Dear Abby Right on Pre-Nups

In response to a question from JUST WONDERING IN WISCONSIN, Dear Abby wrote something with which I completely agree. Her entire response was right:

A prenuptial agreement is supposed to protect the interests of both parties. At the same time that it protects your fiance's assets, it should lay out what provisions will be made for you in the event that the marriage doesn't work out. Because your attorney will be representing only you, you should be the person compensating him (or her) for services rendered.

Too bad that last part isn't applied to divorce, where too often one spouse (usually the man) has to pay for both attorneys.

And honey, this is not the time to cheap out.

Words to heed. You want a very good pre-nup. For example, if you both agree you are going to stay home and raise the kids, you should try to set it up that should he file for divorce or otherwise abandon you, that you get to keep the home intact and will be compensated well enough to raise the kids. I have no idea if a state like California allows you to write in "fault" provisions, but it would be great if those would stick.

I am in favor of pre-nuptial agreements, even if neither intended spouse has much in the way of material assets. After all, things change and either or both could end up earning quite a bit more than they were earning at the time of the wedding. And what about intellectual property? If one is a writer or artist or inventor and comes up with something with no input from the spouse, why should the spouse end up with half ownership, even if he or she leaves?

Some say pre-nups are planning to fail, or that they are unromantic or show a lack of trust.

The counter argument is that marriage is not just between the husband and wife and God. The state gets involved. And the fact is, the state already has a pre-nup for you, via the laws of the state. Why let the state decide for you, when you can decide – somewhat – for yourself? The car insurance analogy I have found helpful – that you don't plan on getting into a crash, but you buy insurance that covers crashes in case you do. The analogy does break down a bit, though, when you consider that you don't pick the other drivers on the roads, but you do pick your spouse.

Still, with the high divorce rate and the laws being what they are, and with the lawyers having financial incentives to drag out divorces and make them as contentious as possible, a pre-nup is a must these days.

If someone is dealing with a potential spouse who gets insulted at the thought of a pre-nup because "it shouldn't be about money" or something along those lines, they should counter with "You’re right - and this will guarantee that our marriage isn't about money." Guys, a woman who truly plans on being a good wife and getting married for life has nothing to fear from a pre-nup that you'll come up with together, with your own lawyers. If she won't do it, don't marry her. It is that simple.

I would advise not setting a marriage date until a pre-nup is finalized. It can even be used in planning the wedding, such as how much money will be spent on what and by whom. It should be part of the process that ensures that there are no secrets being kept from either spouse about financial status, credit history and scores, obligations, judgments, etc. and part of overall financial planning they should do together.