>>>>>>>>>It surprised me too, but I can't say I do not know anyone that did not sign a pre-nup, even one of my best friends from high school did it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Speaking only for myself, I'd never sign a prenup whether if favoured me or not. I guess I'm a bit old fashioned, but I just can't see myself saying to a woman, "I love you. I want to spend my life with you. Please sign this because I'm not sure I really trust you." And anyone who implied the same to me would see me walking away - quick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't have a pre-nup. I was married young and it made no sense for us. Where I see it making the most sense is for people farther along in life who had already have children and family assets and so forth. Then, a pre-nup protects the interests of those (possibly adult) children in the assets of the family to which they were born.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A pre-nup doesn't have to be only about divorce; it can about distribution of assets at death, as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought that's what wills are for. You mean a prenup that divides up assets among non existing descendents? Sounds a little to weird for me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Marriage confers certain property rights by default. AIUI, a pre-nup can make it clear that the default situation is not the case for this marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>Of course, but that usually applies to the spouses. I suppose there could be terms in the prenup that define how property will be divided on their deaths, but I doubt this is common. Prenups, afaic, presuppose marriage breakup and normally describe how property will be divided on that event. And I still say that people who insist on contracts that presuppose divorce prior to their willingness to marry, should not be getting married at all.
>>>
>>>Well, the situation I was thinking of was where one or both have property that came from an earlier marriage and a pre-nup makes it clear that that property is not becoming community property in a new marriage. That would then apply to both divorce and death.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Once again, anybody who needs a contract to say that shouldn't be getting married. Does it matter where the property came from?
>
>Sure it does. Consider the case of a pair of 70+-year-olds, widowed from first marriages. Say one of them has a part-ownership in a family business. I can definitely imagine having such a contract to make it clear that the family business remains with the first family and the new spouse doesn't get a share when the owner dies.

Ok, it matters. It also sucks as a concept. What kind of person would want to cut out their spouse? Why are they getting married in the first place?

>As it said, I think it's often about protecting family assets for the children of the first marriage.
>
>Tamar