A Prenup Is the Latest Must-Have For Tech Startup Founders In Love (bloomberg.com) 160
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: In Silicon Valley, where penniless programmers fervently believe their ideas are worth billions, getting rich can take priority over getting married. California law assumes that any wealth created during a marriage is community property, which should be split equally in a divorce. That's alarming not just for young entrepreneurs but also their investors. Fortunately, a well-written prenup is a safeguard against post-divorce havoc, which is why more and more young couples are insisting on the agreements, according to more than half-a-dozen lawyers in the Bay Area and elsewhere. Long popular with older wealthy couples who re-marry, prenups are also being demanded by entrepreneurs who want to keep future windfalls to themselves. In a 2016 survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 3 in 5 divorce attorneys said more clients were seeking prenups in the past three years. "People's concepts and notions of fairness when it comes to privately held businesses are changing," said Sideman Bancroft partner Monica Mazzei, adding she's seen "a tremendous increase" in prenups in the past eight years. "They feel that even if they're married, this is their passion. The agreement should be reflective of that."
Still, the report cautions, "a prenup hardly guarantees a smooth divorce. Judges can and do throw out the agreements, especially if they're drafted poorly." "If you don't put in the right language, a lot of prenups don't do the job," said Lowell Sucherman, a divorce attorney at Sucherman Insalaco in San Francisco.
Still, the report cautions, "a prenup hardly guarantees a smooth divorce. Judges can and do throw out the agreements, especially if they're drafted poorly." "If you don't put in the right language, a lot of prenups don't do the job," said Lowell Sucherman, a divorce attorney at Sucherman Insalaco in San Francisco.
Makes me sad. (Score:5, Interesting)
the other way around (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Most investors would require the founder to have a prenup or at least some form of asset protection for the business. They are paying for the founder’s magic in no small part, and splitting the founder’s ownership stake 50-50 with a “random” third party would be stupid.
This is nothing new. Even my small S-Corp needed to resolve the issues of a potential divorce on the corporate structure even though the probability was extremely remote.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: the other way around (Score:2)
If you're worried about gold diggers, then maybe you don't have much to offer a spouse and maybe you shouldn't get married.
Re:Makes me sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So you either sucked at choosing a partner or you sucked at the relationship itself.
If you have never given your wife enough beyond money so that she would find splitting up to be a loss no matter how much cash she'd get, they you just failed as a man.
You can mod me a troll or call me backwards or whatever you want but having each others backs is the key. If you don't feel you have that, you're doing something wrong. And you should know this before getting married and especially before having kids.
I will al
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just blindly blame the man the a marriage ends up in a divorce.
I'd say always get a prenup. If the other person really loves you and doesn't want your money they won't care, if they're after your money the prenup should hopefully save you f
Re: Makes me sad. (Score:2)
Almost no one can keep that up year after year.
If you get married to someone you haven't been with for years, then maybe you make bad life choices and your money would be more productive with her.
Re: (Score:2)
A woman that truly loves you shouldn't give a shit about a prenup.
A man that truly loves a woman shouldn't either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes me sad. (Score:5, Interesting)
EVERYBODY has a prenup. You get one of two options:
1. Write your own.
2. Use the default
Option 2 is a great choice if the state legislature knows more about your relationship than you do.
Otherwise, you should consider option 1.
My future wife and I wrote our own. It not only specifies how assets will be divided (evenly) and which state's law will apply (California), but also how our marriage will work: child discipline policy, house cleaning, decision making. We even have a paragraph on sex. I have a contractual guarantee of three times per week (MWF).
It was much better to discuss these issues before our wedding than argue about them afterwards. Overall, it has worked well and we have a happy marriage of more than 20 years.
Re:Makes me sad. (Score:5, Funny)
Inquiring minds want to know (Score:4, Interesting)
Does it have to be your wife?
Does your wife have the same clause?
What is the sanction for violating that clause?
Re: (Score:3)
Does it have to be your wife?
Technically, it doesn't specify that, but it is implied.
Does your wife have the same clause?
No. She didn't ask for it. She was much more interested in the clause that guarantees I will help with the housework (limited to 30 minutes per day).
What is the sanction for violating that clause?
For each violation, 5% of my monthly salary can be transferred to a non-community property bank account. Or, if we mutually agree, she can give me a coupon that can be redeemed later on-demand. I usually go for the coupon.
Re:Inquiring minds want to know (Score:4, Funny)
Can anyone else feel the love?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What a psycho.
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone else feel the love?
No. The relationship Bill describes is called transactional sex because the contract can't stipulate that she has to desire that sex. Consequently what Bill misses out on is the type of validational sex that comes from genuine desire. Bill's sexual relationship is based on obligation, not desire.
A woman's fickle desire is best navigated by understanding her ovulation cycle and knowing what her psychological needs are at a particular part of the cycle. Bill's sex comes as a reward for cleaning up or ge
Re: (Score:2)
Consequently what Bill misses out on is the type of validational sex that comes from genuine desire.
Not true. There are 7 days in a week. The contract specifies a minimum of 3 times. That still leaves 4 days for "validational sex".
A woman's fickle desire is best navigated by understanding her ovulation cycle and knowing what her psychological needs are at a particular part of the cycle.
That sounds like a lot of work. From my discussions with other guys, most men aren't very good at it. They complain about their relationships a lot more than I complain about mine.
Re: (Score:2)
We're all driving our favorite cars, but Bill's the only one who bought insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like he didn't buy his car - he got a rental.
Re:Makes me sad. (Score:4, Funny)
I have a contractual guarantee of three times per week (MWF).
That sounds horrible. For a start who wants their love making to be contractually obligated? Does she have to pretend to be turned on? Do you have scheduled times when you both have to be feeling horny?
And what if she really doesn't want to? Are you going to threaten her with breech of contract if she doesn't lie down and apply the KY lube? Maybe get your lawyer to send her notice of an impending lawsuit?
In fact this kind of thing, demanding sex on a schedule, is grounds for divorce in many places. In some legal jurisdictions it can even be sexual assault as creating such a legal obligation prevents consent being freely given given 20 years later.
And on top of all that you once claimed to have a sex doll too. In fact you said your wife bought it for you, which in light of this contract is even more creepy. Maybe you should ask your doctor about sex addiction or an over-active libido.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair he didn't say the contract obliged his wife to fulfil that clause.
Perhaps that's why she bought him the doll.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to let Bill respond but that is what he said. I don't have the link right now but as I recall he said she bought the doll for times when she was travelling.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact this kind of thing, demanding sex on a schedule, is grounds for divorce in many places
Is that a different phrasing of "sexual incompatibility"? Which do I know to be grounds for divorce in many places... Since clearly demanding something that is being given is trivially not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen Annie Hall?
How often do you do it? - asks the doctor
The Woman: All the time, 3 times a week!
The Man: Hardly any, 3 times a week!
That tells you everything you need to know....
By default the men ask more than the women give. There are very good and very old biological reasons for that as well as sociological ones. Women have absolute monopoly over hetero sex and babies (when men object to that statement I always ask them who determines the frequency of sex in their family, they or the wife....an
Sexual Intelligence: What We Really Want From Sex (Score:2)
... and How to Get It -- by Dr. Marty Klein
https://www.martyklein.com/boo... [martyklein.com]
Your insightful post made me think on that book. (Your point on "artificial scarcity" and relationships is also intriguing.)
I wrote a blurb about Marty Klein's book here, pasted below:
https://github.com/pdfernhout/... [github.com]
Sex is a primal shaper of human behavior, so it is no surprise that many organizations struggle to deal with the sexual behavior of employees. It is reasonable to try to suppress sex as much as possible in the workplace
Re: (Score:2)
Women like sex just as much as men. They want it just as much, it's just that often it sucks for them. Guys find it much easier to get enjoyment out of sex, a lot easier to reach orgasm and the endorphins that come with it.
Toys can help, technique can help. Close the enjoyment gap and you will find they want it just as much.
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds horrible. For a start who wants their love making to be contractually obligated?
It actually works quite well. We usually make a romantic evening out of it. Sometimes we eat out, but usually I make a nice dinner at home, make her a bubble bath, etc. I am willing to make the effort, because I am guaranteed a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
And what if she really doesn't want to?
The sanctions are specified in the agreement.
And on top of all that you once claimed to have a sex doll too. In fact you said your wife bought it for you, which in light of this contract is even more creepy.
She bought it because she was going to be out of the country for several months. I didn't ask her to buy it, and I thought it was silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to make the effort, because I am guaranteed a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I do nice stuff for my wife because I like making her happy, not because I expect sexual favours in returns.
My advice: dig up.
The sanctions are specified in the agreement.
But you don't want to share them?
Re: (Score:3)
The sanctions are specified in the agreement.
But you don't want to share them?
She has to have sex with him four times a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Three times per week? After 10 years of marriage you'll profoundly regret this clause. After 20 years it's more like 3 times per year. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
We even have a paragraph on sex. I have a contractual guarantee of three times per week (MWF).
It was much better to discuss these issues before our wedding than argue about them afterwards. Overall, it has worked well and we have a happy marriage of more than 20 years.
I know what the obvious joke is here, however, serious question, what happens if she violates the contract for sex?
Re: (Score:2)
He answered elsewhere, one of 2 things:
1. 5% of his monthly income goes into a non-joint / non-community property bank account
2. Get gets an IOU coupon
He said he normally ops for the coupon.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL we're old fashioned.
We fell in love, married young. So everything we have, we share. No separate accounts. Joint ownership of house and major assets. She's more than half my life, and has given me 4 wonderful children, which as a stay-at-home mom for at least a dozen years, cost her not only physically but economically. If we split, she can have everything. I'd start over.
Glad your agreement works for you but from my POV it's ridiculous.
Re: Makes me sad. (Score:2)
But how often do you have sex 10 times a week under that arrangement?
Personally, I like women who like sex.
Re: Makes me sad. (Score:2)
If you want a laugh, just head over to gnu.org and see rms personal add - hasn't been updated in 11 years since he was 55. Ask yourself - why? Many here think he's next to god, but why would any woman want to get married to a 66 year old toe jam eating guy who doesn't have his own place to live but begs for a room every few months?
His salary at FSF was zero, s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the venerable WOPR computer [youtube.com] said it best...
Re: Makes me sad. (Score:2)
Nothing new here... (Score:5, Informative)
A pre-nup is necessary for every marriage, IMHO...
Even if you and your partner have perfectly-balanced assets, having a pre-nup makes a divorce much smoother, because it establishes what belongs to whom before the court gets involved. You know those horror stories about the ex-wife taking the guy's loyal dog? They didn't have a pre-nup.
Re: (Score:2)
Concur. I'm surprised this isn't a more common part of marriage. Maybe this is a new frontier for automated lawyer-ing. Like that program for helping people fight parking tickets; or all those automated last will generators. Or heck, taking account of all your income and assets is like tax preparation. You could spend $50-100 for some software to help you put together a basic pre-nup, including properties, children (existing and future), and so on. Once the contract was drafted, I think it just needs
Re:Nothing new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think having a prenup means you love your fiancée any less that if you don't have it. It's just planning for the case things might go wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me ask you, what kind of difference is money going to make when you've already lost everything that ever would have had any value to you in the first place?
Honestly, it's like trying to plan who is going to bring the beer to your pool party after the first nuke goes off in your town in world war 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should one care if their life will continue or not if the person that they love decides they don't love the other?
Honestly, I believe that if you don't love a person so completely and thoroughly that you aren't willing to utterly trust that they will also continue to love you back for the rest of their life, even though that is something you cannot actually control, then you probably shouldn't get married in the first place... Just live together.
Re: Nothing new here... (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me: a spouse is not a company. Psychopaths.
Re: Nothing new here... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you really love someone, being concerned with who gets what if or when things go sour is going to matter about as much as being concerned about not forgetting to say "please" if you ask a mugger not to kill you.
It's not going to matter in the slightest. To suggest it's naive to not worry about it is to have absolutely no sense of perspective.
Re: Nothing new here... (Score:2)
Well, good for you. But some of us end up in emotionally and physically abusive relationships with partners who lied to us. What then? Suck it up and stay?
Re: (Score:2)
If or when that happens, you leave. Obviously.
But trying to hammer down who gets what even before you get married is like worrying about how much would be an appropriate tip for a waiter at a restaurant you are eating in the event that a mass shooter comes in and leaves about 20 people dead. You figure it out if it happens, and move on.
Re: (Score:3)
If or when that happens, you leave. Obviously.
But trying to hammer down who gets what even before you get married is like worrying about how much would be an appropriate tip for a waiter at a restaurant you are eating in the event that a mass shooter comes in and leaves about 20 people dead. You figure it out if it happens, and move on.
A mass shooting, in the US, in a restaurant, has happened twice in the past thirty years. Five times if you stretch it to include bars. Divorce happened 787,000 times in 2017.
They are absolutely not comparable circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't suggest not planning for how much to tip the waiter in the eventuality that a mass shooting would occur because it happens to be improbable.. I would suggest that one not bother planning for it because how much to tip the waiter in that sort of eventuality is actually irrelevant even *IF* it happens.
Honestly, if you really love someone and they decide they don't love you anymore, who gives a shit who gets what? It's only money.
Re: (Score:2)
Though we're not perfect at it as a society, probability does factor into what we plan for. More to the point, I think the discord comes with the second half of your statement...
"Honestly, if you really love someone and they decide they don't love you anymore, who gives a shit who gets what? It's only money."
That depends. If both of you are sufficiently wealthy that both of you can deal with the outcome no matter how the chips fall at the end of the divorce, then you're right. However, for many people, the
Re: (Score:2)
But a marriage has *everything* to do with it.... to such a point that literally everything else, up to and including one's own very life, is secondary.
And the point was made above, that if you can't take your partner's word at face value, without any evidence of proof or means to be as convinced of its reality of your own existence, that they will love you until they die, then you shouldn't be getting marri
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to have a prenegotiated divorice, then you should not get married in the first place.
So, putting on seat belts is a prenegotiated car accident?
Getting homeowner's insurance is a predetermined robbery?
What's the message about preplanning a funeral?
Encrypting sensitive data is approval of hacking?
Backup software and an S3 account is agreeing to get ransomware?
The point of a prenup is not because the couple is just 'planning for the divorce', it's a means to ensure that if some sort of unforeseen circumstance takes place, there is an agreed upon course of action so that neither party leaves it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing new here... (Score:2)
If your ex-wife hates you enough to take your dog, then maybe you were the reason you're getting divorced. Like, if you plan to cheat or ignore your wife, a pre-nup maybe a good idea, but normal divorces where people drift apart are not like that.
Irrelevant (Score:3)
> according to more than half-a-dozen lawyers in the Bay Area
It'd be relevant only is the whole Bay Area had between 6 and 12 lawyers.
Marriage in Europe (Score:2)
I'm living in Europe and I'm seeing a lot of people just living together instead of marrying. Maybe after their first or second kid, they figure it's worth it. Kids are very well protected regardless; marriage doesn't influence child support.
What I also notice, is that alimony is not very long lasting anymore. Depending on the marriage, it's either 5 years, or maximum of 12 years. Lots of people, including women (who get 95% of all alimony), think it's unfair.
We don't recognize common-law marriage, but I un
Re: (Score:3)
Not in the UK, fortunately.
I've had too many friends bitching that their kid is about to turn 18 and the flow of free money from the father will end.
I've yet to have a male friend celebrate that she got the kids.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they don't sell condoms in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck would a married couple trying to have a family use condoms?
Like most Family and Sex Law Today (Score:3, Insightful)
How hard can it be? (Score:2)
"If you don't put in the right language, a lot of prenups don't do the job,"
You just have to check the poor language of all those prenups that got rejected and not use that.
It's not rocket science.
oudated (Score:2, Insightful)
just don't marry, it is an outdated concept anyway, somewhere in history forced upon us, probably for some religious reason.
what is the point anyway with divorces being so common & easy?
realisticly it's only a very few couples that spend their life happily together forever.
A Prenup should be the default. (Score:2)
After all what is marriage if not a very strict contract? And for good reasons too. If you're having children, they should be your first concern. However, this marriage contract thing we have is thousands off years old, overly simplified and grossly unfair towards women. And unfair to men if the marriages breaks up.
I'd install a default heterosexual Prenup that goes into effect as soon as a child was conceived, with maybe a little leeway for three lady to decide on her own if she wants to abort. That Prenup
Everybody who marries should get a prenup (Score:2)
Spoken as someone who didn't.
Put it all on the table (Score:2)
I have a family member who is a gold digger (she'd never admit to it). A long time ago she met a well-off guy and they got engaged. He let that ring soak in to her finger for a couple months, then he approached her about a prenup. She wigged out, broke the whole thing off, pulled the "if you really loved me" card on him. He had been divorced before and I don't know if he had a prenup prior or if he learned his lesson. Best part was, he had to get a lawyer involved to get the ring back, because she's a
Re: (Score:2)
I have a family member who is a gold digger (she'd never admit to it).
I do also. Watching the sheer level of entitlement a woman I was related to display as she chewed up a decent guy who agreed to look after one of her children from a previous father made me feel sorry I was related to her. She wanted everything and destroyed her own children's future trying to get it. Men are royally screwed in western society and men who don't understand why this is so are locked into social conditioning that manipulates the gynocentric tendencies of men to protect women that they will
Re: (Score:2)
I would bet that if the man's business in this article was successful and the woman's was a failure he still would have had to transfer that wealth to his wife.
Maybe. But with a prenup, the man can control which chunk of wealth gets transferred to his ex-wife. He might have to hand her a greater portion of the house, bank accounts and other shared assets but hang onto his interest in a business partnership. And that might be of greater value to him. Not having to sit on a board of directors with a hostile ex.
... like dying without a Will (Score:2)
Getting married without a prenup is like dying without a Will. You are assuming that the default law correctly represents how you run your life.
I would argue how people run their marriages has changed more over 50-100 years than who they wish to inherit their property.
Polygamy (Score:2)
A slave with two masters is a free man.
Are they really in love? (Score:2, Informative)
Jesus had something to say on the matter:
Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate
Prenup is stupid (Score:2)
If you cannot trust a person then how can you marry them?
Maybe marriage is something different for these folks.
If some VC tries to CYA with a prenup...that's different.
i jest. (Score:2)
Bullshit!
Re: how hard is it... (Score:2)
In many states you need a pre-nup if that's the system you want to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hope... and the knowledge that you can never be absolutely certain what the future will hold.
It's ALL about the $$$$ (Score:2)
Civil Marriage; it's a legal contract that can include reasonable specifications on how it terminates. We do not allow that so a huge industry exists which foments unrelated religious and cultural issues to create a profitable mess.
Most powerful lobby group: lawyers.
Re:Better idea, avoid marriage (Score:4, Informative)
It's a legal nightmare WHEN it ends
IF it ends, not when. The fact that many people choose unwisely doesn't mean that the rest of us are obligated to do so.
Why bother?
Things become much easier and simpler for the surviving partner if one dies in the even of marriage, for example.
Marriage is a mistake in today's world. Attempt no landing.
That's your judgement. I'll have a more nuanced view, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Things become much easier and simpler for the surviving partner if one dies in the even of marriage, for example.
It's only simpler on the face of things and only when you're talking about inheritance between the two spouses. Once you bring in divorced parents and step-children things get messy quickly because statutory inheritance is very clear on what happens in jurisdictions and it can have a lot of unintended consequences when getting into blended families.
Let's say Mike marries Carol. Mike has a daughter Jan with his ex-wife Alice. Mike and Carol then have a child together named Peter but Mike treats Jan as if she
Re: (Score:2)
It's a legal nightmare WHEN it ends, leaving countless folks broken and broke.
Countless lawyers are very wealthy after divorces.
Re: (Score:3)
Marriage can be very rewarding. Someone you know will support you and help you, and someone you can put your energy into supporting too.
Same reason why some people have kids. They aren't for me but I understand why people want them and that despite all the hard work and sacrifice they get a lot out of the experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Marriage can be very rewarding. Someone you know will support you and help you, and someone you can put your energy into supporting too.
So? I get all that with an ironclad pre-nup. I don't see a reason to get married without a pre-nup.
(As an aside, I'd love to see the divorce rates for those marriages with pre-nups and and those without),
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably difficult to tell how prenups affect the rate of relationships breaking down. While stats for divorces are available stats for people who split up before marriage because one partner asked for a prenup are not.
If my wife had asked me to sign something before marriage I would have reconsidered. Without that trust there the marriage seems doomed from the start. It would also suggest that she thought I wasn't mature enough to act like an adult if it did break down, another warning sign.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If my wife had asked me to sign something before marriage I would have reconsidered.
That swords cuts both ways: if a women doesn't agree to an iron-clad pre-nup maybe she isn't ready to get married.
Without that trust there the marriage seems doomed from the start. It would also suggest that she thought I wasn't mature enough to act like an adult if it did break down, another warning sign.
No one generally worries about warning signs from men, because we don't have 90% of divorces being initiated by men for profit. We do see that for women.
Re: (Score:2)
Or she might be aware that marriage is a coin toss and she doesn't want to share her coins.
Re:Better idea, avoid marriage (Score:4, Interesting)
Have any wrongfully identified fathers pursued the mother in a civil suit yet? Surely this is a basic tort with obvious damages?
Re: (Score:2)
"It's terrible that we need to write contracts to avoid the possibility of someone stealing half your property."
According to the law, it ain't your property.
Re: (Score:2)
Prenups are necessary for everyone who isn't entirely stupid.
that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It's terrible that we need to write contracts to avoid the possibility of someone stealing half your property.
No you idiot hey (I can do this too! wooo!) the solution to worrying about that is to not get married not getting a prenup.
Re: (Score:2)
Prenups are necessary for everyone who isn't entirely stupid.
Given a man would have to be stupid to get married while the law and family courts are so horribly gender biased your statement lacks credibility.
Re: (Score:2)