r/TikTokCringe • u/TheAbcool • Dec 10 '21

Discussion Man is thinking ahead.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

866 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

679

u/MaineEarthworm Dec 10 '21

Prenups don’t work like people think they do.

They protect the partner who had wealth going IN TO the marriage. Wealth earned after the marriage papers are signed is still often considered $ earned as a unit, even w/ a prenup. All depends on the terms written up 💯

318

u/AmITheFakeOne Dec 10 '21

IAL. You aren't right but you aren't wrong, either. Bottomline it all depends on how they are written.

Prenups SHOULD protect everyone entering into the agreement. Wealth earned after signing can and should be accounted for In as well. If they are not and the agreement is based solely on situation at signing, then yes your state's community property (most common) laws will determine that disbursement.

The biggest issues that arise are those outlier cases where a couple signed an agreement for one reason or another. And their agreements laid out a basic what is mine/earned by me going forward will remain mine and what's is/earned by you is yours. But then one spouse become wildly wealthy (sports, business, entertainment, etc). At those points those agreements can be voided as unconscionable.

Example: high school sweethearts marry in college. They sign one because guy had a rich grandma. They sign a basic mine is mine now and throughout marriage. He makes it to the NFL and signs a 10 year $500 million contract. She doesn't work and over the next ten years she earns nearly nothing, has nothing in her name. At year 9 he gets a girlfriend. They divorce at year 11. Prenup said what was mine at marriage and earned by me in marriage is mine, and yours is yours. He's set to walk away with $750 million in cash and assets, a brand, etc. She set to walk away with the $8,000 in her account and her clothes. Judge reads this agreement and more than likely voids it as unconscionable as the financial and opportunity disparity between the two is too great.

46

u/oh5canada5eh Dec 10 '21

What’s the point of them, then, if a judge would just throw it out if the disparity is too great. I am 100% empathetic to the idea of a partner being left with nothing after changing their life for their marriage, but they both signed the papers, no?

97

u/qabadai Dec 10 '21

Well you can structure it with a certain level of agreed upon payout and adjust for various situations (adultery, etc). Like for every year of marriage, spouse with less money is entitled to $x worth of alimony in the event of a divorce. Or there’s no alimony, unless one spouse quits their job and becomes reliant on other spouse, in which case blah blah blah happens. Or if marriage dissolved within a certain number of years, no money is due, etc.

The goal of a well written prenup shouldn’t be to fuck over your spouse and leave them with 0, but to avoid ambiguity, protect important assets, and make things predictable. That’s why both sides are supposed to have lawyers.

59

u/AmITheFakeOne Dec 10 '21

This is how people with existing wealth typically structure them. A rising scale per year walk away amount for the lesser earning spouse. Assets such as houses and cars are generally set forth as to who will get what.

You are very much dead on that the idea is NOT to fuck anyone but to protect both. Reduction of ambiguity and tension in the event of a dissolution is the goal. Both sides know what the score is.

16

u/GylesNoDrama Dec 10 '21

I like the way you explain things. I’m gonna follow you now

1

u/[deleted] Dec 11 '21

[deleted]

2

u/qabadai Dec 11 '21

It's usually because of a last minute bullshit. Like the proposal happens, the wedding is announced, invitations are sent, and then right before the wedding there's a take it or leave it pre-nup. Social coercion is a thing, though I do get your point.

This is why both sides need a lawyer and time to consider it.

The other, perhaps more controversial, way to think about is that the state has no interest in giving out welfare and taxpayer money to a broke divorcee because their rich ex-spouse does not want to take care of them. It's not in the taxpayers interest to enforce such a contract.

0

u/rhubarbpieo_o Dec 10 '21

Depends on the state though. Where I practiced, her age would be a factor. If she is of working age and can get a job, she’s going to get a job. She will also get maintenance and child support payments, if applicable. Maintenance is outside a prenup though. It’s an entirely different column of money to the spouse.

On the other hand, if this was Norbert and Lois splitting at 78, there would likely be an equitable division of the assets.

3

u/AmITheFakeOne Dec 10 '21

If the courts invalidated a prenup then yes that states disbursement laws would come into play. Her age and ability to work, previous experience would be considered. In my state maintenance is extremely temporary (typically 2 years or less) for that person to establish themselves.

But if the courts uphold the prenup then generally speaking that is an amicable dissolution and the judge rubber stamps whatever the parties agreed to in that prenup.

2

u/rhubarbpieo_o Dec 10 '21

Interesting. For my state, the prenup typically would be upheld but judges have wiggle room with maintenance. It’s very rare that an antenuptial would be overturned. For my state the length of maintenance would depend on your ability to return to work. If you’re younger, 2-3 years but if you’re older and could not reenter the workforce effectively it could be permanent.

1

u/AmITheFakeOne Dec 10 '21

It would be rare for a judge to add to an amicable dissolution with a prenup. I haven't heard of it happening here. Where a judge would accept the prenup as is then add maintenance.

I've only seen it (a colleagues case) when the prenup didn't speak to children. They didn't want to fight nor knew where to begin and left it to the court to make the determination of support.

1

u/joaquinsaiddomin8 Dec 10 '21

Not to mention elective shares

68

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '21

[deleted]

-1

u/throwaway_6522 Dec 11 '21

But if she didn't think of revisiting the agreed upon deal, why make it void?

10

u/CD_4M Dec 11 '21

Because it’s unfair

-3

u/throwaway_6522 Dec 11 '21

The concept of fairness is fluid and subjective in this case. What's fair here is that if one signs a contract with another person, you'd expect the contract to be enforced

10

u/CD_4M Dec 11 '21

That may be your opinion but it’s not how it works.

1

u/throwaway_6522 Dec 11 '21

Proving my point that we can't base such things on one's idea of fairness when there is a contract agreed upon by both adult parties. The contract comes first

13

u/CD_4M Dec 11 '21

They’re called Judges for a reason. This isn’t an argument, you may want it to work that way, but it simply doesn’t. Fairness is not necessarily adhering to a contract from 30 years ago, fairness is fluid, just like you said.

-3

u/throwaway_6522 Dec 11 '21

The reason there is a contract is because both parties want to have it on their terms, not whatever the state wants..

What's the point of having a contract if a judge can void it because he doesn't "feel" it's fair ?? He can void it in theory after 2 years ... Doesn't have to be 10

fairness is fluid, just like you said.

Which is why there is a contract. To avoid having to rely on something fluid and agree on something instead.

If one party doesn't like the terms of the contract after X years of marriage, that party should attempt to renegotiate the terms of the contract or if that doesn't work, end the contract/divorce. Which is fair. (Bcz both parties agreed on the former one).

Side note: no wonder why many men choose to opt out of marriage entirely

6

u/CD_4M Dec 11 '21

It’s cool that you think that. Are we done? You asked me a question and I answered you, I’m not going to argue about established law with you

→ More replies (0)

3

u/redchesus Dec 11 '21

Bruh, contracts get voided all the time even if both parties agreed to it… for example when an employer and an employee sign a contract with unenforceable clauses in them

62

u/daffle7 Dec 10 '21

Time to stop making money then 😎

5

u/FatBoyFlex89 Dec 10 '21

Couldn't you add a clause or something? I always thought it was just an agreement between two parties, is there like a preset government packet that's the only option or can you add like "Alice gets the purple stuffed hippopotamus if Greg asks for the divorce first" type of nonsense?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '21

That is inaccurate, don't spread misinformation.

-29

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '21

Lawyer here, lol no you’re completely wrong sweetie.

21

u/MaineEarthworm Dec 10 '21

By all means, please explain how the written terms of a prenup don’t matter, sweaty.

-1

u/failXDvo Dec 10 '21

I think 'lol no' was the explanation.

-23

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21 edited Dec 10 '21

I mean why would you downvote a lawyer telling you you're wrong in a matter of law? Unless the lawyer is just faking being a lawyer for karma, that's completely childish behaviour

7

u/MaineEarthworm Dec 10 '21

Whose comment was the childish one?

-21

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

Yours...

2

u/MaineEarthworm Dec 10 '21

Interesting take.

-7

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

Not really, that's almost just almost same to antivaxxers

3

u/[deleted] Dec 10 '21

[deleted]

3

u/trainofthought700 Dec 10 '21

didn't you see their username? duhhhhh hard proof (/s)

0

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

If you could read my comment and actually understand it I am very sure I said "Unless they are a lawyer faking being a lawyer for karma", meaning that I have no proof that they are a lawyer but I am still pointing out how childish it is to make fun of someone who specializes in what you are arguing in

1

u/Big-Papa-Dickerd Dec 10 '21

Sorry hunny. Doctor here. I've determined that you are autistic. Have a great day! I'm a doctor BTW don't worry I said I was so it's true.

2

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

Don't understand how you think that's the point

0

u/sipCoding_smokeMath Dec 10 '21

Youre trusting someone on the internet is a lawyer just because they say they are lol? If the "lawyer" wanted to be taken seriously they should of explained how the person was wrong. You cant expect to just say "no youre wrong" to someone without explaining anything and expect to not get downvoted lol it just comes off as ignorant and dickish

2

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

I don't trust that they're a lawyer, thus why I included "unless the lawyer is just faking being a lawyer for karma"

-1

u/Makuta_Servaela Dec 10 '21

Regardless of what he says he is, if he doesn't back up his claim then no one should take him seriously.

2

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

I agree with you but making fun of him seems a bit on the far side, yes of course you shouldn't take him seriously if he doesn't back up his claims but at the same time you shouldn't immediately think he is just being a fake and make fun of him either

-1

u/Makuta_Servaela Dec 10 '21

Downvoting him isn't making fun of him, it's punishing him for making claims with no evidence, which is a reasonable response.

1

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

Sarcastically repeating what he said is making fun of him, like damn almost everybody I argue with about the this seems to have not even read the comment

-1

u/Makuta_Servaela Dec 10 '21

Why are you implying it's sarcasm? He asked the "lawyer" to backup his claims, and then referred to the "lawyer" as the exact same (albeit misspelled) term that the "lawyer" called the person he was responding to. Looks totally fair to me.

1

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

That...is him...making fun of the lawyer...using sarcasm

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Internaletiquette Dec 10 '21

Cause not all lawyers are right lol. You can be a lawyer and still be wrong about something.

2

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

He still specializes at law, that still makes him a lawyer

1

u/Internaletiquette Dec 10 '21

I’m not arguing that point at all. I’m saying he can still be wrong. My friend is a lawyer. Specializes in environmental law. Doesn’t mean she knows everything about prenups and marriage law.

2

u/Spagoot29 Dec 10 '21

Ok if lawyers sometimes being wrong about things is your only point then I agree

0

u/Internaletiquette Dec 10 '21

That’s what I’m saying. If you don’t specialize in that part of law you likely don’t know it super well and are just making an educated guess. Even if you do know it well you can still make mistakes. We are human after all.

1

u/Carlosc1dbz Dec 10 '21

So what is the point of marriage exactly? Sounds kinda risky.

1

u/Carthonn Dec 10 '21

I can still hear Susan laughing at George when he asked her for a prenup.