If You Marry, You WILL Have a Prenuptial Agreement

The question is, will it be the default agreement put together by strangers (state law, left up to interpretation and application by a judge), or will it be customized to the two of you?

The state prenuptial agreement is TERRIBLE for breadwinning men.

You might think "I don't really have much." Maybe not. But with hard work and smart moves, that'll change. Don't cheap out! If you "cant' afford a prenup," you can't afford a wife.

Guys, you should NOT be marrying at all, but if you are going to legally marry or even just cohabitate, you need a customized prenup, and you need to do it right. Judges have thrown out prenups. Here's how to minimize the risk of that happening.*

1. The agreement has to be signed and notarized/filed/whatever BEFORE a wedding date is set, before there's a pregnancy, and before you live together. You do not want her to later claim she was in any way pressured or coerced or signed under duress.

2. She will need her own attorney and so will you. The attorneys will go over the agreement before it is finalized.

3. Along with your attorney, line up a professional videographer and a (retired?) judge to go over the finalized agreement with both of you and your attorneys, signing and dating it on-camera. The judge should confirm your date, time, location, identities, that you are of sound mind, that you're entering into this agreement willingly (no wedding date has been set yet, etc.), that you have your attorneys present and that you are satisfied with them, that you understand English, and go over each clause of the agreement to explain what it means and whether or not you consent to it. The idea is to make it virtually impossible for the agreement to be challenged later by claiming there was pressure or that something was unfair or not understood.

4. Make sure you have discussed with your attorney how to keep the agreement in effect. Certain things you might otherwise say or do could end the effectiveness of the agreement, and you want to be sure to avoid that. Don't let her pressure you into doing those things!


The specifics of the agreement will be up to the law and what you two and your attorneys work out. She might ask for a sunset so that if she stays with you a certain number of years, the state's agreement comes into effect. Avoid that! All that does is give her a countdown. Things that might be in the agreement might include, but certainly not be limited to, access to financial accounts, the conditions of any joint accounts, provisions for insurance, what each of you owned and owed at the time you entered into the agreement, the process for amending or changing the agreement, who will pay for what, what happens if there is a separation/divorce/incapacitation/death, what will happen with property purchases and sales, etc.

You want to protect any property or assets you would be bringing into the marriage. Have your own business? Plan to start one? What if you create something like a work of art or a game? These are things that need to be considered.

If you own a home, you'll probably need her to sign a quitclaim deed and you'll probably have to refuse to allow her to "help" with paying for or maintaining it.

In most places, inheritance is NOT community property. If anyone is leaving anything to you, they should leave it only to you, NOT including her, and you should keep whatever you get separate. For example, if it's cash, it would go into an account she has nothing to do with.

If there is a divorce, you're not going to be able to get away with paying her nothing. You're going to have to pay her something, but if you spell out what in the agreement, it can be far less than what you'd have to if you went with the state default.

Again, you most likely shouldn't be marrying (or living together) in the first place. But if you're going to take that risk, mitigate it somewhat with a customized prenup. If she won't agree, DO NOT MARRY HER.

Keep in mind, having children provides an end-run around a prenup. She can get a court to order you to pay "child support" well above what it takes to raise the children. No man should be conceiving children unless he sincerely wants to be a father.

*I'm not an attorney. Do not so much as share a residence, let alone marry a woman, without consulting a family law attorney.

Dr. Laura is Wrong About Prenups For First Marriages - GET ONE!

Well, it happened again. [This entry has been bumped up from May 2018.] While I agree with Dr. Laura on so much, one thing I definitely disagree with her on is the issue of prenuptial agreements for first marriages. While she urges prenups for "second" marriages when at least one potential spouse has children, she is vehemently against prenups for childless people entering into a first marriage (people shouldn't be marrying if they have minor children).

A woman called in on yesterday's show (April 30, 2018) who sounded happy with her boyfriend, but when the topic of marriage came up, he stated he'd want a prenup. Dr. Laura told the caller (and, as a result, listeners in the same situation) to dump the boyfriend.

This is rare bad advice from her that she gives consistently.

Finding a match for marriage is difficult. The caller (or a listener) could be throwing away a perfectly good match and will now seek out a man who will be willing to sign really bad contracts. Is it really a good idea to enter into a financial partnership (marriage) with someone willing to sign bad financial contracts???

The fact is, the courts already have a prenup for you. It is based on family law in your state. You might as well be encouraged to come up with your own customized one before a marriage license is issued.

Getting a prenup is no more a sign that someone is planning for divorce than homeowner's insurance is planning for your house to burn down. We buy insurance and prepare in other ways for all sorts of things we hope don’t happen or we plan the avoid. Why let the state, which doesn't care at all about morality or how either spouse behaved, decide for you, when you can decide – somewhat – for yourself?

"Ah, but this is different because you can resolve to not leave your spouse and treat them well so they won't leave you."

Let's be real.

When Dr. Laura Tells Moms to Announce Their Switch to SAHM

Children being raised with attention, affection, a sense of security, and morality is one of Dr. Laura's top goals, which is why she condemns the use of day care and insists parents should raise their own children right up until Kindergarten, which is entered into at age 5 or 6 (boys should especially be started later, according to her). She's also big on homeschooling, but any form of daycare (including "preschool") from ages 0-4 is a no-no.

While she doesn't rule out "stay at home fathers", she says mothers are preferable from ages 0-3, and she notes that the "psychobiology" is that women prefer a man be a provider and they tend to lose respect for their husband if they earn more than him or he's home with the kids earning no income at all. Men also tend to like to provide.

So, she gets calls from employed women who are pregnant or have just given birth (again) or even have infants or toddlers who want to switch to being SAHMs, but have husbands who are opposed to that change or are at least reluctant to agree.

This is when Dr. Laura, who usually says big decisions, even getting a dog, have to have mutual agreement and if either spouse is a "no" then the change doesn't happen, leaves that principle aside. It is overruled by the importance of a mother's love. She tells the women to quit their jobs, come up with a one-income budget, to announce to their husband they will be staying home, and tell him that it will mean home-cooked meals, lots of great sex, and a more pleasant home.

That's all good, but only if the caller follows through. And only if the husband accepts the announcement. Will it be better if the family splits up than if they stay together with both parents working outside the home? Dr. Laura says men who aren't eager to be sole support for a wife and kids aren't real men, but would her opinion stop one man who is thinking along these lines from engaging in what he sees as self defense?

Another Example: Don’t Date Women With Minor Children

Not long after I posted my last entry on Dr. Laura, I heard something on her show that made me cringe. On Wednesday, April 17, during the third hour, she got a call from someone going by "Devon", age 42. He got married in October, which I know a lot of men would say was enough of a mistake in the first place. He;s been with the woman for five years.  He states that he loves her three children (12, 11, and 6) as his own. THREE CHILDREN for whom another man is supposed to be paying (that other man walked out on the family), but Devon has been covering the bills for them. He never should have dated this woman in the first place, but they had a child together born four years ago. WHAT A MESS!

He goes on to tell Dr. Laura he bought a house in Florida, a different state, a month before getting married. He'd had a house in Michigan, but he got another electrical engineering job in Florida, hence the new house.

Please note that Florida has no-fault divorce. Also, under Florida law, any property that was acquired before the spouses married or that was received as a gift or inheritance is not considered marital property. The house was acquired before the marriage. Dr. Laura has repeatedly noted that inheritances are separate. Does she stick the the law when it comes to what is brought into the marriage? Let's see...

Florida divorce laws require an "equitable distribution" of the marital property. That really means "whatever a judge decides". Let's see… a woman with four kids vs a man… hmmmm. I wonder who a judge is likely to favor?

Back to the call.

He Changed the Rules

I continue to listen to Dr. Laura as a Family Plus Member, which allows me to download podcasts of all three hours of her show (which runs Monday-Friday). It is the only paid podcast subscription I have. On Thursday, May 26th, her third hour pretty much began with "Jennifer". Jennifer said she and her husband agreed when they married that she would be a "stay at home mom" to their children. But now that she's out on maternity leave and has told him she still wants to be a SAHM more than she wants to return to her job, he has responded by saying he "didn't marry a housewife" and asking why she bothered to get a degree.

Before calling, she had even already done what Dr. Laura usually suggests in this situation, which is for her to come up with a workable budget and present it to him to prove that it is possible for them to live on his income. He rejected it, because he wants a more expensive lifestyle.

It is an incredibly sad situation.

Jennifer's husband is and example of someone Dr. Laura will say is not a "real man". Chastity "Chaz" Bono is not a real man. Just about anyone with an "XY" chromosomal makeup is a real man. They can be lousy men, or evil men, but they are still men. Notice we never hear the phrase "real woman". But Dr. Laura is allowed to talk like this in my book because she doesn't insist on radical egalitarianism. I often write about "guys" when I want to distinguish some men from more mature men. But I've digressed.

Anyway, this is one reason that I, unlike Dr. Laura and so many others, favor prenuptial agreements even in first marriages, even when neither person has much in terms of personal wealth. I'd like to see each couple getting married have to swear under penalty of perjury that they have discussed this issue and what their agreement is, and I'd like to see the laws and courts back it up. If Jennifer's husband truly stated that he agreed that she should be a SAHM, she should have been able to get that in writing, and if he refuses now, he should be required to pay her enough in child support and alimony that she can be a SAHM with or without him. Likewise, if a woman agreed she was going to be a SAHM and then refuses, the husband should be allowed to be a SAHF and to get enough from her that he can. Or, switch the sexes. That should all be enforceable via prenup.

Perhaps Jennifer's husband wouldn't have married her in the first place if he had to sit down and sign a legally binding agreement about all of this. Or, maybe he would have married her and bitten the bullet now, instead of trying to change the rules.

When the woman who is now my wife brought up the subject early on in our dating, I firmly said that strangers would not be raising my children. I also added that how that works out is open to discussion. All she ever wanted was to work in her chosen career field (which she was doing at the time), be a wife, and then be a SAHM. So neither of us had a problem with me being the income earner and her being the primary caretaker. She now says she has the life she's always wanted, and I'm glad for that.

Would it be nice to have more money? Yes, it would. And I'm sure Uncle Sam and the State of California would both love the extra income tax. But I'd rather my children have their mother as much as possible.

I guess that would make me a real man in Dr. Laura's vocabulary. But I care more about the respect and thanks I get from my wife.

Are You Right For Each Other?

You know the story. Two people are searching for love, and one day... BAM... it hits them like a lightning bolt. They find each other; she finds... the one. He finds the woman of his dreams. They have a beautiful, perfect wedding and they live happily ever after in wedded bliss. Bringing up certain topics during dating or the engagement will ruin this scenario. Financial planning, pre-nups, and frank talks about reality are so unromantic, right? Who needs them when you're in looooooooove?

Well, a generally happy lifelong marriage is possible, if two people are prepared to be spouses and they are right for each other. But how do they know they are? Feelings are great, but feelings aren’t always based on reality. God (or, as some of my readers believe, atoms interacting in strictly natural, normal processes over billions of years) has given us minds and the ability to discern. We should use our discernment to make wise choices.

There’s a British family law firm that is promoting a compatibility quiz for couples planning a life together. It’s a good idea. Check out this Reuters story by Paul Casciato.

Partner Ruth Bross compared taking the quiz to the kind of considerations and research an employer might make before hiring someone.

People put far more research and rational evaluation into their job seeking or even car buying. But I consider choosing a spouse to be the third most important decision a person can make. (The second is whether or not to raise children, and I think if one decides to do that, it necessitates finding the right, willing spouse. The most important decision a person can make is to either become a follower of Christ or reject Christ, but that is my religious bent.)

"No one who is truly committed to a relationship will ever mind making the full and frank disclosure that is asked of them; if they do, you might like to ask yourself why," she said in an emailed statement containing the quiz.

Definitely. Don't fall for the "Don’t you trust me?" line, or "Why do you care so much about money?" The fact is, if the other person trusts you, isn't using you for your money, and is a secure person, they should have no problem with a process like this.

Check out all of the particulars after the jump.

Did She Prefer a Hostage?

A guy decided he'd rather not get married to a certain woman rather than end up being divorced from her. She responds by suing, giving us a clearer picture of why he called off the wedding in the first place. Susanna Kim has the ABC News story.

In a suburb of Chicago, fury has overtaken a jilted bride who is suing her former fiancé for the wedding costs. Dominique Buttitta, dumped four days before the wedding was to take place, is seeking damages of $95,942 from Vito Salerno to cover wedding expenses and the cost of the lawsuit.

That could be an excellent deal for him in the long run. Actually getting married and then divorced could have easily been much more expensive.

Buttitta and Salerno began dating in March 2007, were engaged in December 2007 and the wedding was set for October 2 of this year in Barrington, Illinois.

There's something wrong when the dating period is nine months long but the engagement is almost three years.

The suit's itemized list of expenses included over $30,000 for the banquet hall, $11,000 on lighting and flowers, $10,000 for an orchestra, $7,550 for a photographer, $5,000 for a wedding dress and accessories, and $1,700 for wedding favors. The expenses include other non-refundable purchases, including a bridesmaid luncheon, bridal shower and a deposit for a wedding planner.

And whose idea were most of these expenses? $30,000 for the banquet hall? I'm sure they could have found a great place for a lot less. The facility should already have lighting, and flowers wither in days. Who needs an orchestra? Photographers overcharge for weddings. $5,000 for a dress that will be worn once? I know for a fact that you can get beautiful dresses for under $1,000.

The suit also claims that one month before the wedding date, the groom attended a bachelor party at an adult entertainment business called the Pink Monkey. He allegedly engaged in lewd acts, including lap dances with strippers, of which the bride was unaware.

If that is actionable, then there are a lot of wives who are in big trouble!

Some states, including Illinois and Georgia, have "breach of promise" to marry laws.

I actually think such laws can be a good thing, but only as part of a comprehensive set of laws that would punish people for breaking their marital vows, which include much more than promising not to have sex with other people. Breach of promise usually means "I only had sex with you because you promised me marriage." Is she claiming that?

This is not the first time a heartbroken bride sued her former groom. In July 2008, a jury in Georgia ordered Wayne Gibbs to pay RoseMary Shell $150,000 for breaking off their engagement three days before their wedding.

So, guys, the earlier you DTB (dump the bride), the better. However, it isn't too late until the marriage license is signed and filed. You can even go through a ceremony and still not have the marriage legally validated.

What's the alternative, really? A guy should go ahead and get married to as to not ruin her special day, then get divorced later? Shouldn't she have to demonstrate that he knew many months prior that he wasn't going to marry her, but that he deliberately kept the wedding planning going in order to upset her?

I think the wedding budget and expenses should be part of a comprehensive pre-nuptial agreement that is finalized and in effect before a wedding date is set. Terms should include who will pay what under what circumstances.

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.