also wants to protect his business ventures by getting her to agree to a maximum payout. I've known many wealthy men who were completely financially destroyed by divorce. There is often no clean way of splitting a business and having to liquidate cash to buy the partner out can often sink the company. On a related note, I consider Amber Heard as a risk to the whole Mars mission and get a bit nervous when I hear rumors of them getting back together. I wonder if I'm the only one. Edit: I grew up in farming country and by far the biggest risk to farms there is divorce. This is insane given all of the other risks in farming.

pipio21 9y ago

Terrible. One of the hardest things in life is making a side project successful. The people that is with you at the hard times is part of your team and should be with you in the good times. This man probably has already a mistress. When you have a couple tens of millions in the bank and people know you have it you start attracting dangerous women, I would say professionals, gorgeous women that have experience manipulating men with sex, the PUA(Pick up artist of their sex). If you were not very good with women before marrying, and even if you are you are extremely vulnerable to them. The same will happen with men like bankers that will stalk you all day the moment you enter a couple million in a bank for doing an operation, they will even cry for you doing with your money what they say is much better for you(which is what is better for them). IMHO the best strategy is most people not knowing what you are worth. Drive a normal car, wear normal clothing, have a normal house, if you can. I wear normal clothing but drive a Tesla.

wolfgke 9y ago
> This man probably has already a mistress. When you have a couple tens of millions in the bank and people know you have it you start attracting dangerous women, I would say professionals, gorgeous women that have experience manipulating men with sex, the PUA(Pick up artist of their sex). I would rather argue that this should actually be a strong reason for her to trust him. If he meets another women, he can never be sure that she is not into him for the money. On the other hand for the existing wife he knows that she did not marry him for the money. This fact alone should give him a very strong incentive to trust the existing wife instead of any other woman that he now meets. So the wife knows that he has a strong disincentive to leave her.

HoppedUpMenace 9y ago

To me, post and pre-nuptial agreements merely reinforce the idea that either you or your partner or both don't trust each other and are together out of mere convenience. If that were the case, why not just stay unmarried? BTW, the level of support for the husband, among the hacker news community, so far, is pretty astounding, contrasting with the support the wife receives on reddit. Not to paint with a broad brush but I think this really says something about the kind of people running things in tech, not to mention all the stuff women had to put up with in the news the past couple of years with regards to any tech workplace.

adjkant 9y ago
I am strongly against that first statement. My current partner and I have what we both deem a great romantic relationship and friendship. We plan to get married for legal benefits and stay together for some time. We could care less what it says about our relationship, but there are simply legal things that make sense. It's likely we will never divorce. But we both can envision worlds where divorce happens. If it happens after 30 years of great partnership, so be it. It doesn't invalidate those great years we had. But if it does happen, we would want a fair and just split after it. Not based on 50/50, and not necessarily based on "yours is yours, mine is mine". Neither of us would want to leave the other in financial trouble, but if one of us made much more than the other, we both agree that it would be fairer to give that person some sort of better split, so long as it does not dramatically hurt the others remaining life. It'd also depend on the life goals of each of us from that point and who would need the money more for their respective goals. What we find fair may be different than others, but given the scope of the agreement it's really only about what we both see as fair. We trust each other 100%. We could probably act on this type of agreement without a lawyer. But no one ever knows how divorce will go down, so why not put it in writing? All of this isn't to say that there can't be nefarious reasons at work here and is not to invalidate or ignore the terrible way tech treats women. But this is not a categorical thing, and it really comes down to the specific agreement and the two people involved, presuming neither side is coerced or uninformed about the agreement.
- HoppedUpMenace 9y ago

stuffedBelly 9y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/7m7i5x/my_31f_husband_36m_of_3_years_came_into_a_lot_of/drry353/ https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/7m7i5x/my_31... This Reddit comment is pretty spot on regarding this case.

adjkant 9y ago

I feel like the comments here on HN are really missing at least one important angle. Frankly, I think it comes from a too closed definition of marriage and relationships. What a marriage is legally is far from reflective of most relationships. It's easy to say "well don't get married then", but there are huge reasons that legal marriage is important for couples when it comes to things like taxes, healthcare, and more. Realistically, people of many sorts need the benefits of legal marriage. For that reason, I am a huge proponent of modifying the marriage agreement to each personal case (aka a prenup, but also defining what your relationship is and not just defaulting to the societal norm. That's a conversation to be had long before marriage, but revisited at that stage.). For example, relationships don't have to be lifelong. If a marriage lasts happily for 30 years and then gets stale, that's not ideal but congrats on the 30 years of great partnership! What about people who have either romantic or sexual feelings for multiple people? I am sure that polyamorous families run into many legal issues, and while not terribly common, highlights a stark case of differing relationship style. There are many much smaller variants that can have legal implications in the context of traditional legal marriage. The idea that marriage is lifelong, unconditional, monogamous, and means sharing absolutely everything is just not going to work for a lot of people. To me, it sounds like this couple was happy, got married, and skipped this conversation. Now that a business risk is in play if a divorce happens, it sounds like they need to have it. It sounds like the husband here did not approach this well at all, but I think that a fine agreement could be reached given the right setup of legal advice and information and making sure that the wife is not pressured into it here, which if it happened, is terrible on his part. From the full story, I am inclined toward a relatively charitable reading of the agreement. I'm obviously a person reading one side of the story over the internet, so I could easily be wrong in this case.

king07828 9y ago

>"protect himself and his work" From what? The other spouse or the legal system? Most would assume it is protection from the other spouse. To verify, one could offer to sign a prenup that splits everything 50/50, i.e., that codifies what would happen under community property law. This provides the benefit of clarifying how a separation would occur to protect the spouses and their work from the legal system. If protection from the legal system is sought, then the 50/50 prenup should be agreeable. If protection from the other spouse is sought, then what is the first spouse (the one demanding the prenup) going to give up in order to gain that protection? If the first spouse is demanding a one-sided prenup that only benefits the first spouse, then it can be argued that the first spouse has broken a marriage vow by seeking to enrich his or her self at the expense of the other. [1] [1] None of this is legal advice and should not be used as such.

gspetr 9y ago
Pre-nups can get thrown out of courts if a court decides it was signed under "duress". E.g. less than 6 months before the marriage.

chrisbennet 9y ago

To put this in a slightly different light, suppose you entered a contract with a startup and got some equity. Now suppose the owner decided he wanted your equity back in case you left the company. How’s that make you feel? (Any similarities to Zygna is purely coincidental.)

ivm 9y ago

It reminded me how we failed to raise funding and one of the investors said that doing business together with my wife was a red flag for him because "wives ruin startups." Probably it was the same for others but they didn't say it explicitly. Oh, well.

drivingmenuts 9y ago

The answer is simple to me: the wife should get a lawyer and file for divorce and half or more of the assets. If the hopefully-soon-to-be ex-husband thinks he can talk her into a post-nuptial agreement, then he also probably thinks he can talk her down from her share of the money. Given what was described, she needs to aggressively defend herself.

welshv 9y ago

Hello My name is Welsh and I am from State, I want to give all thanks to Priest Fadhili Chausiku for helping me to recover my ex back, i was seriously in a breakup with my ex girl and i think all hope was lost until i was searching the internet and i saw a testimony that someone shared about Priest Fadhili Chausiku and i choose to contact him also to see if he can still help me, i gave him a trial but at the end joy and happiness filled my heart, i have never believed in this because i have been a victim of fake one, but Priest Fadhili Chausiku made me believe that there are still great men like him, but I must say people like Priest Fadhili Chausiku are rare to find, that is why I must not go out from here without dropping this email address of this great man who helped me get my ex back, so reader if you are out there you are looking for the help to solve your marriage problem or relationship issues, look no further, get in touch with Priest Fadhili Chausiku via his email; priest_fadhili_chausiku@priest.com once you contact him all your problems will be solved immediately. If you are interested, there is a link that I will provide to you below. www.fadhilichausiku.webs.com