4 ms·

By definition, a prenuptial agreement only covers entering into the marriage. Future assets, especially in community property states, usually have to be specif

By definition, a prenuptial agreement only covers entering into the marriage. Future assets, especially in community property states, usually have to be specifically disclaimed by the other party in the marriage before they can be considered separate property. For example: A prenup can't specify that a house bought after marriage is separate property, but the non-owning spouse can voluntarily sign away rights to that property as a recorded instrument. This is why some deeds say "John A. Doe, Grantee, a married man as his sole and separate property." (Some states allow for property purchased with separate assets to remain separate inside the marriage but the paper trail on this better be meticulous if a divorce ever happens.) Editorializing: Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? A relationship, especially a marriage, is inherently two people acting as a unit, so just because one spouse didn't sling PHP and research lambdas all night doesn't mean that either spouse's contribution is more or less valuable. If my spouse accomplished something like this, I'd be thrilled at the success and genuinely looking forward to our life together with much less time and stress investment from both of us, since that means that I was also picking up a lot more of the "home life."

shutupalready 13y ago
> Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards OK, I'll bite. What if one of these situations: 1) What if the spouse was dead set against the start-up, and did everything possible to dissuade you, but you succeeded anyway. 2) What if you used your own money and assets from before the marriage to finance it? And what if those monies and assets were covered by the prenup; the company financed by those investments would or wouldn't be covered? 3) What if you founded the company when the marriage was in obvious decline and you both knew you'd eventually get divorced? What if you founded it when you were already separated? 4) Many companies with 2 founders don't have a 50:50 split. Why does the split with the spouse need to be 50:50 in the case of a company? Why shouldn't it be 60:40 or 90:10 assuming we accept the notion that the spouse must have been contributing something and is entitled.
- pseut 13y ago
  Then tear up the pre-nup and sign a new contract.
hueving 13y ago
>Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? Because just sitting around giving emotional support to someone doesn't entitle you to half of everything they get. It doesn't work that way with any other relationship (parent, friend, etc), so why should a marriage? This is especially true if both partners are working.
- declan 13y ago
  I think if you view marriage as "just sitting around," this is not the type of romantic relationship that describes what typical founders likely seek out. To answer your point more directly, one difference is that a marriage tends to produce children in a way that platonic friendships tend not do. My sense is that equal division of significant income and equity post-marriage will help, not hurt, children. To answer your point a different way, the default marital property settings tend to work well for most people. Of course you can change those defaults to some extent with prenups, postnups, trusts, and so on. If you're still dissatisfied with your ability to alter those defaults, well, nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to marry someone you like to live with, have sex with, and even raise kids with.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Because that's what marriage is. If you don't like it, there's an easy solution - don't marry. You can do practically everything - from sex to going to movies together to emotionally supporting - without being married. If the concept of sharing your life with another person sounds weird - just don't do it. It's not mandatory, you know.
  - rdl 13y ago
    Careful about community property/common law marriage, though. Most of the liabilities, few of the benefits.
  - nawitus 13y ago
    No, there are different kinds of marriages. One can have an agreement that past and future assets are not divided. If you don't like it, don't get such an agreement. >If the concept of sharing your life with another person sounds weird - just don't do it. Sharing your life with another person doesn't imply sharing property.
nawitus 13y ago
"Prenuptial agreements" can cover 'future assets' in Finland, if agreed upon. Actually, there's a term called 'antenuptial agreement' which can cover future assets.

shutupalready 13y ago

> Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards OK, I'll bite. What if one of these situations: 1) What if the spouse was dead set against the start-up, and did everything possible to dissuade you, but you succeeded anyway. 2) What if you used your own money and assets from before the marriage to finance it? And what if those monies and assets were covered by the prenup; the company financed by those investments would or wouldn't be covered? 3) What if you founded the company when the marriage was in obvious decline and you both knew you'd eventually get divorced? What if you founded it when you were already separated? 4) Many companies with 2 founders don't have a 50:50 split. Why does the split with the spouse need to be 50:50 in the case of a company? Why shouldn't it be 60:40 or 90:10 assuming we accept the notion that the spouse must have been contributing something and is entitled.

pseut 13y ago
Then tear up the pre-nup and sign a new contract.

hueving 13y ago

>Why would a spouse be no less entitled to reap the rewards generated by the other spouse's start-up? Because just sitting around giving emotional support to someone doesn't entitle you to half of everything they get. It doesn't work that way with any other relationship (parent, friend, etc), so why should a marriage? This is especially true if both partners are working.

declan 13y ago
I think if you view marriage as "just sitting around," this is not the type of romantic relationship that describes what typical founders likely seek out. To answer your point more directly, one difference is that a marriage tends to produce children in a way that platonic friendships tend not do. My sense is that equal division of significant income and equity post-marriage will help, not hurt, children. To answer your point a different way, the default marital property settings tend to work well for most people. Of course you can change those defaults to some extent with prenups, postnups, trusts, and so on. If you're still dissatisfied with your ability to alter those defaults, well, nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to marry someone you like to live with, have sex with, and even raise kids with.
smsm42 13y ago
Because that's what marriage is. If you don't like it, there's an easy solution - don't marry. You can do practically everything - from sex to going to movies together to emotionally supporting - without being married. If the concept of sharing your life with another person sounds weird - just don't do it. It's not mandatory, you know.
- rdl 13y ago
  Careful about community property/common law marriage, though. Most of the liabilities, few of the benefits.
- nawitus 13y ago
  No, there are different kinds of marriages. One can have an agreement that past and future assets are not divided. If you don't like it, don't get such an agreement. >If the concept of sharing your life with another person sounds weird - just don't do it. Sharing your life with another person doesn't imply sharing property.

nawitus 13y ago

"Prenuptial agreements" can cover 'future assets' in Finland, if agreed upon. Actually, there's a term called 'antenuptial agreement' which can cover future assets.