5 ms·

There is minimal US law on this. States have their own laws individually which vary considerably. The context here has nothing to do with children and these peo

There is minimal US law on this. States have their own laws individually which vary considerably. The context here has nothing to do with children and these people commonly don’t have any. Legal jurisdiction can be quite fluid, which just adds to the complexity. A major motivating factor is that marriage can create myriad ruinous financial entanglements and eliminate most possibilities for recourse. Especially in affluent places like Seattle, people are often entering these relationships with a mature financial and business life. The loss of independence under law, both technically and in practice, in regard to these affairs in marriage has produced countless examples of bad outcomes for people, often forcing them to start over from zero in their 30s or 40s. It doesn’t matter if you divorce later, the damage is already done. By not getting married, they retain independence in these matters recognized by law which shields them from the downside scenarios. These cases are mostly about retaining the ability to continue to run their businesses, investments, etc as they wish both in marriage and after. States in the western US are notoriously much less accommodating of protecting the interests of individuals in marriage than in some other parts of the country (purportedly due to the strong influence of Spanish legal customs in that region of North America). The forced loss of agency is not compatible with many requirements of competently living a modern life. I probably know more women who were ruined by this in marriage than men. It has nothing to do with staying home or quitting a career to raise kids.

graemep 2y ago
I do not really understand that. Why would people have to start again from zero? What sort of "forced loss of agency" happens? Are there laws allowing people to stop their spouse from running an existing business?
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  It comes from an ancient legal regime called “community property” inherited from the Spanish in the southwestern US. The details of what is within legal scope and how it is handled varies significantly with jurisdiction. In most cases the loss of ownership independence also comes with a loss of management independence — your spouse can get involved and has veto power. Assets that are out of scope can bleed into scope over time. The entire notion interacts poorly with modern legal and financial structures related to businesses and assets. It isn’t talked about much but I’ve seen a couple startups destroyed by this and it is a not uncommon source of dead equity in cap tables.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    If owners were concerned, why wasn't there a prenupt? Do you have details on what you're talking about? Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      Depending on state that will be thrown out.
    - jandrewrogers 2y ago
      > Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes. Really? That’s what you’ve got? I’ve seen examples of this in Silicon Valley going back to the 1990s. A prenup is not reliable and loads of people don’t have one in any case. Unlike not getting married, there is significant social pressure against prenups. If you actually care the path of least resistance is to not get married. It is quite difficult to get a prenup against the possibility that someone will prove to be irresponsible or malicious in the future in a context they’ve never experienced thus far. It also doesn’t address the case that if you start a company while married, your spouse effectively has full license to destroy it even if they were completely uninvolved up until the point where they decide to destroy it. I’ve seen it happen, lots of collateral damage for both employees and investors. People will do it out of spite. How do you write a prenup about a company that doesn’t exist yet and may never exist? Anything that can happen legally generally happens in practice. Average people even in tech don’t hire a team of lawyers when they decide to get married. If you’ve chosen to get your information from talk radio and TikTok as you seem to suggest, well, that’s a choice.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        I meant you sound like rants on talk radio and TikTok. If you cited more examples and laws, and relied less on drawn out appeals to emotion, I'd be more inclined to take what you're saying seriously.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

graemep 2y ago

I do not really understand that. Why would people have to start again from zero? What sort of "forced loss of agency" happens? Are there laws allowing people to stop their spouse from running an existing business?

jandrewrogers 2y ago
It comes from an ancient legal regime called “community property” inherited from the Spanish in the southwestern US. The details of what is within legal scope and how it is handled varies significantly with jurisdiction. In most cases the loss of ownership independence also comes with a loss of management independence — your spouse can get involved and has veto power. Assets that are out of scope can bleed into scope over time. The entire notion interacts poorly with modern legal and financial structures related to businesses and assets. It isn’t talked about much but I’ve seen a couple startups destroyed by this and it is a not uncommon source of dead equity in cap tables.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  If owners were concerned, why wasn't there a prenupt? Do you have details on what you're talking about? Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    Depending on state that will be thrown out.
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    > Because you're coming across with talk radio / TikTok vibes. Really? That’s what you’ve got? I’ve seen examples of this in Silicon Valley going back to the 1990s. A prenup is not reliable and loads of people don’t have one in any case. Unlike not getting married, there is significant social pressure against prenups. If you actually care the path of least resistance is to not get married. It is quite difficult to get a prenup against the possibility that someone will prove to be irresponsible or malicious in the future in a context they’ve never experienced thus far. It also doesn’t address the case that if you start a company while married, your spouse effectively has full license to destroy it even if they were completely uninvolved up until the point where they decide to destroy it. I’ve seen it happen, lots of collateral damage for both employees and investors. People will do it out of spite. How do you write a prenup about a company that doesn’t exist yet and may never exist? Anything that can happen legally generally happens in practice. Average people even in tech don’t hire a team of lawyers when they decide to get married. If you’ve chosen to get your information from talk radio and TikTok as you seem to suggest, well, that’s a choice.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      I meant you sound like rants on talk radio and TikTok. If you cited more examples and laws, and relied less on drawn out appeals to emotion, I'd be more inclined to take what you're saying seriously.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]