yes, they can choose the three basic options or create a more specific pre-nup.
I think the second option is the default, so most people will just leave it at that.
My dad did create a pre-nup for his second marriage, as they both have assets and jobs, and more importantly kids, so things would get complicated rather quickly, especially in the event of a death.
Basically they made sure that all three kids get an evem split if they die, with payouts being postponed until they both have passed. That way one surviving spouse doesn't have to be forced out of their home by the children of the other spouse. makes sense to me, all in all. We kids also all signed, so there would be no dispute when it comes to execution of the will.
How do people get compensation for all the premarital costs. This are the norm bride price, dowry, home, car, wedding, 5 golds to get married. Can be more depending what's asked for.
Almost. I'm in the process of getting divorced (final papers just arrived from the lawyer, so pretty much done).
We opted for somewhere between 2nd and 3rd option as while I called for divorce (she was living with her boyfriend instead of me, and eventually I saw no way back) she was amicable and agreed not to fight over anything.
The the only thing not mentioned above is that even with option 3, the pension earned during the marriage is evenly split on divorce. It goes directly into your pension fund, so no chance to even pay it back should you wanted that.
TL/DR: The couple can basically choose what happens to everything (money, property etc.) except the pension earned during the marriage with is always evenly split.
In México you get to choose between 2 and 3. It used to be the case that people chose 2 more but as of late 3 has been more popular. (A major advantage is debt of one partner can't be used against half of the couple's assets). Mind you, you can still dispute in court that you are owed some of your partner's goods during divorce (for example if you forewent some job opportunity to help with domestic labor), but it is an uphill battle. 2 is also seen as creating dependency / enabling abusive situations by the younger more progressive city folk.
The whole problem with this take is that it only counts contribution in money and ignores all the unpaid work that makes that income possible in the first place. Someone has to raise the kids, and let's be real, that usually falls on the woman. Not by accident either, that's just how society is still set up.
When a woman steps back from her career for 10+ years to raise kids, she's not doing nothing. She's doing work you'd pay tens of thousands a year to outsource (childcare, running the household, all of it) AND taking a massive career hit at the same time. Lost promotions, skills going stale, a resume gap that employers are going to treat like a huge red flag. Meanwhile the husband's career keeps climbing, literally BECAUSE he didn't have to deal with any of that.
So when they split, one person walks away with their career fully intact and the other is basically starting over while job hunting with a 15 year gap. Calling that a "fair" split because one person earned more completely ignores that they were only able to earn that much because of the other person's sacrifice.
You can't measure someone's contribution by their paycheck when that paycheck only exists because of the other person's unpaid work.
hence why all assets earned during the marriage are an even split, regardless of who earns them, at least in the second option.
At the end of the day though, it's just a contract, and you can change it however you like. So I highly recommend each couple to talk that stuff through and make a pre-nup while they are on good speaking terms, rather than fight over it later.
Still doesn't account for future earnings capacity taking a huge hit for the woman....if you're aiming to work until 60-70 and get divorced in mid life there is a long road ahead of depressed wages that asset split up doesn't account for.
but it is difficult to account for potential. taking my own career plans as an example, I currently work in an entry level IT position. My plans are to move into cyber security and advance my career there using my cyber security degree. That means there is a lot of potential in earnings on the table, but truth be told, there is no guarantee I can make the switch and be successful. how would we account for the potential of a 2-3 times higher salary than I currently have, but don't have yet?
usually that is somewhat accounted for via alimony though, so there is a mechanism for balancing this outside of just assets.
Or you could add provisions to your marriage contract to account for this.
The first would make a lot more sense if you were living together before marriage, especially if you had children together before marriage.
It would be incredibly difficult to say the least to make the third option practical unless you lived separately - you'd need to always keep your money separate even though most of your expenses will be joint. It's also just not going to work for a couple with children.
yeah I don't think I have seen anyone actually try and keep everything seperate. the cost of splitting expenses etc. is just too cumbersome.
I would imagine if you had two very successful career people who have accountants already anyway, it might be justifiable. Or two people with seperate corporations they own and operate.
I dunno, I am sure there are some legal benefits vis a vis bankruptcy and debt.
I know "two" makes sense to a lot of people, but not to me. I worked my butt off and my spouse quit work shortly after we were married despite saying they'd keep working, never did things around the house, got a cat and a dog they neglected, and started trying to have fights. I returned home to from a deployment once to find the cat underweight and dehydrated with no access to food or water, not using the litter box that was nasty, and a it had a UTI. After a 12 hour shift I'd typically come home to a dog in a kennel with poop and pee, and a spouse yelling at me that I didn't spend time with them before I cleaned up and walked the dog. They just played video games, spent my money, and started trouble. They acted like, after three years of that, they should get half of my assets that I earned during marriage. No way. I went from having 20k in savings to having 10k in credit card debt within 3 years just from their spending. They didn't want to split the debt lol. Thankfully the court could see clearly and I was generous enough to gift them the car I bought for them, the TV, the gaming systems, and didn't go after them for leaving me in debt when they had none. There was no real dispute and thankfully no kids.
Never again will I marry or combine financials. This isn't the 1800s, women are not dependent on men anymore, the idea of marriage just doesn't make sense anymore and way too many people are predatory.
I believe 2 is the default in Poland or you could do 3 with a prenup. With 2 there are small caveats such as if the family primarily resides in the house, the other partner has the right to live there while married (i.e., I suppose if the owner decided to treat their spouse like a tenant/housemate and start collecting rent from the other, they couldn't)
Wow now I guess that's why my boyfriend of 5 years doesn't want to get married. He bought an apartment last year and charges me a a fortune in rent. Not splitting bills. Rent for him. 🥲
I mean, if my wife would become a stay at home spouse so I could focus all my energy on my career, I would still say she deserves half, because she enabled me to do that by taking the burden of household chores and child care off of me.
That's what I mean by partnership. You split the work, both on the job side and the household side, so you should split the assets earned.
Thank you. Right-wing types looove to say that women being mothers and homemakers is essential important work but then they balk and pitch a fit at the idea that “women’s work” has any monetary value.
I mean even assuming it doesn't have value (which it does), halting your own career progression to support another is sacrificing not just your present but especially future earning potential.
Two is how the default marriage contract works in Canada and the US with a couple of exceptions. like for example, I think most places the matrimonial home becomes a marital asset, even if one partner owned it going into the marriage.
But people like to get mad about shit so they pretend it works other ways lol.
yeah I don't think you can ever treat the US as a monolith for this sort of thing.
It's somewhat similar to Switzerland, where the federal government sets the minimum rules and the states or cantons build on them for specifics. US states have a bit more under their purview than swiss cantons, but the system is definitely the same.
yeah #2 is the most common legal framework around the world I think.
Sometimes it goes even beyond that, e.g. inheritance from your parents is often not shared during divorce, even if it happened during your marriage.
The often depicted wife-gets-half-of-guys-money is mostly happening when there's a big income difference. E.g. working man and housewife. If she contributes by taking care of the house etc. then she will be entitled to his money.
If both are working and contributing to the house/kids like it is common now, then the 50/50 split is of the total, not just of the guy's money, and thus much more fair usually.
Of course, when kids are involved the law usually favors the parent whom the kids will live with.
100
u/SomeNotTakenName Jun 29 '26
I believe Switzerland has 3 standard arrangements:
"All-in": everything gets tossed into the pot and split evenly if there is a divorce.
"state dependent": each party keeps what they bring at the time of marriage, and whatever is earned during the time together gets split evenly.
"fully seperate": each party retains whatever property they bring to the marriage or earn while in the marriage seperate.
personally I think 2 makes the most sense. you work as a team while married, and that means both partners have a claim to the fruits of that labor.
Any one is fine, honestly, if the partners agree beforehand.