Hacker News Reader

Comment by dasil003 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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).

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.

>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.

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."

> Asking for the postnup introduces distrust into the dynamic.

What he is doing is just good business practice: He wants to keep the business as free as possible of liabilities. Her not willing to sign is what introduces distrust: It implies that she at least want to leave her the optinion open to run away with money from his business.

No. There are ways that the business can protect itself for various events.

For example, I was a founder in a business years ago. We included clauses in the stock buy-back agreement that could be triggered upon various events (death of a partner, divorce, etc.) Normally, those kinds of clauses ensure that the non-partner-spouse gets the value of the business owed to him/her, but loses decision-making control of the business.

You don't have to force your partner to sign a trust-breaking post-nup in order to have those kinds of protections for the business.

If one's adherence to business practices are more important than one's marriage, then one's priorities are broken.

> If one's adherence to business practices are more important than one's marriage, then one's priorities are broken.

If the wife is not supportive of the business ventures of the husband, I see no future in the marriage.

Your answers seem to be coming from the perspective that the business is more important than the marriage. That's not a perspective that many people here share; your one-line replies that assume your perspective aren't going to go very far to persuade people.

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.

The above is copied from another reply of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16011037

You act as though this situation is new or unique to businesses. They deal with married business partners every day, and they don't do it by forcing everyone to get post-nups.

I challenge you to find an attorney that would advise her to sign any such post-nup. Maybe a reasonable stock buy-back in the event of a divorce, but asking for a post-nup is completely beyond the pale.

Oh - I agree a reasonable stock buy-back is the better alternative option with a better result for most relationships.

>I challenge you to find an attorney that would advise her to sign any such post-nup.

You couldn't as there's no benefit for her to doing so - especially if she ever decides to leave him.

> I challenge you to find an attorney that would advise her to sign any such post-nup.

On the other hand, not signing it is a clear sign that she is not supportive to keep her partner's business as free as possible from liabilities.

"not signing it is a clear sign"

Not signing it would be a clear sign that he should find a normal every-day method of solving his "business partner is married" issue that doesn't involve a first-strike measure to leave her out in the cold because his side-projects are now worth money.

The funny thing is that on top of my business experience with using stock agreements to get around this issue in a business I helped to found, I've also dealt with coming into a bunch of money shortly after being married. Trying to get my wife to sign a post-nup agreement would have been horribly obnoxious and asking for strife.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com