omahagreg

My post clearly started with the statement 'From my perspective'. I have seen so many marriages end, including my parents, and several close friends---all without prenups, and all with the same result----non marital assets were excluded, then all marital property was split close to even. I got to witness my own parents each spend $25000 in attorney fees, and in the end the judge accepted neither position, instead excluding premarital assets, and inheritances, and sliced the marital assets exactly in half. I was sad as my belief from the start was that marital assets should simply be split. Instead of this, $50000 was wasted to achieve the same result.
As for misinformation? Well, I stand by my perspectives as I posted: many or perhaps most average income, basic assets persons, such as myself, have nothing to gain with a prenup. Certainly, as I stated, as income and asset levels increase, prenups start to make more sense, as things become much more complicated. But I will be happy to just invenory my assets the day before my weddomg, not comingle any retirenent or invistment accounts.
And non-community property states also seek to compute the same way mostly----marital and non marital assets are separated, inheritances are excluded, and most of the rest is split.
I think prenups are kind of like those probate elimination Trusts----lawyers are trying to create their own market by pushing them on everyone, even if not needed.

The other sticky issue not discussed too often are the religious implications of a prenup. For example, the Roman Catholic Church looks at prenups as going against the whole concept of marriage. In fact, Canon Law deems a marriage to not be valid when it is subject to a condition in the future. The Church also holds it immoral to enter a marriage having already made arrangements for the possible dissolution of the union.
Judaism, on the other hand, celebrates the use of prenuptial agreements, with newlyweds sometimes reading them as party of the wedding ceremony.