4 ms·
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
by 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 agoSaying 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 agoBecause of the liability that no post-nup causes, not signing it is a clear message: "I am sabotaging your business ventures".
- s73ver_ 9y agoNo, 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.
- shepardrtc 9y agoNo, she didn't specify what it was about.