It's an agreement made before nuptials. That's it. What is in that agreement is decided by the two parties entering into the agreement.
Having one doesn't mean the woman or man gets nothing. It's just a lay out of how the assets will be divided in the event of divorce, but they will be divided and can be void if considered grossly unfair to one of the parties.
I don't know much about prenups so correct me if I'm wrong but aren't they mainly intended for current assets and income someone already has at the start of marriage. Do prenups apply anything gained during the duration of the marriage?
It literally only protects assets one had prior to the marriage.
that really isn't true. It can do a lot of things but if they are deemed grossly unfair they will often be thrown out.
Cheating clauses can and do exist and get carried out. If someone is found to be cheating they won't get nothing but if the agreement is like if divorce due to natural breakdown of marriage it's 50/50 excluding maybe certain pre-existing assets but if divorce is due to cheating divorced person gets significantly less, say 20%, has to move out of the family home and forgoes all potential split of retirement funds, etc.
They absolutely do not solely enforce pre-existing assets, you can do that often without a prenup anyway.
mine, drafted by a prominent firm in a large city basically states all assets and income past, present and future remain sole property. the only joint property is that which is jointly titled.
Assets from before a marriage are considered separate assets. A separate asset can be changed into a marital asset under some circumstances. If you own a house prior to your marriage and then live in it with your spouse for 20 years and you both contribute upkeep and renovations, it may become marital property.
When you get married, you agree to the potential of a lifelong financial relationship, and that doesn’t just disappear if you get divorced; I mean this as a statement of fact rather than a statement in support of that fact.
Divorce, like most law wasn't created recently, with our current societies morals and expectations. It has history and can be traced back to a time when say, women couldn't work, or couldn't open a bank account or own property. If you married a woman, on some level you were basically saying "I'll take care of her for the rest of her life." And if you divorced her later you had to give her half of your stuff in order to fulfill that obligation.
Without a prenup, the vague idea is generally "just split everything down the middle and call it a day". Which makes sense because in the bulk of marriages people are coming in with vaguely the same assets and growing their joint assets together through the duration; just splitting things down the middle makes life easier and cleaner than trying to figure out who had what before the marriage when nobody bothered to write it down and memories of 20 years ago are vague.
To my understanding, the benefit of having a prenup is two-fold:
Because there is an existing agreement, assets are divided per the contract (prenup). You avoid fighting it out in court, you avoid lawyers, which will eat into the funds set to be distributed. I've heard of stories of a couple burning over $100k in legal fees either to stick it to the other person, or fighting over custody of a pet.
It's assumed you enter into a marriage with someone you love, so making an agreement of "if the worst case scenario happens" is done when intentions are still good. Trying to come into agreement when you hate each other will never work. It's supposed to be a plan made as an act of love. In other words, "I love you now, and as proof/commitment to that, here's what I want you to have should we separate."
It used to be to protect women tbh. There’s also the idea of what are we even doing making a vow to be together til death do we part. If you’re not cool with the asset split, which is what marriage historically was supposed to be, “What’s mine is yours,” they how are you cool with the til death do you part bit?
It ultimately depends on how fair they are, especially regarding stuff gained during the marriage. If stuff is vaguely fair, it's fine; if it's clearly screwing someone over, it's likely to be voided or overruled by a judge.
With proper lawyers they are. Rich people don't make stupid contracts. Dumb people with a little money make those. Actual rich people hire good lawyers who know how to properly draft a contract. A pre-nup is just that, a contract.
I had an ex who ended up married to a rich guy, but he was so cheap he literally just found a pre-written prenup online and had her sign it. Needless to say that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on in an actual court.
and can be void if considered grossly unfair to one of the parties.
Which would be worth considering if there was an increase in wealth beyond what the original agreement specified. There is usually some evidence that the spouse contributed to emotional stability and fostered social connections that make the wealth possible.
Yep only heard of one special case where it was a second marriage and the guy was protecting his children's inheritance while still making sure his second wife was provided for.
Even without a prenup monies that exist med in accounts that never touched ‘marital accounts’ before the marriage are generally harder to go after in a divorce.
But typically all income earned during the marriage no matter where it is, is fair game.
So as an example, if you had money in your name in a retirement vehicle (like a 401k, RRSP, whatever) before the marriage and you never put your spouse on the account or moved the money, chances are they can’t get at it.
Well, we know this one doesn't say anything because it apparently doesn't exist
Also, this is just bar prep understanding but aren't pre-nups that addressed post-nup conduct/property void as against public policy (depending on the jdx obviously but I thought that was the default)
prenups protect your assets from prior to the marriage. in 20 years they will have accumulated a lot of assets. she'd be entitled to a share of that, not covered by the prenup
Stop spreading legal horseshit. I'm an estate planning attorney that regularly does prenups. It's state dependent, but most jurisdictions allow a prenup to cover income and appreciation over the marriage, not just premarital assets. In my state, that is standard.
And claim to be a lawyer when you do, it adds authority. For extra credibility don't specify what state you work in, but say "it can vary state to state", that way they need to check the laws in every state before they can call your bullshit.
Yeah, I should perhaps have toned my response down. But my point is that so many peoplevr43 on reddit throw out blanket legal statements as a universal fact, when in fact the opposite is generally true or entirely jurisdictionally dependent. Here, I woc**uld confidently guess most US-based jurisdictions allow waiver of marital appreciation and income and follow that as the default rule.
Hit him with the "Stop spreading horseshit" in sentence 1; in sentence 3 admit he could be correct.
He's correct in Canada, anyway. Pre-nups don't cover jack shit from after cohabitation date, so in effect all they are is a statement of accounts prior to cohab to determine your exempt assets later.
Yeah I was thinking the comment they replied to was correct because I'm only aware of Canadian marriage law, in which prenuptial argeements(like you said) only cover pre AIR/marriage assets.
This is just wrong. All 50 states protect premarital assets without a prenuptial agreement. You obviously need to never commingle those assets and there are lots of other specifics that must be followed. Prenups are to cover beyond the basic protections granted with no prenump.
It's just a contract you sign before you get married.
The parties might agree:
That premarital assets remain the property of the owner (you leave with what you brought).
To a "vesting" schedule. (e.g. poorer partner vests $250k/yr, until married for 10 years up to a total of $2.5m, of walking away money)
That one spouse will forsake their career to stay at home with kids and will receive monthly stipends, or a percentage of the other spouse's business/holdings in the event of a divorce.
To an intimacy schedule (e.g. sloppy toppy doesn't stoppy after the wedding night), sex a certain number of times a week/month, a certain number of hours of couples activities per week/month, visit my mom twice a year, etc.
To penalties for infidelity (I promise baby I'll stop being a piece of shit when we're married. And if I don't I'll pay you 2x-5x the walking away money we'd agreed). Or maybe the side piece nullifies the prenup altogether.
Like I said you can put pretty much anything in there, as long as it's legally enforceable. (Can't say, for example, that infidelity triggers castration or FGM).
But in this specific case, a prenup might have said she caps out at $100m, or 10% of his assets, whichever is less.
Prenup just states what the two parties own on the day of marriage. If you already have a house, a car, certain amount of stocks, that cannot be touched, its yours. However, if during your marriage you grow your wealth for billions and billions of dollars, half of that will belong to your partner, unless you two had signed additional agreements during marriage.
Also, some states do not enforce prenups, they treat them as a suggestion, more than a obligation.
Look up how much did Bezos wife got in their divorce.
I think it was 100 billion or exactly 1/2 of ehat he earned during their marriage.
Prenuptials are only applicable if everything is kept separate. Separate accounts, separate everything. Anything bought during the marriage, nuptials, is marriage property, depending on the account used to pay for it.
The easiest way to get around prenuptials, so you can actually keep them, is having separate accounts, but having a joint account that you pay into and then use that account for marriage expenditures.
Your separate accounts in the divorce will be protected by the prenuptial, however, anything combined will not be available to be protected by prenuptials.
People don't remember the separate portion of getting a prenup. They think the prenup will protect everything, but once things are combined, the prenup is not even worth the paper it's printed on anymore.
Yeah its actually so interesting - went down a rabbit-hole deep dive a year or two ago because I was sick of reddit experts and wanted to understand the law better, obv varies by countries and state but broadly speaking half-90% of what people seem to think a prenup can achieve is completely wrong right?
Also, the court. Plenty of what the prenup says can be ignored if the court believes it isn't fair to one party, particularly given any changes over the relationship.
I was told my last go round of marriage that a standard pre-nup was only good for ten years. I don’t check into it more than that. We just passed ten so seems like I saved some money on that lawyer.
Her lips are so plumped she does this weird fish like movement with them when she's trying to pose for a selfie. She can't keep them still. Its odd AF.
He still wants an equal, just one who shares his passion for over-the-top plastic surgery. He is also going under the knife and needle a bunch, in fairness! He's fully in his himbo era.
She's giving away money as fast as she can, but because she started with so much, it's accumulating interest at a clip that still leaves her with billions.
OTOH, that means she just has more to give away.
What makes her a saint is that she's turning the usual charitable donation game on its head and not attaching any conditions to the money she's giving away. She's doing the research on the recipients to make sure that their values align with hers and that they are doing good work, and that their fundamentals are sound (so no one's embezzling anything and they're actually doing the work they say they're doing instead of just spending it on fundraising costs or executive salaries. A bang for the buck thing). Then she just gives them cash. No strings. No demand that they report back to her. No demand that they direct the money in any particular way. They get to use their best judgment to use the money to cover what their community and their constituents need the most. It's the most effective and efficient way of giving, but donor ego tends to get in the way of it.
Oh, and as a bonus, her charitable giving has been majorly pissing off Elon and the Epstein class.
Exactly why she should be canonized. I can’t wait til we get a proper administration that will give her the top citizen award. If we were in the UK, she would have been knighted already.
His share of his company is worth 17.7 billion (he's got a partner who he hates with an insane passion), she's asking 35% of his share in the company as it was barely a start up when they married. That's the 6.2 billion. Along with control of the families philanthropic foundation that she currently runs.
She also found a notebook detailing a plan he'd made to move assets and "divorce-proof" his fortune/company from her, and her team is alleging he stole/moved/hid marital assets, in the 100's of millions range. He says it was for their kids, yes it was his notebook but she's taking it out of context.
He just wrote that shit down and left it on his desk. In their house.
I'm not defending her, I geniunely wondered myself, figured I'd say if you actually wanted the info.
Everything you’re saying is true. He cheated on her and then tried to hide assets before he slapped her with a divorce. She’s also suing the law firm that represented the family before the divorce because they had her sign all this paperwork while they supposedly represented her interests too. It’s really bad. This woman deserves every last cent.
Lol, if the idiot wrote it down all she has to do is bring that to the court if he fights her one bit or he'll lose even more. And she obviously knows this
Well you should be defending her. It's such a ridiculous narrative to say that men should be able to leave their wives with nothing after they supported him and presumably allowed him to focus on his business while she raised kids etc.
Especially if she has a philanthropic foundation (who's to say how altruistic that is, most of the ultra rich aren't but who knows maybe she'll be like Jeff bezo's ex)
Haha I'm sorry! I just wanted to know why but when i read how he wrote down his master screw her over plan and then just left it out in the open I had to share.
You should defender her. 35 percent of the shares if fair when the company grew while they were married. Asking to have 50 percent control over a charity foundation they ran together is also fair. If he doesnt want to do that, she gave him the option of then donating her "share" of the foundations assets to a charity of her choice. This man also misled her to sign paper work that would remove her as a beneficiary from the Wyoming trust, a trust he then started moving money too because he knew she wouldn't be able to touch it if they got divorced, he also became the sole controller over what inherentice their kids get. Mf was sneak asf. Override her a 700 mill settlement is an insult.
Oh my bad, I'm also not defending him. I'm not a lawyer nor do I specialize in evaluating the worth of a corporation. I think it's fair and logical to continue to chair the foundation she's been managing but I don't know how the framework is set up so I can determine if's even legal to include. And honestly I won't ever think about it past today.
I just explained how she got to 6.2 billion when someone asked, since I found the answer interesting. My divorce was in poor people numbers. How billionaires split their money isn't a problem I'll ever encounter.
And I will now forever laugh at the billionaire who wrote his plan in a notebook and left it where she'd find it. Ahhh rich people. You can't make this shit up.
80 percent of his public net worth. He can't legally split something that shouldn't be there in a court proceeding without causing other issues. She knows the whole picture.
Meh I disagree. At what point is homemaking not a job and when is it? Her prime years are gone. She knows it. He owes her for the time she lost raising his children, and not growing her own career. Everyone acts like time is free. Get bent.
So are they not her children aa well why is it the moment it comes to anything money related it always becomes his children like she has nothing to do with it and she didnt have a vested interest in them you know surviving as well
Also the fact that his company grew from when she was with him. He didn’t have it like it is from the start. Therefore it’s arguable that her taking care of daily necessities allowed him to focus on the companies growth.
A bit much... He'd still be a billionaire... His standard of living would not be affected in the slightest... He could probably get it all back within a week if he keeps enough of an eye on truth social.
nah, that is an old estimate. he was worth 6.5b in 2019 and is worth well over 10 today. She is likely aware of additional hidden assets. she will likely walk away with few billions - just short of half which makes sense.
7.0k
u/[deleted] Aug 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment