4 ms·

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 idio

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.
dogma1138 9y ago
This isn’t clear cut; divorces today are archaic they were set in a completely different time when there was a very different trade between the parties getting married. This isn’t just about money, his partner now in theory is eligible to half (or more if there are kids) of everything he owns including any intellectual property he have created. This can go well beyond simple greed and be more about ones life work. It also puts effectively his company at risk because the company doesn’t have 2 founders but 3 as the partner can get half of his share or even more in the divorce.
- spookthesunset 9y ago
  > This isn’t just about money, his partner now in theory is eligible to half (or more if there are kids) of everything he owns including any intellectual property he have created. But that is what marriage is. Everything in a relationship is jointly owned. People who think they can somehow skirt around this don't seem to understand that. Marriage is basically the legal recognition that two people are to be treated as one. They are a team. If people can't handle that, don't get married.... > This can go well beyond simple greed and be more about ones life work. It isn't "ones life work". It is "their lives work". Remember, they are a team. > It also puts effectively his company at risk because the company doesn’t have 2 founders but 3 as the partner can get half of his share or even more in the divorce. But thanks to the marriage, what is his is also hers. By nature of them being treated like a single entity. Why shouldn't she get half of their share? That share has material value, therefore both partners are entitled to it.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    >But that is what marriage is. Everything in a relationship is jointly owned. People who think they can somehow skirt around this don't seem to understand that. Marriage is basically the legal recognition that two people are to be treated as one. They are a team. If people can't handle that, don't get married.... No this isn't what a marriage is, historically this isn't how it worked, and only for a very short time while there still was a very different trade between the partners where divorces became universally acceptable when this was practiced. >It isn't "ones life work". It is "their lives work". Remember, they are a team. They are partners, it doesn't mean that all of their personal achievements are a team effort, in fact the vast majority of their achievements would still be individual. >But thanks to the marriage, what is his is also hers. By nature of them being treated like a single entity. Why shouldn't she get half of their share? That share has material value, therefore both partners are entitled to it. Which is why you get a prenup It is no longer the case when the woman trades 1-2 decades of her life to raise 3 children and needs protection/assurance that she will not be thrown out when her societal value effectively has been reduced to zero with nothing. My biggest disappointment in this whole ordeal is that this isn't a case of a woman getting succeeding an asking for a postnup tho with how divorces are still settled especially in no fault states she would be much more protected against predatory behaviour in that case. What people seem to constantly ignore is that CA is a no fault state, she can just as well decide 5 years down the line that she much rather keep the house and 50% of the assets and start a new life because now she can afford to live on her own without any financial worries. People yapping about that it's not fair to deny someone a full share of a work that they have not participated in, but have no problem with that person basically having a nuclear trigger that would allow them to walk out with 50% or more of the money as well as destroy their partners livelihood if they so desire at a whim.

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.

dogma1138 9y ago

This isn’t clear cut; divorces today are archaic they were set in a completely different time when there was a very different trade between the parties getting married. This isn’t just about money, his partner now in theory is eligible to half (or more if there are kids) of everything he owns including any intellectual property he have created. This can go well beyond simple greed and be more about ones life work. It also puts effectively his company at risk because the company doesn’t have 2 founders but 3 as the partner can get half of his share or even more in the divorce.

spookthesunset 9y ago
> This isn’t just about money, his partner now in theory is eligible to half (or more if there are kids) of everything he owns including any intellectual property he have created. But that is what marriage is. Everything in a relationship is jointly owned. People who think they can somehow skirt around this don't seem to understand that. Marriage is basically the legal recognition that two people are to be treated as one. They are a team. If people can't handle that, don't get married.... > This can go well beyond simple greed and be more about ones life work. It isn't "ones life work". It is "their lives work". Remember, they are a team. > It also puts effectively his company at risk because the company doesn’t have 2 founders but 3 as the partner can get half of his share or even more in the divorce. But thanks to the marriage, what is his is also hers. By nature of them being treated like a single entity. Why shouldn't she get half of their share? That share has material value, therefore both partners are entitled to it.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  >But that is what marriage is. Everything in a relationship is jointly owned. People who think they can somehow skirt around this don't seem to understand that. Marriage is basically the legal recognition that two people are to be treated as one. They are a team. If people can't handle that, don't get married.... No this isn't what a marriage is, historically this isn't how it worked, and only for a very short time while there still was a very different trade between the partners where divorces became universally acceptable when this was practiced. >It isn't "ones life work". It is "their lives work". Remember, they are a team. They are partners, it doesn't mean that all of their personal achievements are a team effort, in fact the vast majority of their achievements would still be individual. >But thanks to the marriage, what is his is also hers. By nature of them being treated like a single entity. Why shouldn't she get half of their share? That share has material value, therefore both partners are entitled to it. Which is why you get a prenup It is no longer the case when the woman trades 1-2 decades of her life to raise 3 children and needs protection/assurance that she will not be thrown out when her societal value effectively has been reduced to zero with nothing. My biggest disappointment in this whole ordeal is that this isn't a case of a woman getting succeeding an asking for a postnup tho with how divorces are still settled especially in no fault states she would be much more protected against predatory behaviour in that case. What people seem to constantly ignore is that CA is a no fault state, she can just as well decide 5 years down the line that she much rather keep the house and 50% of the assets and start a new life because now she can afford to live on her own without any financial worries. People yapping about that it's not fair to deny someone a full share of a work that they have not participated in, but have no problem with that person basically having a nuclear trigger that would allow them to walk out with 50% or more of the money as well as destroy their partners livelihood if they so desire at a whim.