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?
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.
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.
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.
Her not signing is in no way, shape, or form sabotaging the business venture. Not in the slightest. And if he does divorce because of that, then he deserves whatever he gets, because he shouldn't have married her in the first place, and he didn't love her.
Trust, but verify (Доверяй, но проверяй).
Agree + Stay together ; Agree + Divorce ; Disagree + Stay Together ; Disagree + Divorce
Only one of these has potential risk to the business and it falls under the "Disagree" options. So for the business, agreement is necessary to prevent that risk and some business partners that otherwise might be on board would refuse due to that risk.
Coming into or marrying into money, divorcing for 50%, and "finding a better partner" is not something completely unheard of and it is common enough that people seek protection against it which is why these sort of agreements exist in the first place. If the marriage "isn't about money" then pre/post nups only solidify that fact by putting it into writing: it isn't about the money and won't ever be about the money.
There are two possible perspectives to take here:
A) They would only ask for it in writing if they didn't trust them at their word (people with this perspective will likely side with the wife)
b) They would only refuse to put it in writing if they don't intend to honor their word (people with this perspective will likely side with the husband)
No. Those other perspectives are just as valid, if not more.
"So for the business, agreement is necessary to prevent that risk and some business partners that otherwise might be on board would refuse due to that risk."
Given that millions of businesses are started while one party is married, and don't have this problem, I don't consider it to be a valid concern.
"Coming into or marrying into money, divorcing for 50%, and "finding a better partner" is not something completely unheard of and it is common enough that people seek protection against it"
And what's the wife's protection in that case?
"If the marriage "isn't about money" then pre/post nups only solidify that fact by putting it into writing: it isn't about the money and won't ever be about the money."
Except now, there are no consequences for the husband being unfaithful.
Given that lots of BASE jumpers survived their jumps, BASE jumping cannot be a really dangerous sport.
As far as the business is concerned - not really. To the individuals? Well... this is why there is such a divide depending which perspective someone takes... it's a "clear cut" answer depending what kind of perspective you have and whether or not you're assuming "in good faith" or not.
>Given that millions of businesses are started while one party is married, and don't have this problem, I don't consider it to be a valid concern.
Millions of businesses have or don't have rules against dating. Some allow dating, others don't allow dating vertically, others don't allow dating vertically in one's department, and others don't allow dating period.
Just because some businesses take a risk doesn't mean it isn't a risk. It's a matter of how you attempt to mitigate that risk. As others have mentioned - buyback stocks under certain circumstances such as divorce are the "usual way" of mitigating this kind of risk.
>And what's the wife's protection in that case?
I didn't say she gets any - or that she should even sign. Just that asking her to sign is not some sort of one-sided trust breaking unless you're assuming it's only being done in bad faith. (ie. so he can cheat on her and if she leaves him because of it she's left out in the cold)
>Except now, there are no consequences for the husband being unfaithful.
Except losing his wife. Sure - it's less of a consequence than losing his wife and half his money... but if the consequence of losing her isn't enough to ensure faithfulness then that should be enough reason for her to leave.
Right, but we're not just talking about a business. We're also talking about a marriage. Which would probably say that the business perspective is even less relevant.
Off topic, but worth stating: Knowing that, I try to be supportive of stuff that she wants to take on.