It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce.
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.
> It's not that she feels entitled to his wealth, it's that the prenup makes her feel like her husband doesn't trust her 100% to NOT go after his wealth in the case of a divorce.
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.
I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is abso-fucking-lutely bonkers. If he, or any of you honestly feel that someone would do that, then why are you marrying them?
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.
From the business perspective (which means completely disregard any personal perspectives/issues that arise) there are four scenarios.
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)
"From the business perspective (which means completely disregard any personal perspectives/issues that arise"
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.
>No. Those other perspectives are just as valid, if not more.
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.
"As far as the business is concerned - not really."
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.
> I'm sorry, but this line of thinking is abso-fucking-lutely bonkers. If he, or any of you honestly feel that someone would do that, then why are you marrying them?
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.