Prenup

MIN2511

Sitting down drinking tea and two ladies(in their mid to late 50's) are talking about prenups:eek: and how they would want their children(especially sons) to sign prenups before they get married....

ffs, what is this world turning into


I would be really mad if my mum suggested prenup to me

tribulus

I could have imagined this but do prenups actually have any legal standing in Ireland?

seamus

Pre-nups have no legal standing in Ireland.

Anyone in Ireland signing a pre-nup is being ridden rock solid by their solicitor.

If you think the marriage is going to fail, just don't get married in the first f*cking place.

Mena

tribulus wrote: »

I could have imagined this but do prenups actually have any legal standing in Ireland?

As far as I am aware, no, they do not.

qwertz

Swiss numbered bank account.

Pighead

If you aint no punk holla We Want Prenup
WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah
It's something that you need to have
Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half.

Wise words from Mr West.

Wreck

seamus wrote: »

If you think the marriage is going to fail, just don't get married in the first f*cking place.

There is a massive difference between thinking something is going to fail and taking precautions on the chance that it does.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

MIN2511 wrote: »

Sitting down drinking tea and two ladies(in their mid to late 50's) are talking about prenups:eek: and how they would want their children(especially sons) to sign prenups before they get married....

ffs, what is this world turning into


I would be really mad if my mum suggested prenup to me

It's a prudent course of action, especially if coming from a wealthy family.

mikemac

You can see the concern.

Elderly parents pass on the family farm to their son that’s been owned for generations.
Son gets married, after 2-3 years the wife gets sick of living on a farm and breaks up the marraige. The farm or much of the land is lost forever to pay for settlements and the son has lost land that took generations to acquire.
He thinks he has failed everyone before him

Piste

If I had a lot of assets or were terribly wealthy I probably would sign a prenup, yeah.




Or maybe I'd sign one just so I could pretend I had lots of assets or were terribly wealthy

humanji

Would it not be binding as it's a contract between the two?

Wile E. Coyote

Pre-nups in Ireland have no legal standing and aren't worth the paper their written on.

NinjaTruncs

while they have no legal standing couldn't a good lawyer claim that both parties singed the legal document knowing full well what it ment. Also now that the Irish state no longer view marriages as life long they should be viewed as legal. Wasn't that the only reason they were not legal as in Ireland you couldn't get divorced, but now you can.

Wazdakka

I had no Idea that they had that shakey a standing in Ireland...

Regardless, Even if it only has a slim chance of holding up,
Prenup all the way for me.

seamus

Wreck wrote: »

There is a massive difference between thinking something is going to fail and taking precautions on the chance that it does.

Yeah, but you don't get married for the craic. Signing a prenup is basically going into the marriage saying, "I am not confident that this marriage will last". If that's the case, then just don't get married.

humanji wrote: »

Would it not be binding as it's a contract between the two?

Parts of it, maybe. The items that prenups tend to deal with, such as division of assets, custody of children and so forth are overridden by the law. In this country at least, where something is guaranteed in law (either implicity or explicitly), you cannot sign a contract which waives that guarantee.

For example, imagine you sign a prenup which says that in the event of a break up, the house must be sold and you will take 75% of the proceeds, with your wife taking the rest. You can also state that you will not be liable to support her or any children after this.
Then you have two kids and you get divorced. The court will decide that the house will not be sold, and the wife and children are entitled to live there until both children are over 18. The court will also decide that you must pay maintenance for the children. This makes any prenup effectively worthless because the courts will do what they see as right by the partner/children, rather than what the contract says.

humanji

So you're saying we should kill our other halves instead of divorcing them? Makes sense.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

funk-you

humanji wrote: »

So you're saying we should kill our other halves instead of divorcing them? Makes sense.

Always the best option. Throw a kidnap ranson in there for good luck.

-Funk

biko

The Scientist wrote: »

If a chick tried to take what i owned in divorce i'd make sure to sell everything for €1 before the papers went through.
I go down she goes down.

PM me when/if this happens so I can buy it.

Pompey Magnus

I haven't a clue about these kind of legal issue but what if, when you realise that your spouse may be considering divorce, you just sold your property to a trusted family member for a tiny sum?

I assume this wouldn't work as everyone would do it but on the face of it I don't see what is wrong with it.

Wreck

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, but you don't get married for the craic. Signing a prenup is basically going into the marriage saying, "I am not confident that this marriage will last". If that's the case, then just don't get married.

No its not. It's a sensible precaution. You can't predict the future with certainty, and being confident that a marraige will last is not the same thing as it lasting.

Its akin to putting on a seatbelt when you get into the car. You don't do it thinking there is going to be a crash, you do it in case there is a crash.

Puddleduck

Prenups are pointless, it suggests that you have no faith in the marraige your getting into. Also, I thought prenups were just for rich people?? The only thing most irish couples would be splitting on a breakup is the bill!!!

funk-you

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I haven't a clue about these kind of legal issue but what if, when you realise that your spouse may be considering divorce, you just sold your property to a trusted family member for a tiny sum?

I assume this wouldn't work as everyone would do it but on the face of it I don't see what is wrong with it.

Before you get married if you trust your family put everything in their names.

-Funk

Sherifu

MIN2511 wrote: »

I would be really mad if my mum suggested prenup to me

Why? It's a way of protecting your money.

Since they are useless in Ireland...

Pompey Magnus

funk-you wrote: »

Before you get married if you trust your family put everything in their names.

-Funk

Then all I will have to do is convince my brother to become a priest to rule out the chances of him getting married and divorced and thereby losing my property.

Rb

Wreck wrote: »

No its not. It's a sensible precaution. You can't predict the future with certainty, and being confident that a marraige will last is not the same thing as it lasting.

Its akin to putting on a seatbelt when you get into the car. You don't do it thinking there is going to be a crash, you do it in case there is a crash.

Very well put.

Regarding prenups, it's unfortunate that they're not recognised under the law here, men have literally no rights when it comes to marriage/children here. If I were excessively wealthy I wouldn't consider marriage without a prenup, which would involve leaving the country.
If it weren't for so many women taking men for a ride for their money there wouldn't be prenups, unfortunately with women being...well...women such precautions in life are necessary for some who are in a position to be fcked over in such a way.

tribulus

As a matter of interest is there anyway to obtain a legally binding prenup but still live in Ireland? Is it possible to get married (or sign the certificate) in another country where they are legally binding but remain living here?

I've no idea what this involves hence why I'm just throwing it out there.

Blisterman

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, but you don't get married for the craic. Signing a prenup is basically going into the marriage saying, "I am not confident that this marriage will last". If that's the case, then just don't get married.

Nobody gets married with the intention of getting divorced. Everyone says the same thing. "This marrige is going to last forever."

Of course, the divorce statistics say otherwise, and I'd imagine a good percentage of people, going through divorce now, regret not getting a prenup.

seamus

The Scientist wrote: »

If a chick tried to take what i owned in divorce i'd make sure to sell everything for €1 before the papers went through.
I go down she goes down.

There's a good chance that the court would see what you've done there, then order you to pay up the true value of the items that you've sold. Then you've got no money, no assets and big FO loan hanging over your head

Wreck wrote: »

No its not. It's a sensible precaution. You can't predict the future with certainty, and being confident that a marraige will last is not the same thing as it lasting.

Its akin to putting on a seatbelt when you get into the car. You don't do it thinking there is going to be a crash, you do it in case there is a crash.

You put on a seat belt, because you get into a car without the surity that you won't be in a crash. In fact I (and hopefully most people) get into a car in the mindset that there's a statistically good chance that I will be involved in a car crash today.

If you're going into a marriage thinking that the chances of it failing require some insurance, then you're pretty cynical to say the least. You're starting off the marriage with a serious doubt in your mind as to its chances. So why get married?

I get into a car with a doubt that I'll actually get home safely that day, but the benefits outweigh the risk. If you consider marriage a "risk", then what significant benefits are you signing up for that somehow outweighs the risk of losing everything? That is, why not just stay together without getting married?

tribulus wrote: »

As a matter of interest is there anyway to obtain a legally binding prenup but still live in Ireland? Is it possible to get married (or sign the certificate) in another country where they are legally binding but remain living here?

Marriages in most other countries are recognised here, but any prenup attached, isn't. Annulments and divorces obtained in other countries are also legally recognised here.

Technically, you and your soon to be ex partner could decide that yes, you're going to divorce, but the prenup will be in force. In order to do this, you would need to move to another country and become resident there, before applying for your divorce. Then you can sell the Irish assets from overseas and divvy them up as required.

This very rarely occurs because;
1. Divorces rarely happen on such good terms that both would be willing to go through this process.
2. Most women will obtain a solicitor who will point out that they will be shafted in any other country, and they stand to gain more by getting divorced in Ireland.

Pompey Magnus

Blisterman wrote: »

Of course, the divorce statistics say otherwise, and I'd imagine a good percentage of people, going through divorce now, regret not getting a prenup.

I'd say it would be about 50% would regret not getting a prenup, with the other 50% quite happy.

Wreck

Blisterman wrote: »

I'd imagine a good percentage of people, going through divorce now, regret not getting a prenup.

Probably something close to 50%

Jigsaw

Rb wrote: »

Very well put.

Regarding prenups, it's unfortunate that they're not recognised under the law here, men have literally no rights when it comes to marriage/children here. If I were excessively wealthy I wouldn't consider marriage without a prenup, which would involve leaving the country.
If it weren't for so many women taking men for a ride for their money there wouldn't be prenups, unfortunately with women being...well...women such precautions in life are necessary for some who are in a position to be fcked over in such a way.

I agree with you totally Rb, and not for the first time today I might add.

MIN2511

Sherifu wrote: »

Why? It's a way of protecting your money.

Since they are useless in Ireland...

Protecting my money...

don't need her to that


And i dont have any money

Wreck

seamus wrote: »

You put on a seat belt, because you get into a car without the surity that you won't be in a crash. In fact I (and hopefully most people) get into a car in the mindset that there's a statistically good chance that I will be involved in a car crash today.

If you're going into a marriage thinking that the chances of it failing require some insurance, then you're pretty cynical to say the least. You're starting off the marriage with a serious doubt in your mind as to its chances. So why get married?

I get into a car with a doubt that I'll actually get home safely that day, but the benefits outweigh the risk. If you consider marriage a "risk", then what significant benefits are you signing up for that somehow outweighs the risk of losing everything? That is, why not just stay together without getting married?

Going into a marriage thinking that the chances of it failing require some insurance is not the same as having a 'serious doubt' as to its chances of succeding. A prenup is a simple acceptance of the fact (inspite of the firm belief the parties may have that the marriage will last) marriages do fail.

No can be certain that their marriage won't end in divorce. I don't see why you have a problem with people planning for the possiblity that things won't work out.

ejmaztec

Nice to think that the two biddies naturally assumed that their sons future wives would be a couple of gold-digging whores. The first meeting of this pair and their future daughters-in-law would be very exciting occasions for all concerned:eek:

metaoblivia

Rb wrote: »

Very well put.

Regarding prenups, it's unfortunate that they're not recognised under the law here, men have literally no rights when it comes to marriage/children here. If I were excessively wealthy I wouldn't consider marriage without a prenup, which would involve leaving the country.
If it weren't for so many women taking men for a ride for their money there wouldn't be prenups, unfortunately with women being...well...women such precautions in life are necessary for some who are in a position to be fcked over in such a way.

Who says prenups are only for the protection of men? I'm a woman and if I were wealthy, I wouldn't consider marriage without a prenup either. Women who are independently wealthy are just as at risk as men in this respect.

Jigsaw

metaoblivia wrote: »

Who says prenups are only for the protection of men? I'm a woman and if I were wealthy, I wouldn't consider marriage without a prenup either. Women who are independently wealthy are just as at risk as men in this respect.

True, but rich men are very much in the majority.

That is due to our gender based inherent superiority.

Pighead

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, but you don't get married for the craic. Signing a prenup is basically going into the marriage saying, "I am not confident that this marriage will last". If that's the case, then just don't get married.

Parts of it, maybe. The items that prenups tend to deal with, such as division of assets, custody of children and so forth are overridden by the law. In this country at least, where something is guaranteed in law (either implicity or explicitly), you cannot sign a contract which waives that guarantee.

For example, imagine you sign a prenup which says that in the event of a break up, the house must be sold and you will take 75% of the proceeds, with your wife taking the rest. You can also state that you will not be liable to support her or any children after this.
Then you have two kids and you get divorced. The court will decide that the house will not be sold, and the wife and children are entitled to live there until both children are over 18. The court will also decide that you must pay maintenance for the children. This makes any prenup effectively worthless because the courts will do what they see as right by the partner/children, rather than what the contract says.

Its a sad day but it was bound to happen eventually Pighead supposes.
+23000 posts. All of which Pighead has read, and the above one is the very first one Pighead disagrees with. Ever.

Phototoxin

Of course, the divorce statistics say otherwise, and I'd imagine a good percentage of people, going through divorce now, regret not getting a prenup.

if people were a bit more 'traditional' then it might last. Stats show that people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. There is a reason why traditional methods lasted so long !

seamus

FWIW, I don't actually see any reason why we shouldn't give prenups some form of legal recognition. I'm all on for letting people marry and divorce with impunity - if they want to empty their wallets and have a big party with a new woman/man every ten years, then work away. It's only those pesky kids which make things messy.

So I would be on for some system which recognises the role that both partners played in the relationship, separately from the children. If they're multi-millionaires and she's done all the work at home while he's been out working, then clearly it's a 50/50 split.

On the other hand, if he was a millionaire before they met and she's been living the life of reilly during the marriage, then clearly she should be entitled to nothing.

In terms of the children, there should be a defined table of what a child costs at a minimum to bring up at different ages, probably something around €12-15k per annum. The partner with majority custody pays 60% of this, the partner without pays 40%. Anything above this is up to themselves.

The prenup can then fight over whatever's left.

Going into a marriage thinking that the chances of it failing require some insurance is not the same as having a 'serious doubt' as to its chances of succeding.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Insurance is in itself an acceptance that what you are insuring against has a very good chance of happening. That's why Irish people don't get earthquake or volcano insurance but we do get fire and theft insurance.

humanji

Phototoxin wrote:

if people were a bit more 'traditional' then it might last. Stats show that people who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce. There is a reason why traditional methods lasted so long !

Because tradition forced them to?

funk-you

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Then all I will have to do is convince my brother to become a priest to rule out the chances of him getting married and divorced and thereby losing my property.

Now ye're thinkin'

-Funk

Jigsaw

While prenups are not legally enforceable it is more or less a moot point, but I would certainly be very tempted to conceal savings and assets from a bride to be so that if the marriage did go pearshaped she wouldn't be able to clean me out.

Matrimonial law is balls.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Jigsaw wrote: »

True, but rich men are very much in the majority.

That is due to our gender based inherent superiority.

Couldn't have put it better myself

Rb

Jigsaw wrote: »

I agree with you totally Rb, and not for the first time today I might add.

Wahey

metaoblivia wrote: »

Who says prenups are only for the protection of men? I'm a woman and if I were wealthy, I wouldn't consider marriage without a prenup either. Women who are independently wealthy are just as at risk as men in this respect.

As Jigsaw said, the overwhelming majority of independently wealthy people are men. Prenups were not brought in to protect women, they were brought in to protect men. That can easily be taken for granted given the sheer amount of men who've been fúcked over by women divorcing them and taking a huge chunk of their net worth with them.

I'd also be skeptical of a woman who refused to sign a prenup but wanted marriage. Prenups do not say "I don't trust you", they say "Statistically there is a chance that this might not work out, should it not, I do not want to end up losing half my shít as a consequence". Women who've cheated on men have ended up getting half their assets in the divorce, that in itself is not right.

That said, the entire Justice system in this country is a mess as is, the courts are well known to protect the criminals so it's no surprise if they're protecting women by handing them massive chunks of money in divorce cases.

In fact, I would go so far as to say any many with any significant amount of wealth, or indeed any significant amount of talent that may lead to future wealth, would be a fool to not get a prenup and deserve whatever happens them.

An example of a fcking idiot is Sir Paul McCartney, married a pirate hooker and ended up being ridden for a pretty large sum of money, thankfully not huge in comparison with his own gross worth but it has still put a lot of money into the hands of that thing that certainly deserves nothing.

Jigsaw wrote: »

While prenups are not legally enforceable it is more or less a moot point, but I would certainly be very tempted to conceal savings and assets from a bride to be so that if the marriage did go pearshaped she wouldn't be able to clean me out.

Matrimonial law is balls.

A lot of men do infact keep some funding to themselves. Personally I'm not one for "joint accounts" either, bar ones for putting money for the household into. However, if I suddenly inherited a load of cash or something, I wouldn't hide it from my girlfriend.

That said, if I weren't with my girlfriend and was single and suddenly came into a lot of money, there's not a chance in hell I'd disclose my financial stance to anyone bar my bank manager.

I remember a guy I knew got a few million in the form of compensation from an accident who literally told anyone about it and suddenly had all these beautiful women flocking around him...if something happens and he gets taken for a ride by one of them he really only has himself to blame.

Pompey Magnus

Rb wrote: »

That said, if I weren't with my girlfriend and was single and suddenly came into a lot of money, there's not a chance in hell I'd disclose my financial stance to anyone bar my bank manager.

I remember a guy I knew got a few million in the form of compensation from an accident who literally told anyone about it and suddenly had all these beautiful women flocking around him...if something happens and he gets taken for a ride by one of them he really only has himself to blame.

+1

I can never understand blokes who flash the cash in the hope of getting a girl, it is a surefire way of getting a gold digger who is only after the money.

Steve_o

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I can never understand blokes who flash the cash in the hope of getting a girl, it is a surefire way of getting a gold digger who is only after the money.

Agreed, OP: If I was wealthy I would sign a prenup, I wouldn't like my wife to bail after 2 years with half of my stuff... no way!

metaoblivia

Rb wrote: »

Wahey



As Jigsaw said, the overwhelming majority of independently wealthy people are men. Prenups were not brought in to protect women, they were brought in to protect men. That can easily be taken for granted given the sheer amount of men who've been fúcked over by women divorcing them and taking a huge chunk of their net worth with them.

I'd also be skeptical of a woman who refused to sign a prenup but wanted marriage. Prenups do not say "I don't trust you", they say "Statistically there is a chance that this might not work out, should it not, I do not want to end up losing half my shít as a consequence". Women who've cheated on men have ended up getting half their assets in the divorce, that in itself is not right.

That there are more wealthy men than women doesn't change my point - prenups are there to protect the independently wealthy, regardless of gender. As time goes on, and more women take jobs as CEOs and entrepreneurs, it stands to reason that an increasing number of women will demand prenups.

As it stands, I agree with you on all of your points - I'm just switching the gender roles. I would think twice about marrying any man who was uncomfortable with signing a prenup.

Rb

metaoblivia wrote: »

That there are more wealthy men than women doesn't change my point - prenups are there to protect the independently wealthy, regardless of gender. As time goes on, and more women take jobs as CEOs and entrepreneurs, it stands to reason that an increasing number of women will demand prenups.

But they were brought in to protect men.
Also, I'd imagine the majority of said "CEOs" who are women will have no interest in family/marriage anyway, most women who get married/have kids etc will never be CEOs in reality.

metaoblivia

metaoblivia wrote: »

As it stands, I agree with you on all of your points - I'm just switching the gender roles. I would think twice about marrying any man who was uncomfortable with signing a prenup.

Then don't marry a solicitor or barrister because they would be embarrassed to sign one.

Rb

Deleted User wrote: »

Then don't marry a solicitor or barrister because they would be embarrassed to sign one.

I opened this expecting to read some legal mumbo jumbo from you tbh :pac: