Pre-Nuptial menu choices before marriage license?

Question

Here is the proposal: before granting a marriage license, both parties must sign a prenuptial agreement regarding children and assets. This can be a menu-format agreement provided by local government or a custom-made agreement, but must address custody and asset disposition, and be approved by the licensing authority. This arrangement can be changed by the consent of both parties only.

The intents of the proposal are to a) get both parties to consider the consequences of divorce; b) prevent other parties, i.e., attorneys, judges from becoming authorities in the relationship c) discourage either party from "gaming" the system, i.e., getting a superior attorney to hurt the other and d) have both parties decide this while they are more likely to be looking out for each other.

The menu forms would be designed by the state Attorney General's Office and be sponsored by the cost of the Marriage License.

I don't like the idea because it seems pessimistic but feelings aside, much of this makes sense to me by offering protection to both parties at the outset. Any insights?

Answer 1

What it would not be able to address is property gained during the marriage. This is usually the property people fight about the most.



Otherwise, it makes decent sense.



EDIT - Why would be due to changes in lifestyle, career, etc. These things have a major impact on changing the scope of things, in ways that a pre-nupital agreement would be unable to properly capture.



When I met my fiancee, I was in one job and position. Now, I am in a much, much better one. Meanwhile, she's now a stay at home mom, where she did work before. In MY case, it's ok. If anything did happen and we split, I have this thing called a soul, and I'd make sure she had time to get herself situated properly. A pre-nupital based on dual contributions, would be null and void, due to the changed nature.



Again, as I said, I think it would be a better idea. But some things will still end up fought out. But the shorter, under 5 year, marriages might end up with cleaner divorces and more thought out arrangements. Longer marriages would always be an issue, unfortunately.



Property acquired is another one. Who would get it, if the couple made one huge investment, and it couldn't be split?

Answer 2

A pre-nup should be mandatory so that it isn't looked at in a negative way and to avoid all the legal drama after a divorce.

Answer 3

A pre-nuptial agreement only plants the seed for a future break up. Why would you need an breaking up agreement if you are going to stand before family, friends and God and vow to cherish and to hold to death do you part?

Answer 4

You could draft it and present the draft to your fiancée but depending on the state that you live you should have an attorney representing each one of you to protect your rights and if you can't afford it and both agree go in front of a notary and have it notarized.

Answer 5

A pre-nup only protects what you bring into a marriage not what you acquire while married.





Nice try though.

Answer 6

Never going to happen - in a perfect world maybe but we of course don't live in a perfect world

Answer 7

seems like about the only thing it protects is the cheaters, liars, back stabbers, drunks and the beaters.



wonderful idea.