Pre Nup agreements

lyndausvi

MyNameIsNot said:

At least in my state (Minnesota) inheritance is not considered community property. That would have been the main reason for us to get one. We chose not to, as were going into the marriage with equal or shared assets (anything of value is already in both our names).

I will Say this though, no matter how sweet, thoughtful, honest, nonmanipulative a person may be- You marry one person, but I promise you that you divorce a completely different person.

That's exactly Linda's point above. That's what the law is in your current state today. You could move to a different state or your state could change the law. The idea is to "lock in" that rule so that you are still as expected if the rules change.

Still, inheritance as community property is a little more complicated than yes/no. It depends on whether it gets intermingled with other assets and blah blah blah.

Yep.  DH's dad gave MIL a boatload of money to be given to DH and his brother for support. DH's mom took the money and bought a house with her now-ex.  Sounds legit.  The kids need a home right?

 The money then became joint assets since they bought the house together.

MIL made a lot of financial mistakes when it came to her ex-husband.  One of those was not having a pre-nup.

She is also a devout Catholic who goes to church every Sunday.  Never expected to get divorced, but when your husband tries to kill you, well,  you get a divorce in order to stay alive.

Maggie0829

I can see both sides.  I can understand being hurt if your SO asks for a prenup, especially if you never even gave it any consideration.  But I also see the point in a prenup for protecting the assets you already have.

But I guess if you are at the point of marriage you have most likely had these types of discussions (hopefully) already.  Just like discussing kids and religion and how you envision your lives then your feelings on a prenup (and how you want to handle separate and joint assets) should probably have been brought up as well.

julieanne912

yogadevil said:

At least in my state (Minnesota) inheritance is not considered community property. That would have been the main reason for us to get one. We chose not to, as were going into the marriage with equal or shared assets (anything of value is already in both our names).

I will Say this though, no matter how sweet, thoughtful, honest, nonmanipulative a person may be- You marry one person, but I promise you that you divorce a completely different person.

This.  I deal with a lot of divorces in my line of work and we pretty much see it all.  Some people are perfectly amicable, some can sit in a room together but it's pretty awkward, and some can't even be in the same building together.  All of them likely started their marriages with the same feelings of love etc.  Who knows what happened between the marriage and divorce.

JenLD2015

I think we are going to do it, mainly because neither of us has an issue with doing it, we can afford to have one done and it should be pretty easy.  We both agree that it brings some peace of mind, in the sense that we have discussed all the possibilities in a rational way.  

Thanks for the legal advice.  I have found a lawyer and we now just need to find him one.  

This doesn't have to be ugly, for those of you who would be offended.  It just helps set a tone if in the future, things don't happen as we planned and hoped. 

kaitlynmichelle

FIL wanted me to sign one, H said he didn't feel it was necessary. So I refused. I did specify I was willing to sign a document about ownership of their cottage in case of divorce but that it should be H and I discussing this, not his dad and his dad's lawyer. FIL was worried about me trying to take HIS money since H will inherit from him one day. He also then went to my step dad about it complaining that I didn't agree with him. He also has said to my folks he was worried I was in it for the money. Uh, yeah, I waited 10 years to marry my high school bf for an undisclosed amount of future inheritance that goes to H and his brothers. Sure. My parents, who have been friends with them since we were kids, were not amused by that.

FIL's first comment (literally) when we called to say we were engaged was that he was making me sign a pre nup. So understandably I was pissed, as was H.

In the end it was dropped but his dad never once talked to me about his concerns, just bad mouthed me to my family and his other sons. Wouldn't have a serious conversation with me about it. It led to our engagement being very stressful.

Long story short yes they can be useful but it should be a decision that spouses make, not their parents and by force. Considering everything we own is co-owned and paid for together, a pre nup was useless for us unless it got into inheritance issues. Which I'm sure there are other legal factors involved in that anyway.

wandajune6

We talked about it but ultimately decided against it. I have more assets (current and future) than DH but a lot more (mostly student loan) debt. My income is much greater now but his will catch up with mine pretty quickly.

The biggest asset that we worried about was my share in the startup that I work with. I probably should have had a prenup to protect it but we've always agreed that it would be used to pay off my student loans when we sell. I trust him. If I find out that I was wrong, I made an expensive mistake.

That said, my parents were very careful in writing their wills to protect any inheritance. When they pass, the money will be doled out in 5 year increments. Our husbands will only have access after we have been married 7+ years. I don't remember all of the details but their lawyers structured it to protect the money in case of divorce. I should probably learn more about the details but since I find the idea of anything happening to them terrifying I prefer to leave it alone (bad, I know).

redoryx

charcoalandblush said:

lovegood90 said:

katiekessler123 said:

I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, and I understand why some people may want one, but if my husband asked me to sign a pre-nup before we got married I would be very upset and would question marrying him. 

See, I have the opposite opinion- if my SO refused to sign one/got upset, I would be the one questioning marrying HIM. FFS, it's not a contract saying "I want to divorce you one day." I think people really need to get over themselves when they get upset about these things.

I agree wholeheartedly. If someone can't support my decision to protect myself and my assets, I would feel very disrespected.

Word. Especially now that I'm older and have my own business. 

emmaaa

We never even thought about it because we're poor.

plainjane0415

holyguacamole79 said:

Another unpopular opinion.  We never considered a pre-nup.  For us, it didn't make sense to make vows to each other to be faithful to each other until death separates us and then sign a document that says "but if that doesn't work out ...."

I don't see it as a "if it doesn't work out" type thing, I see it as someone making a responsible decision given their current net worth, and where they're at professionally, to make sure that there are no issues in the event that the worst case scenario happened.

It's a smart thing to do if you have a lot of assets, properties, etc. And it's also something that you should be able to discuss with your FI/H and not have them get offended about it.

Personally, we aren't doing it, because like PP we got together as poor college students, we both have been in the workforce for 5 years only now, so we don't have much.  We rent, we do not own a home, neither of us own any other property, so yea there's no reason for us to have one. 

But I do understand why other people do.

cupcait927

emmaaa said:

We never even thought about it because we're poor.

Ditto that. Neither of us stands to inherit anything, except maybe the house my H grew up in, we don't make a ton of money, and neither of us came into the relationship with any substantial assets aside from small retirement savings.

thespeshulestsnowflake

cupcait927 said:

emmaaa said:

We never even thought about it because we're poor.

Ditto that. Neither of us stands to inherit anything, except maybe the house my H grew up in, we don't make a ton of money, and neither of us came into the relationship with any substantial assets aside from small retirement savings.

But I would recommend one if you enter with significant debts (not saying either of you have any), because then you would be responsible for those debts in a divorce as well.

Jells2dot0

I'm late on this, but we have one. We also have a post nup. We reaffired our pre-nup after our marriage became legal. We both had our own lawyers. We have one for several reasons:

1) second marriage for both

2) DH has kids from his previous marriage

3) we both had significant assets going into the marriage

4) we both make good money and have the same 401K and pension plans. It's already equal

5) My family owns their own business and I receive benefits from that business

edit- we are also keeping everything separate AFTER the marriage except our home.

LadyMillil

We never discussed one, but we have no significant assets, no debt, and no kids. 

larrygaga

I don't have any real assets or equity at all, and I won't for a long time. FI's mom recently accused me of only dating him to spend all his money (I started dating him when I was 13 and he was 14 and I work and spend my own money) so I would probably be incredibly hurt if he asked for one. 

I'm not worried about it. 

aliwis000

If both parties going into a marriage want one I say go for it.

However, here is what it says to me if I were to get one. "Hi, I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you and I trust that you feel the same way. For me to let you into my heart and life to this point means you have proven to me, time and again, you the person I have seen day in and day out is the real you. We are agreeing to work through the hard times together till death. Amen.......... BUT just in case lets work out what happens when we split."


Umm..sorry till death means just that, no just in case we don't make it till death. If 10 years from now my FI goes off the rocker that is on him. Will it hurt me and effect my life? Of course. But that is what I am signing up for right now, to trust that he will remain the person he is (in the basic sense) now and forever. To me that is part of the promise, and frankly risk, of a marriage. And if we are expecting and preping for failure already how serious are we going to take this thing?

I know that many people have reasons that make sense to them and that is perfect for them but when it is applied to me this is how I feel.



NOTE: For clarity both my FI and I are entering the marriage with a decent amount of assets each. This will no longer be his/hers the moment we say I do/sign the certificate. We have on children which I agree would change things.

JennyColada

I brought it up, but DH didn't feel that one was needed.

His parents went through a shitty divorce and DH makes about 3.5x more than I do. So... If he said that he didn't feel that it was important for us to have one then I wasn't going to fight him on it, since it really would have just been for his protection.

wrigleyville

I don't understand the, "We're taking vows, so why should we do this thing that says 'but just in case'" reasoning.

You buy a house expecting to live in that house for a very long time, maybe even until you die. You're going to raise your children in that house. You're going to let your grandkids sleep over. You're going to pass out Halloween candy for the next fifty years. You don't buy a house and sign those mortgage papers without buying home insurance because you never know if there will be a fire. You don't want to have a fire, and you hope and pray you'll never have a fire, but sometimes, fires happen.

Same thing. You take vows, not expecting to get divorced some day, believing that nothing in the world will ever happen to cause a divorce (even though, like house fires, statistics show that divorce DOES happen), so why is having a pre-nup (insurance) such a bad thing?

Everyone can believe that their spouse will never cheat, that their spouse won't leave them when they are paralyzed by a car accident and can't perform sexually anymore, that their spouse won't decide - ten years down the road - that they really DO/DON'T want kids, that their spouse won't lose their job and sink into a deep depression that lasts for years and won't seek help, but these things happen. This is reality, and anyone who has assets and refuses to insure those assets, the same way you'd insure your "Forever Home" against fire, isn't seeing the big picture.

You can trust someone all you want, but any divorce lawyer in the world will tell you that all bets are off once the divorce proceedings start and those assets are on the table.

H and I signed a pre-nup, as he owns his own business. It's for his protection as well as his employees. If we got divorced and I turned into some money-grubbing harpy (hey... if he cheated on me, it would be tempting to seek revenge), I'm not going to ruin his business and put five people out of a job. The pre-nup prevents that. Obviously, I don't think I would do that, even without the pre-nup, but that's what insurance is for - the just in case situations.

A pre-nup does NOT mean you plan on getting divorced. It does NOT mean you won't have a good marriage. It is NOT a judgment about your partner. It is insurance, plain and simple.

holyguacamole79

@wrigleyville, my views on marriage are rooted in my faith as a Catholic.  I know that not everyone ascribes to these opinions, which is why I said that I understand why some couples opt to have one.

For us, it plain and simple wasn't an option.  This came up during our marriage prep, and my (now) husband plainly stated "Divorce is not an option."   We were actually questioned about several things during our marriage prep (clicky), including whether or not we had signed a prenup.  One of the main goals of Catholic marriage prep is to make sure the marriage is sacramental.  If the couple shows any signs that they may not be willing to enter into a life-long covenant, then there is a cause for concern.  The thing is, I know for us (and I'm not saying this is or isn't anyone else's POV) that our vows meant we entered into a covenant together which can only be broken by death.  Our mindset wasn't one of "I hope we don't get divorced" but one of "we cannot get divorced". 

What if my husband starts beating me?  What if I cheat on him?  We have both solemnly promised that we will be completely faithful and loving in our marriage covenant, so those two are flat out not options for either of us.

I think your house comparison has a major fault in that the house burning is most likely an accident.  People don't accidentally become unfaithful or become abusive.  There may be tendencies towards the abuse (anger issues), but the actual act of abuse is not an accident.

That's just my two cents.

ETA:  Just re-read your post.  Yes, if my husband were to be paralyzed in a car accident and could not perform sexually, I would absolutely stay with him and care for him.  No question.  I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me.

julieanne912

holyguacamole79 said:

@wrigleyville, my views on marriage are rooted in my faith as a Catholic.  I know that not everyone ascribes to these opinions, which is why I said that I understand why some couples opt to have one.

For us, it plain and simple wasn't an option.  This came up during our marriage prep, and my (now) husband plainly stated "Divorce is not an option."   We were actually questioned about several things during our marriage prep (clicky), including whether or not we had signed a prenup.  One of the main goals of Catholic marriage prep is to make sure the marriage is sacramental.  If the couple shows any signs that they may not be willing to enter into a life-long covenant, then there is a cause for concern.  The thing is, I know for us (and I'm not saying this is or isn't anyone else's POV) that our vows meant we entered into a covenant together which can only be broken by death.  Our mindset wasn't one of "I hope we don't get divorced" but one of "we cannot get divorced". 

What if my husband starts beating me?  What if I cheat on him?  We have both solemnly promised that we will be completely faithful and loving in our marriage covenant, so those two are flat out not options for either of us.

I think your house comparison has a major fault in that the house burning is most likely an accident.  People don't accidentally become unfaithful or become abusive.  There may be tendencies towards the abuse (anger issues), but the actual act of abuse is not an accident.

That's just my two cents.

ETA:  Just re-read your post.  Yes, if my husband were to be paralyzed in a car accident and could not perform sexually, I would absolutely stay with him and care for him.  No question.  I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me.

What if your husband went insane and became abusive to you and any children you have? Would you still stay married to him?

 Because that's what happened to my stepdad's parents.  Or, how about my aunt, her and her husband were married in the Catholic Church and were married for about 10 years when she found out he had been having an affair for 5 of those 10 years.  After she asked him to leave (he moved into her house), he attempted to reconcile with her, basically so he could move his elderly father into her home so she could take care of him.  So because they made solemn promises (that he broke) she should just take that kind of treatment?  BTW, she didn't, they're divorced now.

Nobody goes into a marriage expecting divorce.  But some crazy stuff can happen in life and people can change.  

southernbelle0915

holyguacamole79 said:

@wrigleyville, my views on marriage are rooted in my faith as a Catholic.  I know that not everyone ascribes to these opinions, which is why I said that I understand why some couples opt to have one.

For us, it plain and simple wasn't an option.  This came up during our marriage prep, and my (now) husband plainly stated "Divorce is not an option."   We were actually questioned about several things during our marriage prep (clicky), including whether or not we had signed a prenup.  One of the main goals of Catholic marriage prep is to make sure the marriage is sacramental.  If the couple shows any signs that they may not be willing to enter into a life-long covenant, then there is a cause for concern.  The thing is, I know for us (and I'm not saying this is or isn't anyone else's POV) that our vows meant we entered into a covenant together which can only be broken by death.  Our mindset wasn't one of "I hope we don't get divorced" but one of "we cannot get divorced". 

What if my husband starts beating me?  What if I cheat on him?  We have both solemnly promised that we will be completely faithful and loving in our marriage covenant, so those two are flat out not options for either of us.

I think your house comparison has a major fault in that the house burning is most likely an accident.  People don't accidentally become unfaithful or become abusive.  There may be tendencies towards the abuse (anger issues), but the actual act of abuse is not an accident.

That's just my two cents.

ETA:  Just re-read your post.  Yes, if my husband were to be paralyzed in a car accident and could not perform sexually, I would absolutely stay with him and care for him.  No question.  I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me.

I get that you're Catholic. Catholicism doesn't make you more immune from unhappy marriage/divorce or more faithful to your vows than anyone else. Catholics get divorced. Hell, even the pope has expressed understanding for divorcees. Sometimes divorce is actually the healthier option. Like in your example, if your husband started beating you...divorce may be a healthier option. I imagine you wouldn't tell a battered wife to "honor her vows" when she's getting the shit kicked out of her every day, would you?

In general, your tone is one of being a bit holier than thou. We all take vows and we all mean them - Catholic or not. Shit happens in life and just because a couple stays legally married doesn't mean they're honoring their vows. I know Catholic couples who a absolutely miserable. Not in love (one of the vows) but staying together because they said they would. But hey, at least they're not divorced.

holyguacamole79

julieanne912 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

@wrigleyville, my views on marriage are rooted in my faith as a Catholic.  I know that not everyone ascribes to these opinions, which is why I said that I understand why some couples opt to have one.

For us, it plain and simple wasn't an option.  This came up during our marriage prep, and my (now) husband plainly stated "Divorce is not an option."   We were actually questioned about several things during our marriage prep (clicky), including whether or not we had signed a prenup.  One of the main goals of Catholic marriage prep is to make sure the marriage is sacramental.  If the couple shows any signs that they may not be willing to enter into a life-long covenant, then there is a cause for concern.  The thing is, I know for us (and I'm not saying this is or isn't anyone else's POV) that our vows meant we entered into a covenant together which can only be broken by death.  Our mindset wasn't one of "I hope we don't get divorced" but one of "we cannot get divorced". 

What if my husband starts beating me?  What if I cheat on him?  We have both solemnly promised that we will be completely faithful and loving in our marriage covenant, so those two are flat out not options for either of us.

I think your house comparison has a major fault in that the house burning is most likely an accident.  People don't accidentally become unfaithful or become abusive.  There may be tendencies towards the abuse (anger issues), but the actual act of abuse is not an accident.

That's just my two cents.

ETA:  Just re-read your post.  Yes, if my husband were to be paralyzed in a car accident and could not perform sexually, I would absolutely stay with him and care for him.  No question.  I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me.

What if your husband went insane and became abusive to you and any children you have? Would you still stay married to him?

 Because that's what happened to my stepdad's parents.  Or, how about my aunt, her and her husband were married in the Catholic Church and were married for about 10 years when she found out he had been having an affair for 5 of those 10 years.  After she asked him to leave (he moved into her house), he attempted to reconcile with her, basically so he could move his elderly father into her home so she could take care of him.  So because they made solemn promises (that he broke) she should just take that kind of treatment?  BTW, she didn't, they're divorced now.

Nobody goes into a marriage expecting divorce.  But some crazy stuff can happen in life and people can change.  

Absolutely I would leave a situation where I (and my hypothetical kids) were in danger. 

holyguacamole79

southernbelle0915 said:

holyguacamole79 said:

@wrigleyville, my views on marriage are rooted in my faith as a Catholic.  I know that not everyone ascribes to these opinions, which is why I said that I understand why some couples opt to have one.

For us, it plain and simple wasn't an option.  This came up during our marriage prep, and my (now) husband plainly stated "Divorce is not an option."   We were actually questioned about several things during our marriage prep (clicky), including whether or not we had signed a prenup.  One of the main goals of Catholic marriage prep is to make sure the marriage is sacramental.  If the couple shows any signs that they may not be willing to enter into a life-long covenant, then there is a cause for concern.  The thing is, I know for us (and I'm not saying this is or isn't anyone else's POV) that our vows meant we entered into a covenant together which can only be broken by death.  Our mindset wasn't one of "I hope we don't get divorced" but one of "we cannot get divorced". 

What if my husband starts beating me?  What if I cheat on him?  We have both solemnly promised that we will be completely faithful and loving in our marriage covenant, so those two are flat out not options for either of us.

I think your house comparison has a major fault in that the house burning is most likely an accident.  People don't accidentally become unfaithful or become abusive.  There may be tendencies towards the abuse (anger issues), but the actual act of abuse is not an accident.

That's just my two cents.

ETA:  Just re-read your post.  Yes, if my husband were to be paralyzed in a car accident and could not perform sexually, I would absolutely stay with him and care for him.  No question.  I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me.

I get that you're Catholic. Catholicism doesn't make you more immune from unhappy marriage/divorce or more faithful to your vows than anyone else. Catholics get divorced. Hell, even the pope has expressed understanding for divorcees. Sometimes divorce is actually the healthier option. Like in your example, if your husband started beating you...divorce may be a healthier option. I imagine you wouldn't tell a battered wife to "honor her vows" when she's getting the shit kicked out of her every day, would you?

In general, your tone is one of being a bit holier than thou. We all take vows and we all mean them - Catholic or not. Shit happens in life and just because a couple stays legally married doesn't mean they're honoring their vows. I know Catholic couples who a absolutely miserable. Not in love (one of the vows) but staying together because they said they would. But hey, at least they're not divorced.

You read way more into what I say.

I have a friend who is devoutly Catholic and whose (soon to be ex) husband is as well. He beat the shit out of her in a drunken rage and I was one of the first people she told. Of course I support her on leaving. There is no doubt in my mind.

I'm simply saying that for us a pre nup was not an option and I shared our reasons. Yes, our faith plays a huge role in that. Yes, we know that not all Catholics view things the same way.

Fwiw, H participates on sports forums and when OT posts like this come up, he gets crapped on for saying the same thing.

natswild

Something that no one has brought up yet, is that pre nups aren't just for divorce. It also lays out what happens in the case of death of the other half of the couple, as well as delineating financial responsibilities, care of children from previous marriage, and protection from the spouse's debt.  That last, very important, means whether you divorce or become a widow, your spouse's creditors CAN NOT come after you.

In the event of death of one person, it also covers the children from previous marriage as far as inheritance goes.

My fiance and I will be doing a prenup, and when he first brought up getting married, he said he wanted a prenup (he literally beat me by half a second mentioning it, because I was about to bring it up).  He does have a daughter from his first marriage, and has a LOT more in RRSPs/investments than I do, so it totally makes sense for us.

To us, it was less expecting that divorce was a possibility, and more protection against an unknown future.

wrigleyville

holyguacamole79 said:

ETA:  Just re-read your post.  Yes, if my husband were to be paralyzed in a car accident and could not perform sexually, I would absolutely stay with him and care for him.  No question.  I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me.

Okay, but that was just one of many, many, many, many reasons couples end up divorced. I didn't say that it was the only reason or that everyone leaves because of that. It was simply an example.

Also, it's really hard to say something like, "I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me." Nobody knows until they are in that situation, so while you "believe" he'd do the same for you, there's no way of knowing for sure. Nobody can predict the future.

I know your faith does not allow divorce, but I have a hard time believing God would want two people to stay together for the rest of their lives if they were absolutely and completely miserable.

porkchops926

We are getting one. He has inheritance that he will come into from his parents as do I, and even though his is more we both feel comfortable having a legal decree that basically says "what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours if this doesn't work out"

Obviously we don't have doubts about each other and think it will work out, but I think if either of you have assets it's a necessary thing in this day and age. 

Jells2dot0

I know the inheritance thing has been discussed, but do those laws vary by state? When DH got divorced, his ex inherited almost $1M. He could not stake a claim to it and it couldn't be counted as income to her, which would have eliminated spousal support.

We are both in line to inherit some assets and money (me more than him) and we didn't even bother putting any language into our prenup about it. However, our prenup and post nup is pretty darn specific about everything staying separate before, during, and after our marriage.

holyguacamole79

wrigleyville said:

holyguacamole79 said:

ETA:  Just re-read your post.  Yes, if my husband were to be paralyzed in a car accident and could not perform sexually, I would absolutely stay with him and care for him.  No question.  I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me.

Okay, but that was just one of many, many, many, many reasons couples end up divorced. I didn't say that it was the only reason or that everyone leaves because of that. It was simply an example.

Also, it's really hard to say something like, "I have every reason to believe he'd do the same for me." Nobody knows until they are in that situation, so while you "believe" he'd do the same for you, there's no way of knowing for sure. Nobody can predict the future.

I know your faith does not allow divorce, but I have a hard time believing God would want two people to stay together for the rest of their lives if they were absolutely and completely miserable.

To the first bold, I said "I have every reason to believe".  I did not say "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt".  I'm saying that based on how he has reacted in past times where I've been in pain, I have every reason to believe that he would care for me if I were in an accident resulting like that.

To the second, that statement is very misleading and not completely accurate. 

While the Church does not believe in the authority of civil divorce, there are reasons where a divorce may be necessary.  Here's the actual teaching:

Divorce

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.¹⁷⁴ He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.¹⁷⁵

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."¹⁷⁶

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.¹⁷⁷

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.¹⁷⁸

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.¹⁷⁹

---

An annulment is not a "Catholic divorce".  An annulment says that the union was not sacramental to begin with.  There was something missing, or one of the parties was withholding something.  If both parties sign a pre-nup stipulating what happens to finances and assets in the event of the divorce, the Church sees that as the couple saying "we want insurance in case this doesn't work out".  The sacramental marriage is meant to be just as binding as the other sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, etc).  I hope this makes more sense.

katiekessler123

Clearly, some people believe in pre-nups, and some don't, and that's ok because everyone can have their own opinions.  I have to say though, a lot of the examples for divorce that are being thrown out on this board are really extreme, while most of the people I know that have been divorced got divorced basically because they couldn't work it out (NOT because someone was paralyzed in a car accident, or one spouse tried to murder another spouse). 

Obviously, each marriage is private and no one truly knows the details of another person's marriage, but my friends that have been divorced were basically divorced for these reasons: one person wanted children and the other did not (didn't discuss that before getting married), one person was a crazy spender and the other a saver (again, didn't work that one out before getting married), one person, who had a history of cheating, cheated on his spouse (the signs were there before getting married).  

badbnagdway

Just to echo another poster, make sure that if you do enter into a pre-nup it is not one-sided. Both parties need to have their own lawyer. Both parties need to fully disclose everything they have. Pre-nups get nullified A LOT in every state. Most commonly, and most avoidably, it is because someone failed to disclose. 

FI and I are not doing a pre-nup. He said that I am the first woman he has ever been with that he felt that he wouldn't need a pre-nup to marry me. I have debt (car loan and student debt) and he has self-earned money to the tune of a pretty hefty retirement account and savings for people our age. 

Now, none of this is to say a pre-nup is a bad thing. For first marriages it really only makes sense when one or both have money. I completely understand a wealthy family pushing for a pre-nup. Shit happens, and protecting their money is how the rich stay and get rich. I do not think a pre-nup equals assuming you will get divorced. 

VulgarGirl

In my state, currently, my marriage is recognized as legally valid. Good. But in, lets say Texas, not so much. So if Wifey and I were to move to Texas for some reason and while in Texas we realized our marriage was not working out and we wanted to end things, this would get very motherfucking complicated. 

Because the federal government says we are married. But the state of Texas says were little more then roommates. 

A prenup could streamline and make things easier. And once Fufu arrives, it'll be even more complicated. In fact Wifey wants to update our paperwork to refelect that I'm the other intended parent. Because, ok check this out, if lets say Wifey goes through the pregnancy the worst most awfulest thing ever happens and she passes away during child birth, but Fufu survives. I currently have no legal right to Fufu. She's not biologically mine and you can't adopt a child until it is born. So...I'm just Fufu's mom's wife. I'm Fufu's step-mom at best in our current state, and in Texas I've got as much legal right as the lady in the next bed. Fufu would actually go to her biological father, aka: the sperm donor. Because he has more legal rights then I do.

In California I'd be considered the intended parent since I impregnated Wifey. In Arizona, I'm step-mom. In Texas, I'm the nice lady who lives with them.

Pre-nups and wills aren't just about $$ and divorce. We're having it stated in as many places as possilbe, as many times as possible, I'm Fufu's other mother. In our prenup it states something along the lines (in legalese) "Any children conceived during the marriage of Fiona and Sophia are intended to be raised by both Fiona and Sophia". It might not hold up in every court, but it is something.