Tags

, , , , , ,

pre-nup cartoon

Preface

This post gives a first hand account (mine) of how stunningly disastrous it can be to get married without having a pre-nuptial agreement in place. NOT having a pre-nup leaves you exposed to life changing harm that can hit you in ways you just wouldn’t think were possible (much less legal). This includes being blackmailed, being put in jail, or even having your children taken away from you. And oh yes, not having a pre-nup can result in stunning financial losses.

Understand that when you marry you can’t avoid having an in-case-of-divorce “contract”. If a couple doesn’t write-up their own such “contract” (i.e. a pre-nup) the default “contract” becomes your state’s matrimonial laws. Trust me, having the state laws in control of a divorce is a recipe for an Alice-in-Wonderland disaster.

In sharp contrast, the pre-nup I have in my new marriage has been a key to our having a happy marriage. 

Outline

  • WHAT A PRE-NUP IS
  • YOU CAN’T AVOID THE FINANCIAL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE
  • HOW A PRE-NUP CAN AFFECT A MARRIAGE (before, during, and at the end)
  • HOW PEOPLE’S WORST IS BROUGHT OUT IN A (STATE LAW CONTROLLED) DIVORCE
  • MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT DIVORCE LAWS (and why a pre-nup is so much needed)
  • TOUCHSTONES TO USE IN A PRE-NUP
  • FINAL THOUGHTS 
  • EXHIBIT A: EXAMPLE OF A BAD MARRIAGE (MINE) THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY A PRE-NUP (or at least have mitigated the damage)

“You love your money more than me” she pointedly said to me with her eyes glaring. I strongly disagreed as I shot back with “No, the problem is YOU love my money more than me.”

So who was right? Well, that’s not just the wrong question but the wrong issue. The far more relevant issue (vis-à-vis having a happy marriage) is that we had a fundamental disagreement on how we saw financial matters in our marriage.

Within a year of the above conversation we were divorced. The divorce was an ugly no holds barred “war”.

A pre-nuptial agreement would have prevented such a divorce “war”. In a pre-nup, the settlement terms for any divorce are mutually agreed on before marriage. Thus there is no “war” to be fought. In effect, the “peace terms” of any (divorce) “war” have already been agreed to.

But a pre-nup can help in more ways than just dealing with a potential divorce situation. A pre-nup can also head off a bad marriage from happening in the first place. In addition, having a pre-nup (and having been able to work one out) can make for a happy marriage and thus a more lasting one. (More later on this.)

But I didn’t have a pre-nup. Thus the divorce I had was instead controlled by my state’s divorce laws. And “war” it was.

The dynamics created by having the state laws control a divorce are incredibly destructive. A state law controlled divorce is a legal fight with costly lawyers zealously representing the two sides. The stakes are high. The laws are gray. And the two divorcing people are at odds with each other. When you add in the fact that lawyers make more money if the divorce is protracted it’s not surprising that the result is so often a costly “war”. Usually no one (other than the well paid lawyers) “win” in a such a state law controlled divorce. A couple is often left financially crippled from the legal fees alone in fighting such a “war”.

 

WHAT A PRE-NUP IS

Simply stated. at its core, a pre-nuptial agreement is a legal document that covers how financial matters would be handled in case you and your spouse ever divorce. It’s a “just in case” type of document that you hope never needs to be used. This agreement is made before (pre) you get married (the “nuptial”).

A pre-nup can go farther than it’s core in-case-of-divorce mission. For example, I remember that Jackie and Aristotle Onassis had a pre-nup that even specified how often they would have sex. Well … that strikes me as a bit weird (and in a vague way turned the esteemed Jackie O into something I’d rather not say). Such expectations in a marriage are better left to a heart-to-heart loving talk and not a written contract.

 

YOU CAN’T AVOID THE FINANCIAL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE

Critically, if you learn nothing else from reading this, understand this one point: when you get married you both HAVE to make a choice between what legalities control any divorce you might have. Effectively, these legalities are a “contract” between you and your spouse. You can NOT escape this financial “contract”. You have two choices:

1. Have your state laws be in control. This is the “do nothing” default position. In other words, if you take no action (i.e. don’t set up a pre-nup) your state laws will automatically govern any future divorce. State laws almost guarantee that your divorce will be a costly living nightmare with potentially mind boggling unfair outcomes.

2. Have a pre-nuptial agreement be in control. In other words, the mutually agreed on wishes of you and your spouse – made at a time when you both got along – control any divorce you might have.

Saying all the above another way, doing nothing means you ARE still effectively signing a pre-nuptial contract (just as much as with a formal pre-nuptial agreement in which you both physically sign an agreement)!! Again, the “do nothing” approach just means the “contract” you’ve chosen (by default) is the state laws.

And just what a difference your choice between the above two “contracts” can mean to your life. If you ever divorce, having the state divorce law “contract” be in control can profoundly harm both people in the divorce in so many ways.

As already said, the high legal costs alone can leave both people financially crippled. But also bad is how a state controlled divorce can greatly increase animosity between the to-be ex spouses. Animosity is increased by the very nature of the beast. Again, the state controlled divorce is a legal fight. As with other legal fights, the two lawyers inevitably try to smear the character of the other party in order try and get the judge to view the other side negatively. Also, outrageous settlement demands are typically made (in the hopes the judge will simplistically (and stupidly) see the valid end result settlement as needing to be in the middle. Still further, the resulting heightened animosity the two ex spouses are left with can be devastating for child custody issues.

Still further, a state law controlled divorce perversely induces people to NOT get their life back on track by getting a job (or seeking better pay). In the midst of a divorce any job improvement is punished. Getting a job will result in any alimony you might get being reduced. And if you’re the one who will need to pay out alimony, getting a better paying job could easily result in your paying out more alimony. And these same perverse dynamics also apply to after you’re divorced.

Hmm … so state divorce laws can leave you financially crippled and prevent you from improving your job situation. That’s just a dreadful setup. But it gets worse.

Ask yourself this: would you ever sign an agreement that required you to financially support someone you were getting divorced from for the rest of their life (even if it’s for 50 or more years) if you were just married to them for 13 years? Really now … a 13 year marriage results in 50+ years of support? That would cripple you for life. And it’s  not “just” a matter of all of the money you’d shell out. Such a lifetime financial burden would also steer others away from wanting to marry you. … So what would be your reaction if your fiancé put such “support me for life” terms in a pre-nup and asked you to sign it? I think anyone would say “no way … no f_cking way in hell would I ever agree to such an utterly crazy provision”.

Well I’ve got news for you. If you do NOT have a pre-nup you ARE –- by default — agreeing to such lifetime support terms (at least in N.J.) per the state divorce laws that govern permanent lifetime alimony. AND there’s still more ways the often crazy state divorce laws can ruin your life (given later).

It can almost seem like the state laws were written to purposely try and destroy people in a divorce. That’s not the case of course. The laws are needed. Somehow … someway …  society needs to deal with the aftermath of a divorcing couple (financial matters and the well being of children). The problem is divorce laws are a “one size fits all” solution that rarely fits your situation. Having a pre-nup lets you set your own “rules” for how any divorce situation will be handled.

HOW A PRE-NUP CAN AFFECT A MARRIAGE (before, during, and at the end)

Before marriage (i.e. preventing a bad marriage)

Per my point at the start of this posting, two people can be honorable people but not be anywhere near being on the same page in what they see as “fair” or “right” in how financial matters should be handled in a marriage (or a divorce). Trying to work out a pre-nup brings such issues to a head.  As such, if two people just can’t get on the same page (financially) a pre-nup will probably prevent the marriage from happening (and that would be for the good since both people will avoid getting into an unhappy marriage).

But sometimes a bad marriage is more due to less than honorable motivations (and not just due to different views). Bluntly, someone might be marrying you for your money instead of love. Having a pre-nup can go a long ways to warding off such an ill fated (usually hidden) reason someone is marrying you.The reason of course is because a pe-nup can keep the settlement from any divorce within bounds of what’s fair and reasonable. Thus much of the (financial) incentive a less than honorable fiancé might have in marrying you is taken away. A pre-nup can certainly take away the “hitting the jack pot” type of “winnings” the state divorce laws can give to a less than honorable person.

At the same time, I do not blow off financial motivations in marriage as just being a case of dishonorable greedy motivations. More accurately (and appropriately) a measure of financial security in getting married is a more than reasonable want. “Financial security” can appropriately be at least part of the picture for why someone is marrying you.

However, the problem is when that want for financial security dominates the picture of why someone is marrying you. At some point that want for financial security becomes greed and will make for a really bad marriage. If you have a “greedy” spouse they probably won’t just be waiting to get “their” money from a divorce. In all probability your “greedy” spouse will also (during the marriage) try to take as much as they can from you (and build up their own financial nest egg). If that’s your situation your marriage really won’t (can’t be) very happy. Financial disagreements will constantly (painfully) recur. The “greedy” spouse will push for more and more. The other spouse at some point will hit a wall of resistance. The result is a lot of conflict. The financial tug-of-war can become the “pink elephant” in the room that no one talks about.

Whether or not your spouse is going overboard in seeking “financial security” for themselves (i.e. being greedy) is not just a matter of the amount. More important is the attitude and (genuine) thought. There’s a huge difference between your wanting (and doing) something extra nice for your spouse (or anyone for that matter) vs. the other person demanding it.

To use an analogy, it’s like the difference between your willingly (and gladly) holding the door open for someone vs. them pushing you aside so they can go first. The end result is the same in both cases (the other person went through the door first). But how  they got there is quite different. The difference matters. If you find yourself constantly being “pushed” where you don’t want to go in your marriage (per the financial aspect I’m talking about here) you’ve got a real problem on your hands. You better have a good pre-nup.

I say the above from the tough personal experience I had in my divorce that I started this posting off with. Trust me, people’s perhaps hidden motivations and your own “in love” blindness can lead you into a marriage that you’ll deeply regret. And when you add in how state divorce laws can yield bizarre results, the resulting divorce (as I had) can be beyond the most extreme “worst case” scenario you thought was possible. That was certainly the case for me.

You might think (as I did) that you know how state divorce laws basically work and that you can at least keep the settlement terms of any divorce reasonable. But as the saying goes, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. Chances are you know just enough to get yourself in trouble (serious trouble) as I did. … I’ve given a fuller explanation (see EXHIBIT A) of my divorce and how having a pre-nup could have helped.

During a marriage

The way a pre-nup can affect a marriage (during the marriage) is a bit of a mixed bag. It all depends on the people involved as well as the situation. Nonetheless, my thinking is that a pre-nup can (and should) help a marriage.

Let me explain by first saying how a pre-nup can hurt a marriage. I’ll be the first one to say that a pre-nup is not romantic. Laying out the terms of a divorce (before you’re even married) is not a fun exercise. Some people can even be so put off by such an exercise that they will call off an engagement. Indeed, the whole idea of marriage is that you’re joining in life together (forever). A pre-nup — by looking at all of the ins and outs of the possibility of a divorce — goes against that idea.

But believe me. NOT having a pre-nup does not somehow prevent you from getting divorced. That certainly was the case with me (as explained in EXHIBIT A). In many ways our lack of a pre-nup helped to bring about the divorce. Perhaps questionable motives my wife had in marrying me could be better hidden without having a pre-nup. The absence of a pre-nup gave my wife an incentive to “take the money and run” so to speak (i.e. divorce me and seek a large settlement).

But a pre-nup can and should help a marriage. It’s not just theory. I’s also my experience. I’ve been happily remarried now fo over two years. I think our happiness is in part due to our having a pre-nup.

Having a pre-nup means my wife and I are clearly on the same page of how to handle financial matters in our marriage (including if we were to ever divorce). No one has hidden motives. No one is trying to take advantage of the other one. Also, the dynamics are that we are both better off being together (no one has a “take the money and run” incentive). And I’ll add that working through (and finalizing) a pre-nup shows that we’re both in sync with being rational people who deal with the real world (and are  not caught up in some fairy tale idea that your marriage can only be forever).

But how much a pre-nup can help you depends on your own situation. In my case (my remarriage), a pre-nup makes compelling sense (and for both of us). We’re both have grown children from prior marriages. We both want most of what we own to pass on to our children. The only way to do that is with a pre-nup. Without a pre-nup the state estate laws would require that the surviving spouse receive a large amount of their deceased spouse’s estate (our N.J. state laws require that a minimum of about a third go to the surviving spouse). With a pre-nup you can set up your estate planning the way you (not the state) want to. Settings things up on your terms can also save large amounts on estate taxes if done right.

At the end of a marriage

As already gone into, a pre-nup’s main purpose is to set up (in advance) the terms of a settlement in case a couple ever divorces. Thus a divorce “war” does not need to be fought. That will at least make the divorce a little less painful (both financially and emotionally).

HOW PEOPLE’S WORST IS BROUGHT OUT IN A (STATE LAW CONTROLLED) DIVORCE

Having state laws control a divorce can — and does — bring out the worst traits of human nature. Even “good” people can become “bad” (real bad) as the grayness of the state laws makes for a high stakes divorce war. Three ways I’ve seen this are:

  • Greed. When significant money is at stake (as it is in a divorce) people can act totally out of character. That “wonderful” person you married can become a brass knuckles street fighter where anything goes. What’s “right” or “ethical” becomes irrelevant in the grab for money. People will lie, blackmail, and worse. My own personal experience (per EXHIBIT A) is an example of just how bad it can get (and that was with a person who saw herself as a highly principled Christian woman).
  • Revenge. For example, I know of one poor guy whose to-be ex-wife took his children away from him. She “accomplished” that goal by making trumped up charges that the guy was physically abusing their children. (His “crime” was that one time in anger he threw a sneaker against a wall.)  When the guy was at least allowed court supervised visits this woman (falsely) then also accused the court approved visitation supervisor (the guy’s older sister) of abuse. Ultimately, this nutso woman eliminated all visitation and even (legally) changed the children’s names. The guy of course has had to pay out full child support (and is still doing so).
  • Emotional “craziness”. The emotions in a divorce can overtake rational thought (and that includes yourself). In other words, in a divorce an otherwise rational person can become a “crazy” person (temporarily insane realty). And when the state laws are in control of the divorce that “craziness” can be given free reign. If a “crazy” person wants all-out war, even if it means mutually assured financial destruction, the state law divorce courts let that happen.

You’re not immune from your own dark side being brought out in a divorce (especially if the state laws are in control of your divorce). I should know. My own “dark side” was that I seriously thought about trying to put my 17 year old step son in jail as a way to (reverse) blackmail my to-be ex in my divorce.

The situation was my to-be ex was openly blackmailing me with legal costs (explained in EXHIBIT A) in order to get me to settle on her over the top terms. I was furious. I wanted to fight back. One way to fight back would have been to threaten (i.e. blackmail) to put her 17 year old son in jail if she continued with her blackmail of me. Her son’s jail-able offense was that he had recently stolen $20,000 from us (forging checks). He also already had some ten past “incidences” with the police.

In the end, I didn’t blackmail. But the reason wasn’t due to my having great ethics. Rather, my lawyer told me that my type of blackmail could land me in jail (whereas my wife’s blackmail was legal). Even then, I seriously thought about simply taking revenge (making no attempt at blackmail) by simply going to the police about the $20,000 theft and pressing charges. I suppose for the best I didn’t. Having a stupid teenage kid possibly stuck with a felony level criminal record for life would make his future pretty tough (even though he most arguably deserved it).

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT DIVORCE LAWS (and why a pre-nup is so much needed)

Let me bring up three misconceptions about how financial matters can work in a state law controlled divorce that might make you (wrongly) think that you don’t need a pre-nup:

Misconception # 1: If you just keep what’s “yours” (from before marriage) in your own name you’re “safe” from having those assets taken in a divorce.

In other words, if you don’t commingle your pre-marital assets in joint name you will not have made the mistake of having given half of that asset to your to-be ex. Heck, the state laws even explicitly say this (in that pre-marital assets are NOT to be divided up in a divorce).

Let me clearly say that the state laws are like Alice in Wonderland in that what they say isn’t what they mean. In a word, the state laws LIE. As I learned the hard way, pre-marital assets can be taken and given to your ex in a divorce. And that’s significantly so. The “legal” way this is done is to do it indirectly. Basically, in order to pay off my to-be ex’s “legal” blackmail (explained in EXHIBIT A) I had to use large amounts from my pre-marital assets. There was no choice. She had spent (or lost) all joint assets in our nine year marriage had earned and then some. Thus my (large) payout had to all be from pre-marital assets.

Misconception # 2: You can use mediation to settle a divorce instead of having a “war”.

In the absence of there being a pre-nup, a divorce can (sometimes) successfully be mediated to reach a fair settlement and at a fairy low cost. With mediation, you and your to-be ex both hire an independent mediator. You both still have your own lawyers. But your lawyers are largely just used to review the terms of the mediated agreement (and make sure that you don’t agree to a bad deal). Thus (ideally) legal costs are minimized and a divorce is more quickly (and fairly) done with.

HOWEVER, using mediation to settle a divorce is still NOT a good alternative to having a pre-nup. The reasons are:

  • Mediation is often not about what’s “fair” or “right” (the touchstones you can use in a pre-nup). … Mediation just looks at the possible outcomes of a state law controlled divorce (and uses that as a basis for trying to get the two sides to agree to settlement terms). The problem here is that the state law controlled outcomes can sometimes be amazingly unfair. For example, the settlement I paid to my wife was mediated. But the settlement I agreed to in mediation use my wife’s blackmail figure (blackmailing me with legal costs) and went beyond what even the state laws (sans blackmail) called for in a settlement. Fairness had nothing to do with it as the mediator even said to me (in helping me see the harsh reality I was facing).
  • The dynamics reward the person who can act the most “crazy”. … The dynamics in a divorce can be like a game of chicken. The head on “crash” you both want to avoid is the incredibly high legal costs you will both (normally) incur if you can’t resolve things in mediation (and instead have the expensive court system resolve your divorce). Often the most “crazy” person will drive the better bargain.
  •  Lawyer greed. … Lawyers have a strong incentive (their wallet) to make mediation not work (or at least not work smoothly).

Misconception # 3: If two people are both starting out their marriage with few assets it’s not worth having a pre-nup.

Well, perhaps. In the case of a divorce in such a situation whatever has been earned in a marriage (by either party) will simply get divided up evenly. That seems reasonably fair.

HOWEVER, you’re still exposed to the insane way divorce laws can sometimes work. As said earlier, you could end up having to support your ex for 50 years or more after just 13 years of marriage. I just don’t see how anyone could agree to that (as you are if you take the default “contract” of having your state’s laws control any divorce).

There other ways a pre-nup can help you. In the absence of a pre-nup the state laws can bankrupt a couple if one has costly medical problems. A pre-nup can set things up so that just one spouse (the sick one) goes bankrupt in such an unfortunate situation and thus save their spouse from financial ruin. I mean really. If you were “drowning” would you want your spouse to be saved or would you want them to “drown” with you? I’d hope you would want them to be saved. If you do you’ll need a pre-nup.

I say the above from a very sad situation I know about. the husband of a young couple got cancer. After two years of the doctors trying their best to save the husband he died. The medical costs ran into the millions. Caps on the amounts their health insurance would cover were exceeded. The result is the wife, in addition to losing her husband, has been left bankrupt. My understanding is a pre-nup could have prevented such a disaster.

TOUCHSTONES TO USE IN A PRE-NUP

I suggest using these touchstones in what you have in a pre-nup:

  • A pre-nup needs to be a win-win for the husband and wife.  If you try and have a pre-nup that’s all slanted in your own favor then your betrothed should look at you cross-eyed. But understand that the crux of the problem is then your (selfish) one sidedness (not the pre-nup). Fundamentally, the marriage (and how you two are left in the event of a possible divorce) needs to be fair. Also, keep in mind that often the biggest savings in having a pre-nup is simply avoiding the incredibly high legal costs in a divorce. Thus be generous (within reason) in a pre-nup. Set things up so that a good chunk of the money you would have spent on legal fees in a divorce instead goes to your ex (where hopefully they can then feel they were treated fairly).
  • Both people in a marriage should be responsible for their own financial independence. For someone to marry and then totally quit being responsible for their own financial future I don’t think is appropriate in today’s modern age. Finding a wealthy husband (or wife) should not be the end point for being financially set for life. At the same time, situations vary. For example, suppose one spouse leaves work to care for their spouse who has become seriously ill. I’d say a pre-nup should not leave a spouse financially penalized for being such a caring person. Have a pre-nup cover such situations (or modify it as needed).
  • A pre-nup does not prevent you from doing more if you want to.  For example, I know of one well off guy who after a few years of a good marriage started to slowly give his wife half ownership of the house he owned in his own name (a pre-marital asset). It’s what the guy wanted to do for his wife (perhaps made easier by his children already, presumably, being well taken care of financially). More broadly, I suggest being generous over time (hand-in-hand with your seeing that the marriage is going well).

FINAL THOUGHTS 

Love, sharing your life with someone, and perhaps having a family all combine into one of the most meaningful and joyful experiences of life. Basically, we all want that in our life.

BUT understand the fuller picture of what’s going on when you marry someone. It’s NOT all just about love. Unavoidably you are making a financial “contract” with your spouse that will control any divorce you ever have (which also affects how financial matters are handled while you’re married).

Think of having a pre-nup as being similar to having a Will. If you’re willing to have a Will (as most people are) then you should also be willing to have a pre-nup. Don’t’ let the default of the state laws be in control, be it your own death or the death of your marriage. Have a Will. Have a pre-nup. Rarely do the “boiler plate” state laws (be it the death of yourself or your marriage) match up with your own situation or wants.

Bottom line, have a pre-nup. A pre-nup doesn’t just help save you from a potential divorce disaster.  Trying to work out a pre-nup can also prevent a bad marriage from happening in the first place. AND a pre-nup can also help you have a happy (and thus lasting)  marriage.

================================================

EXHIBIT A

EXAMPLE OF A BAD MARRIAGE (MINE) THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY A PRE-NUP

(or at least have mitigated the damage)

This example is my own marriage and divorce that I started this posting off with.

When I brought up my want for a pre-nup with my then fiancé she was not pleased. She explained how she was against a pre-nup as a matter of principle. She saw a pre-nup as just a blueprint for a divorce that would inevitably lead to divorce. Hmm … principles. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Read on.

While we were engaged, my fiancé pushed for me to agree to this idea: since we were joining together in marriage for life we should also join our assets. Mmm … is that coming from a loving and principled person who so much sees us as life partners? Well, it’s possible. But with hindsight (given how she behaved in our marriage) I think not. I see her want as being mostly a case of greed.

The translation of my fiancé’s want (per above) is simple. On day one of our marriage she wanted me to give her half of everything I owned. That want was totally one sided. At the time I had considerable assets. She was basically broke. Frankly, her want was so outlandish (and so much pushed for) that I should have ended the engagement right then and there and RUN in the opposite direction.

But I didn’t run. I instead told her I’d still do quite a bit for her (and did) but that there was just no way I could simply give her half of everything I owned. She “acquiesced” to “my” want. We got married. Note: It’s amazing how much an attractive woman can make a guy not think rationally.

Now as said earlier, whatever my fiancé’s true motivations were in marrying me is almost an irrelevant issue. Far more relevant is that we had hugely different ideas on how we thought financial matters should be handled in our marriage. That’s a recipe for a bad marriage. And it’s also a recipe for a really bad divorce.

How a pre-nup could have helped during our marriage

A pre-nup would have given our verbal agreements on how to handle financial matters in our marriage legal “teeth” (and not subject to just being so much lip service). And that “teeth” would of course also have applied to any divorce.

For example, often the length of a marriage is part of the formula for any divorce settlement terms.  Other “during marriage” things that can be (even if indirectly) dealt with in a pre-nup are how you own your home, commingle assets, and even cost of lifestyle issues.

How the marriage played out

At any rate, given what I’ve already said, it’s no surprise how our marriage (and eventual divorce) played out.

During the marriage my wife seemingly spent all of her time coming up with ways for her to achieve what she wanted do in the first place (own half of everything I had). One device was to have joint ownership of all real estate (both homes and investment property) with me of course putting up all of the equity. Another “push”  was for me to give her expensive jewelry. For example, she pushed for me to buy her a costly (post marriage) “engagement” ring. When I gave it to her, her first words were (and I quote word-for-word) “this will make a good investment for me.” She then caught herself and talked about the love it represented. (You just can’t make this stuff up.) 

Understand that I lived up to what we had agreed to before we got married about financial matters and then some.  As promised, I followed through with giving my wife a large equity stake in my house (and then expanded this gift to full joint ownership when she pushed for more). Then there was the $120,000 I paid out for the advanced education she so much wanted and pushed for (pushed for after we were married). There was quite a bit more I did for her but I think I make my point. As objectively as I can see it, I was VERY financially generous with my wife (and for far more than what we had agreed on before getting married). 

At any rate, given my wife’s view (that she should own half of everything I had) it didn’t matter what I did as along as I was still “greedily” holding on to assets in my own name. She constantly pushed for more. After a few years I began to resist her push. That made for conflict. That “conflict” was (in my view) because I was no longer willing to play the part of a fool with her (in giving her so much). For her I was just being cheap (per my opening sentence in this posting in which she adamantly said “You love your money more than me”). I think my response of  “No, the problem is YOU love my money more than me” was dead on accurate.

Given the conflict, neither one of us was happy in the marriage in the last few years together. My wife eventually asked for a divorce. I felt both relief and hurt. “Relief” because I was just as glad the painful marriage was at last going to be over. Still, being rejected by anyone (much less your wife) hurts. I had thought (I think naively) that we would somehow muddle through.

But little did I know how much the “hurt” I felt from being asked for a divorce would pale in comparison to the hurt from the state law controlled divorce that was about to hit me.

The “crazy” divorce settlement

My ex got a large settlement due to the bizarre way state laws can work. That settlement was in addition to her leaving with some substantial assets that had all come from me and my family (and were now in her name).

The settlement was so large that my ex-wife even supplanted me in my very nice hometown of 30 years (and where I had raised my children from an earlier marriage). She bought a house in “my” hometown with her “winnings” while I moved out to a nearby lower cost town to save money and rented.

That’s a life changing big ouch. A pre-nup would have prevented such a disaster.

What happened is the courts sanctioned (even set up) my wife’s blackmailing me. I’m quite serious here. The path to blackmail started when our judge sat down with us and said that he would be making me pay for all of my to-be ex’s legal expenses (in addition to my own) given that I had a good deal more assets than my wife. The judge even said how I could expect to pay in the mid to upper six figures for just legal costs (on top of any settlement).

Well, my ex isn’t’ stupid. She took the blackmail setup home from there. The next day she invited me out for the most expensive cup of coffee in my life. She made no pretense. She openly blackmailed me. She told me that she would PURPOSELY make the legal costs in the divorce as high as possible (conceivably hitting seven figures). Thus my better “deal” was to settle on her terms. I had no choice. She was right. Settling on her terms was the lower cost decision. The settlement she got went well beyond what the state divorce laws arguably called for. Basically, my ex got a windfall “payday” at my great expense. … That never would have happened if we had had a pre-nup.

Let me add that the above settlement was despite so many factors pointing to my wife getting a modest settlement at best. For one, we had no children and the marriage was just nine years. My wife also had a 20 year track record of working (she quit after we were married one year). Further, she now had advanced degrees (all $120,000 paid by me) and thus should have been able to earn even more than she had in the past. Another factor was that I had come down with MS (an ever worsening debilitating illness that limits my future income earning potential and drives up my medical costs). You can even add in psychological factors that while having no legal standing in a divorce could affect how a judge saw things. One such factor was that this was my wife’s fourth marriage no less. Also, I had not done anything “wrong” as such (no affair, no physical abuse, … nothing).

But my divorce was not black and white

The above over simplifies my divorce (and overly makes out my ex as having been up to no good). But I gave the simple version for a reason. I wanted to (clearly) make my points about the need for a pre-nup.

But life is messier than the simplified story I gave above. So for accuracy (and so you, the reader, can understand the nuances involved) let me explain more.

Despite what I’ve said above, I don’t think my wife married me planning on taking me to the cleaners. I think she married me with the want to stay together for life and — at least to an extent — had fallen in love with me. But things in the marriage evolved poorly (and for reasons that in hindsight were predictable).

My sense is that my wife genuinely believed that her being against a pre-nup was because of her high principles on what a marriage was (joining together forever). I think she honestly thought that a pre-nup was indeed just a “blueprint” for a divorce that would make for a bad marriage. Further, unstated on her part, I think she was also wary that I might try to somehow deviously take advantage of her in a pre-nup.

But here’s where we had issues in the marriage that set up things to evolve so badly:

  • Her want for “financial security” was excessive. I DO think my wife’s main attraction to me was indeed for the “financial security” I could give her (despite downplaying it a bit immediately above). In other words (more crassly said), “for the money”. But I don’t think she even fully realized how much “for the money” drove her “attraction” to me. I think her mind fooled herself into believing our marriage was (at least mostly) about love. It’s all hard to say for sure. It’s not a black and white choice between love and money. It’s gray.
  • We had different views on money. It’s too facile to just say she was s “spender” while I was a “saver”. Going a bit deeper, my wife viewed money as something to be used to enjoy life. And this mind set wasn’t just reserved for when it was a matter of spending “my” money. For example, earlier in life she had gone through a bankruptcy. She had been planning on going on a day trip to a theme park (Great Adventure) when a sheriff came to her house with a moving van to evict her from her house. I would have been beside myself and incapable of planning (and spending for) such a trip in the face of being evicted. As I said, we had huge differences in how we saw money.
  • I came down with a health issue. Specifically, I came down with MS in our last year or two we were together. I’m sure my having MS made me even less fun for her. That’s not even meant as a criticism of her. It’s just reality. It was another hurdle she would have had to overcome in being happy staying with me.

The above issues (predictably) resulted in the marriage evolving poorly. I can also add in that we were two different personality types. At any rate, her marrying (mostly) “for the money” makes a weak “glue” for holding a marriage together (especially when our finances took a major hit in the 2006/2007 Great Recession).  When that “for the money” “glue” was weakened our other non-financial issues quickly came to the surface. There was precious little of the “love for the person” “glue”  holding our marriage together.  

At any rate, after the Great Recession hit I ratcheted back the money gong to my wife as well as for our (wife driven) lifestyle costs. But given that my wife’s main attraction to me was “for the money” (or more nicely said, for “financial security”) my actions were a “no go” for her. I think she honestly saw the problem as being that I was just being cheap with her (to which I sharply disagree). 

Hmm … so to recap. I don’t think my wife set out to take me for all I was worth in marrying me. Things just evolved that way. By the end, she simply wasn’t happy in the marriage and wanted out. And that wasn’t just due to our tougher family finances. There was a healthy dose of her not particularly caring for who I was (stemming from our different personality types). Being married for several years typically takes off the “in love” rose colored glasses one has in how they see their spouse. And in our case, my having considerably less money made her see that much more of my personality traits that he didn’t care for. 

But then as long as she was divorcing me she figured she should get as much as she could (securing her future “financial security” … at my great expense).

That’s no exaggeration. Here’s what she said (and I quote): “this divorce is just a business deal”.  And to that she added that her goal was to take as much from me as she could. Frankly, when love is gone a divorce is indeed pretty much just that (a business deal).

BUT here is where not having a pre-nup REALLY hurt me. My to-be ex had no qualms in throwing ethics out the window in securing the best “business deal” she could.  With the “shoot for the sky” possibilities that came from having the state laws be in control of our divorce my to-be ex’s greed came to the forefront. She blackmailed to get an oversized settlement (described above). She also pulled such stunts as “losing” high value family heirloom jewelry of mine.

But it helps to see how I think my ex saw things. I’m sure that she felt the means (blackmail) justified the ends for her. As she said to me, she felt she should get a large sum for the nine years of her life she had spent (wasted?) with me. She possibly genuinely felt that it was “fair” and “right” for her to have owned half of everything I had from day one. That want was merely downsized in the divorce settlement. It didn’t matter to her that I had given her so much while we wee married. Nor did it matter that she had spent and lost significant amounts of my money. She felt she was entitled to more, much more. And she got it.

And again, the point of this story of my divorce, is that the above torturous (and costly) divorce would have been avoided if we had had a pre-nup instead of having the default of the state divorce laws be in control of our divorce. The state laws enabled, even induced, her to (successfully) wage an all-out brass knuckles divorce “war”. And it was a “war” she won.