Posted on 03/16/2005 3:28:28 AM PST by MississippiMasterpiece
The high percentage of marriages that end in divorce has created a new trend; many men are planning financially for their divorce before they even get married.
A recent survey conducted by the Indiana Family Institute (IFI) found that 79% of men who are engaged to be married worry that their marriage will end in divorce and they will be ruined financially. As a result, more than half of these men admitted to setting up secret nest eggs in case their fears become reality.
“Some people believe this is the height of pessimism, but to me it makes perfect sense,” says Dr. Phillip Haus, director of the study, “Many of these men are professionals who have worked hard for their success and don’t want to start from scratch if the woman they marry turns out to be a total witch to live with.”
Haus says the most common way engaged men plan for the worst is by setting up a savings account in the name of a relative they trust who has had a long, sound marriage so their funds will be safe. This way once the joint assets are divided after a divorce, they will have a little something extra to fall back on.
“Let’s face it,” added Haus, “The man is the one who almost always get screwed over when a divorce occurs. Even though he usually made more money than the woman in the marriage, he loses the house, and ends up paying child support since the woman will get custody of their offspring. This new trend just provides him with a little insurance so he can enjoy a decent standard of living.”
Some men go to even greater lengths to secure their futures. “We had a few cases where engaged men told us they gave a good portion of their belongings to friends or relatives for safe keeping. One man admitted buying a house in his gay cousin’s name so he would have a place to live if things didn’t work out. This shows the sad state of relationships and the impact of divorce in this country.”
Haus believes the trend of setting up divorce nest eggs will continue. “As long as there is divorce, there will be people trying to beat the system.”
I do not think so. I see it akin to buying a smoke alarm.
It is a question of playing the odds and I would expect the relevance of such a fund diminishes over time. Most divorces happen within six years. (per some FL bar stat somewhere I can not remember exactly where I saw it.)
However, since marriages are happening with the men being older, it makes sense to have certain items before marriage IF possible. Buy a house. Start a pension. Put aside cash.
As for prenups, they tend to work best for "items" rather than concepts like alimony or support. They also work better earlier in the marriage. A two year old prenup is different in divorce court against a 12 year old prenup.
We should look at this from a positive slant. Despite the much vaunted marriage strike (personally I think it is a strike agains marrying liberal women rather than just marriage), men are making preparations so they CAN get married.
These men are not saying no to marriage they are saying to to being unprepared. Besides, the "oh sh*t" fund can be converted to a college fund for the kids or pay for that surprise second honeymoon or that dream cruise where the captain marries you two all over again.
I was told that if the money was not commingled, it was not community property. We have decided to leave the issue of comingling up to the kids. They can do it or not depending on their wishes.
Interesting.
Even better would be to burn down the house, empty the accounts in Vegas, cancel the life insurance, then hang yourself.
Some would say it's everything but sex.
The wiring in your house doesn't suddenly get all lax and sloppy when you put in a smoke alarm. It doesn't know the difference.
A pre-nup or a secret divorce fund, however, means that one or both parties know they are not really committed to the marriage, and therefore are less likely to work at it if problems (or a 'better' offer) come along. The same way you will be much quicker to, say, quit a job if you know you've got something else to fall back on.
"A better way is to create a separate IRA or 401K account, contribute to it while single, then stop contributing completely before being married... then it will grow and it is never commingled into the assets."
Are you sure about that? Depending on what state you live in,even if you stopped contributions, I think the spouse is entitled to one half of the amount the account increased from the date of marriage to the date of divorce.
As for second marriages, especially of people who have lived alot of years and are widower/widows, I firmly believe in prenups to protect the children from the first marriages. I have seen horrible things happen to kids when mom or dad marries somebody late in life.
I for one believe in a prenup if there is a substantial difference between spouses, at least a time limited prenup. And I would sign one willingly. But when both are entering the marriage at the same level, broke as we were, why have one.
And having secret accounts is just plain dishonest. Except for my little stash of husbands quarters and nickels that I steal nightly when he plops it out on his dresser. That doesn't count. And I love stealing it and he knows I do it and thinks it is "cute"
And 9 out of ten times, who gets the kids?????
EVERYONE expects that, but statistics tell us that it isn't the case, that's why!
Red stater? What is with the red states and divorce?!
Not unless you know God and have a desire to do things His way.
You are probably right because I'm no expert, but I always thought anything acquired after marriage for whatever reason was automatically community property.
One good thing is that I have never heard any of the married couples in my family ever squabble over this issue.
None that I can think of. If marriage was simply a religious ceremony, that'd be fine. The problem with marriage today is that it gets government involved in your relationship. Outside of having kids, it's a needless risk.
She played the wife on Green Acres, and reportedly was married and divorced eight times.
On a related note, I read online an account given by a guy who overhead two 20-something fembots talking about their girlfriend who had just married a doctor. The one fembot says to the other; "A doctor? She'll divorce good!"
No, but a judge can take the existence of those assets into account (if the spouse finds out about them) and assign a bigger chunk of the domestic assets to compensate (depending on state law and the mood of the judge).
Sad. Planning for failure.
I would recommend to all men, especially younger men, to buy, read and study "The Predatory Female". It's available at Amazon.com for $8.95. It "blows the lid off", completely, utterly and totally.
Feminism has destroyed, in my opinion, an overwhelming majority of at least two generations of American women -- and there's no end in sight. They are unmarriable. But not just for the reason of the risk of a man getting raped in divorce court, but for a lot of other reasons, such as (1) more than half of American women are disgustingly overweight gastropods, yet they think they're "all that", (2) it seems that every "woman" under 30 thinks it's "fashionable" to dress like a whore, and (3) according to one recent study a "woman" of 25 years of age has already slept with an average of 30 guys; and something like 30% of females in that age bracket have one or more STD's.
But not to worry! If you've seen the TV commercial for "Valtrex",... "It's a brand new day!". That's right girls, go ahead and be a total slut in your twenties and early thirties, then, when you're tired of dating outlaw bikers and "bad boys", and your biological clock starts ticking, and you want to settle down with a decent man, there's Valtrex!
But you know what? No decent man would want to take marriage vows with a slut.
The spouse gets 1/2 the increase in value during the divorce as a barganing point.
A qualified divorce resolution order (QDRO) generally sets the disolution of marriage value.
I think most of the nest egg planning is to have cash on hand for the divorce proceedings. This allows the man, who usually is booted out of the house to be able to find a place to stay, and retain a lawyer.
I sympathize with those who say this is preparing for the worst without working for the best, but I think it is not unwarrented to take these steps.
Why should any man wait to marry to buy a house, start retirement plans, or have cash on hand. If it was women we were talking about, there would be no "debate".
JUST SAY NO TO MARRIAGE!
(s)Born again virgin insurance!(/s)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.