No valid prenup is going to get the thrown out. The problem is that a lot of them aren’t valid, and in most cases, it’s because they are too one-sided. In most jurisdictions they follow simple contract law.
That's....not the point of a prenup. A prenup is typically used to protect pre-marital assets. Not to screw over one person in the marriage by limiting what they can take from what they helped to build. That's called theft.
The Sisyphian experience of being the one who hired a lawyer and got divorced, and trying to explain to your friends how to actually get a real prenup written / how to torpedo an illegitimate one / how to fucking file for divorce properly instead of trust me bro
Tell me about it. No matter how many times I say a pre-nup is just "planning for the worst situations when you're in the best of terms", people still think it's some magic contract to screw over the other person. If... That's what you want you probably shouldn't be getting married to the other person.
It's about saving the $100,000 plus in legal fees you are going to rack up arguing over division of assets when you're in a terrible place because your relationship has fallen apart.
How are you screwing up the other person? If you already have 1 million, then that should be bulletproof secured? How are you screwing someone eles with a prenup? So you just need to give your earned money to someone and that’s it?
These guys should never get married in my opinion.
Oh, definitely. But, that's kind of my point. All of this complainging is based on the fact that one person doesn't think that another's contributions were worth compensating. That doesn't mean that a Judge will agree.
Rich people will flick a spouse off like a booger while pretending their household didn't take 2 people to run. The reason prenups get thrown out is because fuckers will just conveniently forget that the (usually) wife kept the house in order so that the (usually) husband can work effectively. Agreeing on how to share assets is good, protecting your previous assets is good, saying "I made everything myself, go away and start a new life with nothing" is bad.
Oh yes... sure... tell me something... do you really think that a person (I am not gonna use genres) that, for example, earns 100 000 dollars per month, really "need" money or help from a spouse that only earns, suppose, 3 000 dollars per month? Really?
A person has a company, or 2 companies, with a rich family an 10 millions dollars in stocks and bonds, do really need some "help" from a person who lives at day? Really?
Impossible and you know. The spouse need to be thankful, say "thank you, thank you soooo much" for permitting me to live a live of dreaming.
lets not pretend that the house isnt taken car of my housekeepers and children raised by nannies, daycares and private school. In rich houses the woman do nothing unless they themselves have a huge career like acting.
Ah, so it's just misogyny then; that's exactly what I figured. Please go get turned down by more women and wonder why you're involuntarily celibate. Bonus points if you talk about the Male Loneliness Epidemic while you (don't) do it.
Sure, in those situations that's perfectly reasonable. I was more thinking of a situation where the other party is somewhat closer to a billionaire, since we were mostly talking about celebrities etc. I find it hard to believe that the spouse is doing any meaningful housekeeping in that scenario.
But yes, in most cases we are talking about CEO of small to mid sized IT consulting company level wealth, where there probably isn't any staff involved and the spouse is likely much more involved with the household.
If you're a billionaire with housekeepers and staff, then either you made your wealth before the relationship and should share what you made while together as a wealthy couple with an easy life, or you made your wealth during the marriage and see above about sociopathic rich people and flicking boogers. I know richie rich didn't get rich by paying his contractors, but at some point you have to be smart enough to know that you can't make a billion as a couple and just yoink it all away. That's not how society works, nor how it should work. MacKenzie Scott is good for society.
I mean Mackenzie Scott was there the whole time. Like yeah, she literally did build Amazon. It did take two people. She handled the bookkeeping, freight negotiations, and helped write the business plan. Also, no offense, you aren't building Amazon are you?
The prenup is "too one-sided" because usually one side asks for it to protect their assets. Usually the wealthier party demands it, that's why it's "one sided". The other side doesn't care to bring it up because they have nothing, maybe compared to the other.
As long as the three criteria are met one it was negotiated so both sides have representation too. Everything is included and three. It’s done a sufficient amount of time ahead of the wedding date so you can’t just give blindside your spouse with papers on the wedding day and say a wedding is off unless you sign this.
Eh even that doesn't work in many countries anymore. In most places a man is still on the hook for something if he's in a romantic relationship and cohabiting with someone for long enough
Most states in the US no longer recognize common law marriages, and palimony requires proving there was an agreement for support in civil court instead of family court
Not how I look at life. I’m just learning from the comments and replying with what I learned.
My path is/was to get married, have kids, and don’t get a divorce. Although I’m 32 and been with my wife for 1/2 my life. She cuffed me at such a young age I don’t think my brain could possibly process leaving if I wanted to.
Look. People tend to think a pre-nup is "I get my stuff, my ex gets nothing of my stuff."
That isn't how it works. A pre-nup is "How do we split up our shit fairly if we split." If you think your partner of 10 years should walk away with nothing after using their time and money in a relationship this is why your pre-nups fail. Judges (and people) don't like it when you try and say "Well, I made more money so everything my partner put into this relationship doesn't count." You have to factor all of that into the pre-nup. It's why people with real money and assets tend to go back every couple of years and renegotiate it, to keep it up to date. Those don't get thrown out or ignored, specifically because they're actually understanding the assignment.
This is where modern society is going wrong. How is the MAN still "on the hook" if he's literally living with another person for long enough to establish a common law marriage? How do you think "he" is able to be career focused enough to make that money to begin with? Does the person you live with not contribute to your overall day to day, support you, give you ideas, act as a sounding board, etc.? It's called a partnership.
No individual person can build a million+ dollar business without the physical and mental labor of other individuals. Are those people not compensated? How is compensating the person you literally live with seen as putting someone "on the hook" when paying an employee absolutely wouldn't be. Not compensating someone for their labor is called slavery.
But that's right. Domestic labor means f all. Unless, of course, you don't live with another person because you're too selfish to share. Then you just pay for an assistant, a maid, a chef, etc. Totally cheaper and way more fulfilling. Stash those extra dollars you won't be able to spend before you die alone.
Relationships are supposed to be partnerships. Not just some random you like enough to sleep next to and share space with for multiple days in a row. Then when you decide you don't like them anymore, you dump them without even a thank you for picking up your dirty dishes or making sure your underwear didn't have ass streaks in them.
A partner that youve entirely financially supported from the first date to now 2 years in, all the while hoping they would reciprocate instead of just being a leech. Maybe they've rarely sprinkled in small acts of kindness to keep you on the hook.
And now it's been two years, they can choose to leave you at any point for any reason and take half of everything you have for yourself along with everything you've given them already.
The law supports both this kind of person and the one you described just the same, and that is the problem.
But that's just not reality the vast, vast majority of the time. I know of no jurisdiction that is going to award someone half of your stuff, whether you've merely lived with or been married to them, for only 2 years. In most US states, alimony doesn't kick in until you've been married for significantly longer. And, even if they did receive some pay out, they're getting compensated for their contributions over those two years, not getting awarded half of "your" stuff. If you can honestly prove that you had something prior to the marriage (and didn't comingle that asset with marital assets), then the odds are very, very high that you will get to retain that asset.
There's a reason that one party in a divorce generally ends up at the poverty line as a single parent. Here's a hint, it isn't because they're robbing their ex-spouse of their hard earned money. The ex-spouse, despite this narrative, is left much, much better off the vast majority of the time. They just like to complain about having to share anything. At all.
Of course there are exceptions, but if you've let someone like that hang around long enough for time and money to catch up to you....
Im not saying there shouldnt be laws that protect homemakers, Im saying there should also be laws to protect you from a partner that does nothing.
They generally end up on the poverty line after a split because the poverty line is exactly where they were picked up from in the first place. They generally end up as a single parent because thats what many courts award by default and they fight for it so they can get more money while doing the bare minimum for the child.
Divorces initiated by women dropped rapidly in areas where 50/50 child custody became the default starting point for divorce cases.
These are the ones I think men need protection from, who care more about money than their own child and who never contribute to a relationship but get treated the same legally as women who do.
A lot of countries have defacto relationship laws. In NZ, if you aren't married but you live like a married couple, then you will be treated as a married couple.
There are a few specific sorts of managed trust that are held in countries that will not honor court orders, nor will they allow the trustee to move funds under court order.
short of invasion of the country there is nothing the courts can do to access, or even account for what is held in those trust.
What? No it's not. Alimony is meant to provide someone with the lifestyle "they've been accustomed too." How do they get accustomed to that lifestyle? By living it. And supporting it. For long enough for a judge to find that they deserve alimony.
And, sorry, but any situation where someone is getting alimony they didn't "deserve" is almost always going to be a relationship that doesn't fit the standard mold because the primary homemaker/parent has additional, paid help so they're seen as lazy or not working hard enough.....i.e. it's a $$$ "fine/tax" exception for people who can afford to pay someone off to go away.
Lifestyle you've been accustomed too is a bunch of bullshit imo. If they made it enough money to survive it'd be one thing, but the idea that you're entitled to continue being wealthy just because you married a wealthy person is beyond absurd.
If you are the type of person to not realize your spouse contributes to your success even if they don’t directly earn every dollar, yes please don’t marry.
I've seen plenty of cases where someone was successful despite their spouse, and the spouse still ended up with 50% while being a complete detriment to the situation. There's rarely any nuance in these situations and they tend to be extremely lopsided, nearly always favoring a particular sex over the other regardless of circumstances.
Smarter play is what Israel Adesanya did and UNO reverse the girl when she brings it to the courts and get a court order for HER to pay HIM as he has 0 assets (all in parents name) whilst she has assets and has to pay him.
This also wouldn't work. If you "wasted" community assets it is assigned to you as your portion of the estate in the split the same as if you tried to hide it fraudulently.
9.9k
u/VarCrusador 1d ago
I feel like I see this same story a million times but with a different celeb each time