For, in most cases. Sometimes they aren't necessary. It depends on how rich you are when you're getting married, and if you were rich when you met the girl. "In 1994, when NBA center Dikembe Mutombo was engaged to Michelle Roberts, a med student, Roberts refused to sign a premarital contract the day before the wedding. Five hundred guests—including a large party from Mutombo's native Democratic Republic of Congo—had begun flying in to Washington. "[Roberts] never signed," Falk says, "and Mutombo never married the girl." Calling off the nuptials reportedly cost him $250,000." http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn....364/6/index.htm Probably the best quarter million Deke has ever spent. Saved him millions. If the girl really loved Deke, she would have done anything for him including signing a prenup.
you can put provisions in them that they still get fair amount of dough. just not half. basically everybodys answer should be "for unless your poor".
Holla, we want prenup, we want prenup! Its something that you need to have, 'cause when she leave yo kids she gonna leave with half. Eighteen years, eighteen years, and on the eighteenth birthday she found out it wasn't hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis.
Or if he really loved her wouldn't he believe that she wouldn't leave him? I don't know where I stand, just throwing it out there.
what does him loving her have to do with anything? plenty of people love someone who eventually leaves them.
if she's completely irrational, yes. if not, she'll understand that neither one of them knows what the future will actually bring and that he's smart to want to protect his assets incase something unexpected happens.
She's a woman [/end sexist comment] But seriously, I can understand why someone would want a prenup, but surely you can also see how someone may be insulted by the fiancee asking for one. Again, I still don't know where I stand, I'm just taking the opposite side as no-one else seems to.
For if I'm richer, against if I'm poorer. I've never been rich so I don't know the stress of wondering if the person you're with is in love with you or your lifestyle.
I'd prefer not to get married (not synonymous to not having a woman), but if I did, I'd definitely go for the prenup. It's such a stupid thing that the other person should get 50% of things he or she hasn't earned. That's especially true in those relationships where one of the two is the one making all the money.
Well its not as much about who earned what as it is about maintaining a certain lifestyle you've become accustomed to. There was a high profile divorce recently where the woman was awarded something like $38,000 a week but sued for more because she spent over $50,000 a week when they were married, IIRC.
What if one is at home with the kids, though? Surely they shouldn't get nothing, as they have given up the opportunity to work to look after the kids, which is unpaid. iirc the laws are different in different states (i.e. 50% of things earned after marriage only, versus 50% of total assets), as my cousin recently moved to AZ (I think) and her husband immediately asked for a divorce, conveniently just after he got the right to 50% of their assets rather than just 50% of what had been earned since they got married. They had no kids and he never worked. And I know that I just argued both sides in one post, but hey.
She would have married Deke if she really loved him. Why would she have to worry about a prenup if she knows either way she is going to be well set financially with the man she loves for the rest of her life? Now as a man, I understand why Deke would want a prenup. I think it's fair to suggest he loved her (she had brains and beauty plus a pretty booty), but that he wasn't sure if she loved him or his money.
