5 ms·

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

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).
    - Nadya 9y ago
      From the business perspective (which means completely disregard any personal perspectives/issues that arise) there are four scenarios. Agree + Stay together ; Agree + Divorce ; Disagree + Stay Together ; Disagree + Divorce Only one of these has potential risk to the business and it falls under the "Disagree" options. So for the business, agreement is necessary to prevent that risk and some business partners that otherwise might be on board would refuse due to that risk. Coming into or marrying into money, divorcing for 50%, and "finding a better partner" is not something completely unheard of and it is common enough that people seek protection against it which is why these sort of agreements exist in the first place. If the marriage "isn't about money" then pre/post nups only solidify that fact by putting it into writing: it isn't about the money and won't ever be about the money. There are two possible perspectives to take here: A) They would only ask for it in writing if they didn't trust them at their word (people with this perspective will likely side with the wife) b) They would only refuse to put it in writing if they don't intend to honor their word (people with this perspective will likely side with the husband)
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        "From the business perspective (which means completely disregard any personal perspectives/issues that arise" No. Those other perspectives are just as valid, if not more. "So for the business, agreement is necessary to prevent that risk and some business partners that otherwise might be on board would refuse due to that risk." Given that millions of businesses are started while one party is married, and don't have this problem, I don't consider it to be a valid concern. "Coming into or marrying into money, divorcing for 50%, and "finding a better partner" is not something completely unheard of and it is common enough that people seek protection against it" And what's the wife's protection in that case? "If the marriage "isn't about money" then pre/post nups only solidify that fact by putting it into writing: it isn't about the money and won't ever be about the money." Except now, there are no consequences for the husband being unfaithful.
        wolfgke 9y ago
        > Given that millions of businesses are started while one party is married, and don't have this problem, I don't consider it to be a valid concern. Given that lots of BASE jumpers survived their jumps, BASE jumping cannot be a really dangerous sport.
gaius 9y ago
I can't tell if you are serious or not but... Nothing happens in a vacuum. Would he have had the time or opportunity to work on side projects without his wife handling some aspect of their domestic situation, for example? But the bigger picture is that a married couple is a single entity legally speaking as far as property and finances are concerned. Judges in many jurisdictions completely ignore pre-nups for this very reason.
- methodover 9y ago
  Was serious. Thanks for the response. My parents always kept separate bank accounts, always seemed to have clearly defined separations between who owned what. Separate cars, separate car payments. Separate careers, separate everything. I always got the sense that my parents were two separate individuals in a partnership. I don't think either of them would have a problem signing a postnup solidifying that.
  - gaius 9y ago
    My parents did it like this: my father’s salary went into their joint account and my mother’s salary went into her own account. Huh.
- gspetr 9y ago
  Would he have not if he had been single? If he was single, should the cleaning service get a cut of his company? Should the Domino's get a cut of his company for keeping him fed during those midnight coding sessions? What about the washing machine manufacturer?
  - gaius 9y ago
    Was he paying his wife a salary? You have a very odd idea of marriage.
    - gspetr 9y ago
      There are quite a few countries where it's A-OK to give your entire salary to your wife, so it's more like not paying her your salary, but her giving you a fraction of yours.
anigbrowl 9y ago
When you're married, it's a partnership. You don't exist independently of other and go on more regular dates, you live together and are practically and emotionally committed to each other. For all we know he was only able to write those apps because of the emotional and/or financial security she brought to the relationship.
- gspetr 9y ago
  The very existence of open marriages defies your argument.
andymoe 9y ago
She’s entitled to half because that’s the contract they entered into when they got married.
- nasmorn 9y ago
  It is funny how you got downvotes for stating a fact. Like when you start a business and someone has vested shares but they don’t do anything much anymore while you are the CEO. Guess what they still own those shares. The unfairness is about the unidirectionality of time. The question is not if it looks fair ex post, but if you deemed it fair ex ante.
qsymmachus 9y ago
> I don't understand why she would be entitled to half given that she did not contribute half Under California law, all assets acquired after marriage are considered "community property". This means that regardless of who "actually" earned the assets, they are owned by each spouse equally (50/50). Not all states have this regime, and there are good arguments both for and against the concept. I believe that the strongest argument in favor is that community property prevents power imbalances from developing within a marriage. It is sadly common for a spouse to be trapped in an abusive or unhappy marriage, but who cannot practically escape the relationship because they do not have independent means of support. Community property provides a guarantee of financial support should a marriage dissolve.
hkmurakami 9y ago
Her support etc enables that kind of work to be done in the first place.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Yup. I've had side projects (none of them ever turned into big money), and I know the price my wife paid for me to have them. Off topic, but worth stating: Knowing that, I try to be supportive of stuff that she wants to take on.

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).
  - Nadya 9y ago
    From the business perspective (which means completely disregard any personal perspectives/issues that arise) there are four scenarios. Agree + Stay together ; Agree + Divorce ; Disagree + Stay Together ; Disagree + Divorce Only one of these has potential risk to the business and it falls under the "Disagree" options. So for the business, agreement is necessary to prevent that risk and some business partners that otherwise might be on board would refuse due to that risk. Coming into or marrying into money, divorcing for 50%, and "finding a better partner" is not something completely unheard of and it is common enough that people seek protection against it which is why these sort of agreements exist in the first place. If the marriage "isn't about money" then pre/post nups only solidify that fact by putting it into writing: it isn't about the money and won't ever be about the money. There are two possible perspectives to take here: A) They would only ask for it in writing if they didn't trust them at their word (people with this perspective will likely side with the wife) b) They would only refuse to put it in writing if they don't intend to honor their word (people with this perspective will likely side with the husband)
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      "From the business perspective (which means completely disregard any personal perspectives/issues that arise" No. Those other perspectives are just as valid, if not more. "So for the business, agreement is necessary to prevent that risk and some business partners that otherwise might be on board would refuse due to that risk." Given that millions of businesses are started while one party is married, and don't have this problem, I don't consider it to be a valid concern. "Coming into or marrying into money, divorcing for 50%, and "finding a better partner" is not something completely unheard of and it is common enough that people seek protection against it" And what's the wife's protection in that case? "If the marriage "isn't about money" then pre/post nups only solidify that fact by putting it into writing: it isn't about the money and won't ever be about the money." Except now, there are no consequences for the husband being unfaithful.
      - wolfgke 9y ago
        > Given that millions of businesses are started while one party is married, and don't have this problem, I don't consider it to be a valid concern. Given that lots of BASE jumpers survived their jumps, BASE jumping cannot be a really dangerous sport.

gaius 9y ago

I can't tell if you are serious or not but... Nothing happens in a vacuum. Would he have had the time or opportunity to work on side projects without his wife handling some aspect of their domestic situation, for example? But the bigger picture is that a married couple is a single entity legally speaking as far as property and finances are concerned. Judges in many jurisdictions completely ignore pre-nups for this very reason.

methodover 9y ago
Was serious. Thanks for the response. My parents always kept separate bank accounts, always seemed to have clearly defined separations between who owned what. Separate cars, separate car payments. Separate careers, separate everything. I always got the sense that my parents were two separate individuals in a partnership. I don't think either of them would have a problem signing a postnup solidifying that.
- gaius 9y ago
  My parents did it like this: my father’s salary went into their joint account and my mother’s salary went into her own account. Huh.
gspetr 9y ago
Would he have not if he had been single? If he was single, should the cleaning service get a cut of his company? Should the Domino's get a cut of his company for keeping him fed during those midnight coding sessions? What about the washing machine manufacturer?
- gaius 9y ago
  Was he paying his wife a salary? You have a very odd idea of marriage.
  - gspetr 9y ago
    There are quite a few countries where it's A-OK to give your entire salary to your wife, so it's more like not paying her your salary, but her giving you a fraction of yours.

anigbrowl 9y ago

When you're married, it's a partnership. You don't exist independently of other and go on more regular dates, you live together and are practically and emotionally committed to each other. For all we know he was only able to write those apps because of the emotional and/or financial security she brought to the relationship.

gspetr 9y ago
The very existence of open marriages defies your argument.

andymoe 9y ago

She’s entitled to half because that’s the contract they entered into when they got married.

nasmorn 9y ago
It is funny how you got downvotes for stating a fact. Like when you start a business and someone has vested shares but they don’t do anything much anymore while you are the CEO. Guess what they still own those shares. The unfairness is about the unidirectionality of time. The question is not if it looks fair ex post, but if you deemed it fair ex ante.

qsymmachus 9y ago

> I don't understand why she would be entitled to half given that she did not contribute half Under California law, all assets acquired after marriage are considered "community property". This means that regardless of who "actually" earned the assets, they are owned by each spouse equally (50/50). Not all states have this regime, and there are good arguments both for and against the concept. I believe that the strongest argument in favor is that community property prevents power imbalances from developing within a marriage. It is sadly common for a spouse to be trapped in an abusive or unhappy marriage, but who cannot practically escape the relationship because they do not have independent means of support. Community property provides a guarantee of financial support should a marriage dissolve.

hkmurakami 9y ago

Her support etc enables that kind of work to be done in the first place.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Yup. I've had side projects (none of them ever turned into big money), and I know the price my wife paid for me to have them. Off topic, but worth stating: Knowing that, I try to be supportive of stuff that she wants to take on.