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.
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".
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.
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.
As for the GP comment, I can see why it would feel that way but I didn't read it that way myself. There's obviously a lot of interpretation involved in these things.