SF engineer came to money and now wants wife to sign a post-nuptial agreement

https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/7m7i5x/my_31f_husband_36m_of_3_years_came_into_a_lot_of/

by waytogo • 9 years ago

65 125 9 years ago

mikestew• 9 years ago

The top answer nails it: the husband’s only real option is divorce if she refuses to sign, thereby bringing about the very thing he’s trying to avoid.

But I’d guess here’s a good chance she can talk him down, as I’m picturing one of his tech bro’s going, “dude, you totally need a post-nup. This guy I knew...”

gaius4• 9 years ago

That was my guess as well: his business partner or one of their investors is pressuring him.

dogma11384• 9 years ago

TBH if you have a side project or a company a prenup is pretty much a must it’s the only way to ensure you remain in control over it regardless of how financially successful it is.

I’m not particularly wealthy (as in millions/not have to worry about working for the rest of my life) but have a high income and had a few side projects and I would never consider a marriage without a prenup to protect both myself and my partner from vindictive practices and petty behavior.

The divorce scheme today is simply too messy without prenups.

cjensen2• 9 years ago

Prenups are fine. Many people view them as just contingency planning.

This is about a POST-nup, which makes no sense to me. The husband is either being an idiot who listens to idiot advice, or the husband is planning on leaving her. Either way, he needs to get his head on straight and the spouse needs to not sign this.

adjkant5• 9 years ago

How is the timing of the agreement changing the purpose inherently?

To me, it sounds like he made the original mistake of not getting a prenup, and now that business interests are being risked on the relationship of two people, it makes sense to add that contingency plan.

dogma11384• 9 years ago

This isn’t clear cut; divorces today are archaic they were set in a completely different time when there was a very different trade between the parties getting married.

This isn’t just about money, his partner now in theory is eligible to half (or more if there are kids) of everything he owns including any intellectual property he have created.

This can go well beyond simple greed and be more about ones life work.

It also puts effectively his company at risk because the company doesn’t have 2 founders but 3 as the partner can get half of his share or even more in the divorce.

BadassFractal2• 9 years ago

I've been told that it's not uncommon for CA judges to throw prenups away in cases where, say, one of the two partners started a company and vested a huge chunk of shares, but the other partner would be getting none of that on divorce according to the prenup. In this case California community property laws overrode the prenup. In fact, having dealt with a prenup myself, I've been told not to even bother with a pre-nup as it was supposedly "unenforceable" according to my legal counsel.

Any basis to this or is this just a scary story?

dogma11384• 9 years ago

I don’t live in CA or in the US but I’ve known people who got burned, known investors to actually inquire about prenups during their due diligence and have been told by more than one lawyer that if you live in a country where common law marriage exists to get some sort of a contract signed that would clarify the status of any shared property as well as individual investments before the common law period kicks in (e.g. if you about to be living together for 5 years).

dominotw2• 9 years ago

I know someone who's prenup was invalid because other party claimef didn't understand what she was singing. It's very very unlikely that ur prenup will be thrown if it's deemed unfair.

hkmurakami5• 9 years ago

You explicitly write this in.

Implicit terms get you in trouble.

Usually assets earned after marriage are split during a divorce while assets owned before marriage are considered separate property btw.

dilap• 9 years ago

Maybe I'm just too ruthless, but I don't see how I, in the wife's position, would ever agree to this. Especially considering there's going to be a huge amount of temptation for the husband to cheat now; at least get paid if he gives in and things go sideways.

Too harsh?

Asparagirl2• 9 years ago

Absolutely not. The wife should NOT agree to this.

wolfgke13• 9 years ago

If she does not sign, the only way out for him is to file a divorce, lose some money to her and start a new business venture. So if she wants to stay married to him, there is no alternative than signing. I would call this a strong incentive for her to sign.

killface2• 9 years ago

Not at all. There's no reason for her to sign it.

cupofjoakim• 9 years ago

The problem is in perspective, right? She says it feels like he doesn't trust her when asking for the post-nup, but coming from his side a post-nup would enable him to feel more at ease with her, enabling a higher level of trust. Saying no to signing the post-nup is saying "You were right not to trust me".

anigbrowl8• 9 years ago

Saying no to signing the post-nup is saying "You were right not to trust me".

No it isn't. Trying to bust a pre-nup says that, but refusing to sign a post-nup is saying 'you're going back on the arrangement you made.' I can't believe people are making excuses for this guy. Imagine if his wife had lucked or figured her way into money and asked the husband to write himself out of the financial picture; are you telling me you'd advise him to just forget about his rights?

wolfgke13• 9 years ago

Because of the liability that no post-nup causes, not signing it is a clear message: "I am sabotaging your business ventures".

s73ver_5• 9 years ago

No, it really isn't. Because if she signed, then he's basically free to cheat on her at will, and there really isn't anything she can do about it. If she were to divorce, she would be out in the cold.

Why, apparently, is it acceptable for him to have a "contingency plan", but not her?

rubicon332• 9 years ago

This is why I was upfront with my girlfriend (now fiancé) from the VERY beginning. I said I would never marry her, nor anyone, ever, without a pre-nub. Period.

Her money is hers, mine is mine. We will forever operate like that.

hkmurakami5• 9 years ago

I've always wondered about the timing to bring up such a topic. How "very beginning" is very beginning for you, if you wouldn't mind sharing?

rubicon332• 9 years ago

We talked about marriage early in our relationship (within the first month). The conversation was more about marriage in the abstract sense than it was about OUR (potential at the time) marriage.

I've always been a blunt, upfront person. Transparent as a plane glass window. Since we were talking about marriage, I just threw in a casual "when I get married, there 100% will be a pre-nub or it's not happening". As well as a few other "hard stops".

As time went on the marriage conversations became more about US getting married... OUR marriage. I made sure at nearly every point to remind her of my "hard stops". They're the kind of thing you never want to be vague about, and are worth stating VERY early in the relationship, in my opinion.

scarface747• 9 years ago

When I first saw the title, I thought this guy was a jerk. My success is my wife's success.

But if it is a business and she would get half of his interest in the business, couldn't that cause hardships on the other partners and allow her to make decisions that are detrimental to the business?

Could he have her sign a fair postnup saying she would get half of any financial interests in the business but no voting rights or that the partners would have automatic rights to buy her out?

I could see all sorts of ways that this could be fair to her but still protect his partners.

anigbrowl8• 9 years ago

So what? Inheritance of a partnership interest isn't a new situation (other than for these people). If the first thing you worry about with regard to a business is how to limit future involvement of other people, that suggests the objective is to hoard money rather than grow it.

scarface747• 9 years ago

It's not necessarily to "hoard money". If I start a company with three technical people and a person with a good business background and we all have voting rights because I trust their judgement, why would I want to have someone else come in with decision making power whose judgement I don't trust? Not necessarily even because that other person as ill intent, but maybe they just don't have the background of the original founders.

If I started a business with a friend because I trusted his business instincts and he passed or they divorced, I would be fine with her benefiting financially as much as she would if they were still married but I wouldn't want her being able to make any strategic decisions.

delphinius81• 9 years ago

Yeah, some of the comments in the thread allude to that possibility. If it's a matter of protecting business interests though, there are much more tactful ways of bringing that up with one's spouse.

shepardrtc2• 9 years ago

If that was the only reason, that would be the first thing out of my mouth. I'd absolutely make sure she knew it was a business formality done to reassure investors. But she said that he has never mentioned anything along those lines. Sadly, I think people are being way too optimistic about his reasons.

cjlars• 9 years ago

IANAL, but you're describing a buy-sell agreement, which would cover what would happen to business assets in various death / divorce / firing scenarios. Often, you would agree to sell your assets back to the company in the event that you no longer have direct involvement with the company. If the assets pass to her through divorce, the agreement would still bind the shares, so he doesn't technically need a nuptial agreement for this.

t0mas88• 9 years ago

I'm not sure you need a prenup for that. You can agree in a shareholders agreement that there is a requirement to offer the shares up for sale (at fair market value) to the other shareholders in the event of the shareholder passing away. Not sure about Delaware law, but this works in most of Europe.

Alternatively there could be a provision of swapping "Shares B" for "Shares A" or similar with different voting or veto rights. I think this is also possible in the US, since something similar was done for Facebook? Mark has special voting rights but his inheritors will not?

hkmurakami5• 9 years ago

Shareholders may not have the liquidity to buy out those shares at that time.

anigbrowl8• 9 years ago

I'm not sure, but I think a forced sale requirement would be problematic in the US since it would impose a unilateral obligation on the survivor/divorcee that had not been bargained for by them.

I question the probity of such arrangements as well as special voting or non-voting stock. This is exactly the sort of thing that leads people to conclude that capitalism is rigged.

scarface747• 9 years ago

Can a shareholders agreement be binding on the spouse or would the spouse also have to sign it?

32f247e5• 9 years ago

My success is my wife's success.

What about your failures ? What if you end up commiting a crime, will your wife have share in that ?

unholythree• 9 years ago

She might when it comes to asset forfeiture time.

scarface747• 9 years ago

To add on to what the other poster said. If I don't pay all of the taxes that I should and we file jointly, my wife is just as liable as I am. If I file bankruptcy, my wife will be affected. If I started my hypothetical business, charged credit cards and didn't pay them (especially in a community property state), they could come after her resources.

If I make dumb decisions, my whole family is affected.

methodover2• 9 years ago

Could someone help explain this to me? I don't understand why the wife shouldn't sign. As far as I can tell from the post, she didn't help create any aspect of the apps that her husband made which made them rich. I don't understand why she would be entitled to half given that she did not contribute half.

gaius4• 9 years ago

I can't tell if you are serious or not but... Nothing happens in a vacuum. Would he have had the time or opportunity to work on side projects without his wife handling some aspect of their domestic situation, for example? But the bigger picture is that a married couple is a single entity legally speaking as far as property and finances are concerned. Judges in many jurisdictions completely ignore pre-nups for this very reason.

methodover2• 9 years ago

Was serious. Thanks for the response. My parents always kept separate bank accounts, always seemed to have clearly defined separations between who owned what. Separate cars, separate car payments. Separate careers, separate everything. I always got the sense that my parents were two separate individuals in a partnership. I don't think either of them would have a problem signing a postnup solidifying that.

gspetr4• 9 years ago

Would he have not if he had been single?

If he was single, should the cleaning service get a cut of his company?

Should the Domino's get a cut of his company for keeping him fed during those midnight coding sessions?

What about the washing machine manufacturer?

anigbrowl8• 9 years ago

When you're married, it's a partnership. You don't exist independently of other and go on more regular dates, you live together and are practically and emotionally committed to each other. For all we know he was only able to write those apps because of the emotional and/or financial security she brought to the relationship.

gspetr4• 9 years ago

The very existence of open marriages defies your argument.

andymoe• 9 years ago

She’s entitled to half because that’s the contract they entered into when they got married.

nasmorn• 9 years ago

It is funny how you got downvotes for stating a fact. Like when you start a business and someone has vested shares but they don’t do anything much anymore while you are the CEO. Guess what they still own those shares. The unfairness is about the unidirectionality of time. The question is not if it looks fair ex post, but if you deemed it fair ex ante.

qsymmachus• 9 years ago

I don't understand why she would be entitled to half given that she did not contribute half

Under California law, all assets acquired after marriage are considered "community property". This means that regardless of who "actually" earned the assets, they are owned by each spouse equally (50/50).

Not all states have this regime, and there are good arguments both for and against the concept. I believe that the strongest argument in favor is that community property prevents power imbalances from developing within a marriage. It is sadly common for a spouse to be trapped in an abusive or unhappy marriage, but who cannot practically escape the relationship because they do not have independent means of support. Community property provides a guarantee of financial support should a marriage dissolve.

remir• 9 years ago

It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce.

Notice she said she would never hurt her husband even if the relationship ended. From her perspective, the prenup is not necessary, but she feels like her husband thinks differently and may not trust her completely.

wolfgke13• 9 years ago

It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce.

Even the legal possibility of her doing this is a strong liability for the business. So her not signing means sabotaging his business venture, which only leaves him divorce as option to save his business.

hkmurakami5• 9 years ago

Her support etc enables that kind of work to be done in the first place.

AnimalMuppet2• 9 years ago

Yup. I've had side projects (none of them ever turned into big money), and I know the price my wife paid for me to have them.

Off topic, but worth stating: Knowing that, I try to be supportive of stuff that she wants to take on.

shin_lao2• 9 years ago

His move makes sense if he plans to quit his wife. He knows she will get half of what he has, so before he makes a move, he tries to see if she would accept to sign a post-nup. What's the risk?

Another explanation is that we have an incomplete/distorted explanation from the wife, and that she may have misunderstood the post-nup. If what he's working on is getting significant funding, during due-diligence the lack of pre-nup may appear as a problem.

Anyway, I'm not making any judgment on any of the parties, human relationships are such intricate machines...

celticninja• 9 years ago

Why on earth would the existence or not of a pre-nup affect funding? The funds go to the business not the individual and wouldn't form part of their finances if there was a divorce. No due-diligence is going to raise the lack of a pre-nuptial agreement as a reason to withhold investment.

charlesdm• 9 years ago

Half his (vested) shares would go to his wife, in the event of a divorce. As a shareholder, she would have the right to vote on certain matters.

I don't think it makes sense for her to sign a standard post-nup, however, I think it does make sense to account for the fact that the husband wants to make sure he keeps control of his shares in a business he's currently building.

dgudkov• 9 years ago

His move makes sense if he plans to quit his wife.

Or if he suspects that his wife can quit him one day.

Analemma_• 9 years ago

Several of the comments mention they know about startups that have been destroyed by a divorce when a party without any knowledge of the company got stock/control. Is this a real thing that has happened? Does anyone have direct experience with it?

hkmurakami5• 9 years ago

Yes there are even recent news articles about such situations not just startups.

I think some major sports team owner had a forced liquidation like this recently.

That being said post nups are weird to me, so the terms really should be spelled out to surviving prevent a business scenario but to give her some amount of compensation maybe? Idk.

s73ver_5• 9 years ago

Could you provide some of those situations? Was that the only thing that sunk it, or were those companies in trouble already?

dasil003• 9 years ago

I don't know what their relationship is like, and I don't know what prompted this, but I can't help but feel like this guy is making a huge mistake.

I understand prenups for rich people because you never know why someone is really with you, but if you are with someone before getting rich, that is one of the few things you can never have again. If the relationship is good I don't know why you suddenly make it all about money and drive a possibly irreparable wedge between you. And for what? Because if things go sideways you might lose half? Half of rich is still rich and it's a small risk to take for the chance at a lifelong loving partner. Some things are worth more than money.

waytogo• 9 years ago

but if you are with someone before getting rich, that is one of the few things you can never have again

Well said and you know that this person is with you because of you (and not because of money).

Nadya5• 9 years ago

And for what? Because if things go sideways you might lose half? Half of rich is still rich and it's a small risk to take for the chance at a lifelong loving partner. Some things are worth more than money.

And if they have no plans of leaving then refusing taking half when they go shouldn't be a problem - right?

Perspective matters.

crusso4• 9 years ago

No, asking for the postnup is a first-strike. Before that point, there was no reason to assume that there was a problem in the relationship. Asking for the postnup introduces distrust into the dynamic.

If I were the spouse being asked to sign the document, I'd say, "Nope, let's get divorced right now and split the money in half. After that, if you want me in your life, feel free to court me again."

ryanmarsh2• 9 years ago

California has no fault divorce and some would argue that the divorce courts are slanted against men in heterosexual marriages.

We don't know how he perceived his marriage before the money started to roll in. We only have her side of the story. Given those facts he might be acting wisely. There's no way for us to know.

southphillyman• 9 years ago

In scenarios like this where a person looks to leave immediately after getting money I just assume they were settling to begin with. This seems to happen a lot in the entertainment industry where people leave their original spouses soon after hitting it big and gaining access to dating pools they likely never had access to before.

dlwdlw• 9 years ago

I've seen many engineers do something like "I want you to freely change your mind to concur with what I believe as a result of my argument while ignoring the fact that I have placed these rules in the first place. "

The desire is for a free mind to make a decision by the fear of the outcome creates an incentive to create processes where the mind is no longer truly free. The "real" desire is never and can never be met because of fear imposed process.

dominotw2• 9 years ago

We only know the wife's presentation of the story. What if he suspects that his wife is planning to leave him.

Asparagirl2• 9 years ago

He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract. If he wanted a pre-nup, he should have gotten one before entering into that contract, i.e. the marriage.

But he didn't.

And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no.

If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers.

antisthenes2• 9 years ago

If I were his wife, I would seriously consider leaving him over this. Walk, with "his" assets that were always his-and-hers

People like you are exactly why people want to sign pre-nups in the first place.

He made a financial agreement with his wife to share 50-50. That's what a marriage is, it's a legally binding contract.

If it was always clearly cut as a 50-50 split set in stone, there would be no need for as many divorce lawyers.

And he wants to alter the terms of the deal now, as a post-nup? After years of partnership? Oh hell no.

People want to alter the terms of the deal all the time, a divorce is usually one of those alterations, most frequently initiated by women. After years of partnership. Why this is surprising to anyone is beyond me. Is it really that different in California?

You are correct in one thing though - he probably shouldn't have gotten married to begin with.

dang2• 9 years ago

People like you

Taking HN threads into personal attack is a sure way to make a flamewar worse. Please have the self-control to resist this when commenting here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Blackstone4• 9 years ago

You made a good point about marriage being a financial agreement. I feel many young people are not fully aware of what they are going into when they get married (me included). There's a lack of education.

Then when they get into the real world and have an understanding of how sometimes unbalanced divorce law can be, they are like "wait, how did this happen".

killface2• 9 years ago

So I'm not trying to scam anyone, but is there a way for a business arrangement to be made that doesn't incur this risk? I know you can put together a buy/sell agreement and have successorship/rights of first refusal documents, but is there a legal way a married person can protect assets from their partner if they wanted to, without going into complicated trusts and shit?

ada1981• 9 years ago

Every time we hit a new phase in life, our fears come out.

My guess is that this guy might be feeling insecure knowing that his wife could divorce him.

He's clearly pursued a life that is about making money and intends to keep doing so, so there is a good chance he equates having money (or both to being lovable / worthy of Love on some deep level.

He may be trying to arrive at feeling secure in his romantic relationship the only way he knows how -- via a business deal.

He's missing an incredible opportunity to be vulnerable with her and discover his true worth, inside.

sudosteph• 9 years ago

I feel bad for this couple. If I had to choose between my life partner and my business partners, it would not even be a question. Marriage is the ultimate partnership. If you aren't willing to share everything, good and bad, then maybe it's not for you. I mean, most people even say that in their freaking vows! I hope she refuses to sign and he wises up and apologizes.

guuz• 9 years ago

He mysteriously does not see her as a contributor to his success or is a d*ck. The impact a person has in our lives obviously cannot be calculated, but cannot be simply ignored. If they have been together for six fricking years, how can he dismiss her influence on him? Considering they have a functional relationship, she probably has been helping him on infinite occasions, from domestic chores to emotional support.

This guy is being ridiculous.

huffpopo• 9 years ago

Sounds like risk management. I presume he wants to stay married but also wants to protect his business ventures by getting her to agree to a maximum payout. I've known many wealthy men who were completely financially destroyed by divorce. There is often no clean way of splitting a business and having to liquidate cash to buy the partner out can often sink the company.

On a related note, I consider Amber Heard as a risk to the whole Mars mission and get a bit nervous when I hear rumors of them getting back together. I wonder if I'm the only one.

Edit: I grew up in farming country and by far the biggest risk to farms there is divorce. This is insane given all of the other risks in farming.

pipio21• 9 years ago

Terrible.

One of the hardest things in life is making a side project successful. The people that is with you at the hard times is part of your team and should be with you in the good times.

This man probably has already a mistress. When you have a couple tens of millions in the bank and people know you have it you start attracting dangerous women, I would say professionals, gorgeous women that have experience manipulating men with sex, the PUA(Pick up artist of their sex).

If you were not very good with women before marrying, and even if you are you are extremely vulnerable to them. The same will happen with men like bankers that will stalk you all day the moment you enter a couple million in a bank for doing an operation, they will even cry for you doing with your money what they say is much better for you(which is what is better for them).

IMHO the best strategy is most people not knowing what you are worth. Drive a normal car, wear normal clothing, have a normal house, if you can. I wear normal clothing but drive a Tesla.

wolfgke13• 9 years ago

This man probably has already a mistress. When you have a couple tens of millions in the bank and people know you have it you start attracting dangerous women, I would say professionals, gorgeous women that have experience manipulating men with sex, the PUA(Pick up artist of their sex).

I would rather argue that this should actually be a strong reason for her to trust him. If he meets another women, he can never be sure that she is not into him for the money. On the other hand for the existing wife he knows that she did not marry him for the money. This fact alone should give him a very strong incentive to trust the existing wife instead of any other woman that he now meets. So the wife knows that he has a strong disincentive to leave her.

HoppedUpMenace2• 9 years ago

To me, post and pre-nuptial agreements merely reinforce the idea that either you or your partner or both don't trust each other and are together out of mere convenience. If that were the case, why not just stay unmarried?

BTW, the level of support for the husband, among the hacker news community, so far, is pretty astounding, contrasting with the support the wife receives on reddit. Not to paint with a broad brush but I think this really says something about the kind of people running things in tech, not to mention all the stuff women had to put up with in the news the past couple of years with regards to any tech workplace.

adjkant5• 9 years ago

I am strongly against that first statement.

My current partner and I have what we both deem a great romantic relationship and friendship. We plan to get married for legal benefits and stay together for some time. We could care less what it says about our relationship, but there are simply legal things that make sense. It's likely we will never divorce. But we both can envision worlds where divorce happens. If it happens after 30 years of great partnership, so be it. It doesn't invalidate those great years we had. But if it does happen, we would want a fair and just split after it. Not based on 50/50, and not necessarily based on "yours is yours, mine is mine". Neither of us would want to leave the other in financial trouble, but if one of us made much more than the other, we both agree that it would be fairer to give that person some sort of better split, so long as it does not dramatically hurt the others remaining life. It'd also depend on the life goals of each of us from that point and who would need the money more for their respective goals. What we find fair may be different than others, but given the scope of the agreement it's really only about what we both see as fair.

We trust each other 100%. We could probably act on this type of agreement without a lawyer. But no one ever knows how divorce will go down, so why not put it in writing?

All of this isn't to say that there can't be nefarious reasons at work here and is not to invalidate or ignore the terrible way tech treats women. But this is not a categorical thing, and it really comes down to the specific agreement and the two people involved, presuming neither side is coerced or uninformed about the agreement.

HoppedUpMenace2• 9 years ago

"My current partner and I plan to get married for legal benefits and stay together for some time."

Comes off sounding like a business transaction, which is fine if that's how you plan to leverage the idea of marriage, but then again it probably should be properly labeled as a joint business venture/partnership where people have written agreements to protect each other's assets in case of things going badly between them.

ryanmarsh2• 9 years ago

From my vantage point HN is evenly split and Reddit is overly supportive of the woman, although that's not taking into account the other subreddits that this was crossposted to.

wolfgke13• 9 years ago

To me, post and pre-nuptial agreements merely reinforce the idea that either you or your partner or both don't trust each other and are together out of mere convenience. If that were the case, why not just stay unmarried?

The eyes of love are blind.

stuffedBelly• 9 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/7m7i5x/my_31...

This Reddit comment is pretty spot on regarding this case.

adjkant5• 9 years ago

I feel like the comments here on HN are really missing at least one important angle. Frankly, I think it comes from a too closed definition of marriage and relationships.

What a marriage is legally is far from reflective of most relationships. It's easy to say "well don't get married then", but there are huge reasons that legal marriage is important for couples when it comes to things like taxes, healthcare, and more. Realistically, people of many sorts need the benefits of legal marriage.

For that reason, I am a huge proponent of modifying the marriage agreement to each personal case (aka a prenup, but also defining what your relationship is and not just defaulting to the societal norm. That's a conversation to be had long before marriage, but revisited at that stage.). For example, relationships don't have to be lifelong. If a marriage lasts happily for 30 years and then gets stale, that's not ideal but congrats on the 30 years of great partnership! What about people who have either romantic or sexual feelings for multiple people? I am sure that polyamorous families run into many legal issues, and while not terribly common, highlights a stark case of differing relationship style. There are many much smaller variants that can have legal implications in the context of traditional legal marriage. The idea that marriage is lifelong, unconditional, monogamous, and means sharing absolutely everything is just not going to work for a lot of people.

To me, it sounds like this couple was happy, got married, and skipped this conversation. Now that a business risk is in play if a divorce happens, it sounds like they need to have it. It sounds like the husband here did not approach this well at all, but I think that a fine agreement could be reached given the right setup of legal advice and information and making sure that the wife is not pressured into it here, which if it happened, is terrible on his part. From the full story, I am inclined toward a relatively charitable reading of the agreement. I'm obviously a person reading one side of the story over the internet, so I could easily be wrong in this case.

king07828• 9 years ago

"protect himself and his work"

From what? The other spouse or the legal system? Most would assume it is protection from the other spouse. To verify, one could offer to sign a prenup that splits everything 50/50, i.e., that codifies what would happen under community property law. This provides the benefit of clarifying how a separation would occur to protect the spouses and their work from the legal system.

If protection from the legal system is sought, then the 50/50 prenup should be agreeable.

If protection from the other spouse is sought, then what is the first spouse (the one demanding the prenup) going to give up in order to gain that protection?

If the first spouse is demanding a one-sided prenup that only benefits the first spouse, then it can be argued that the first spouse has broken a marriage vow by seeking to enrich his or her self at the expense of the other. [1]

[1] None of this is legal advice and should not be used as such.

gspetr4• 9 years ago

Pre-nups can get thrown out of courts if a court decides it was signed under "duress". E.g. less than 6 months before the marriage.

chrisbennet• 9 years ago

To put this in a slightly different light, suppose you entered a contract with a startup and got some equity. Now suppose the owner decided he wanted your equity back in case you left the company. How’s that make you feel? (Any similarities to Zygna is purely coincidental.)

ivm• 9 years ago

It reminded me how we failed to raise funding and one of the investors said that doing business together with my wife was a red flag for him because "wives ruin startups."

Probably it was the same for others but they didn't say it explicitly. Oh, well.

drivingmenuts• 9 years ago

The answer is simple to me: the wife should get a lawyer and file for divorce and half or more of the assets. If the hopefully-soon-to-be ex-husband thinks he can talk her into a post-nuptial agreement, then he also probably thinks he can talk her down from her share of the money.

Given what was described, she needs to aggressively defend herself.

SF engineer came to money and now wants wife to sign a post-nuptial agreement

Related Stories