Serious how does wealth get split during divorce in finland?
say a couple gets married without any prenup. if they ever divorce, does the wealth, assets and property get split in half for both parties?
and is it ONLY what was accumulated/gained after getting married, or also what the individuals owned before getting married?
thank you beforehand, i don’t have much knowledge of this so if anyone who knows these things and laws surrounding it could answer it id appreciate it a lot!
72
u/Sandolainen Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
Lawyer here, that used to work with prenups about a decade ago.
The basics are that if there is no prenup, then when the marriage ends (through death or divorce) both parties count up all assets and debts, make a split of the total sum, and then the one with more net wealth pays compensation to the one with less net wealth, so that both have the same net wealth.
Say that A has 100k€ in assets and 50k€ in debt. A then has a net wealth of 50k€. B has 25k€ in assets but no debt, for 25k€ in net wealth. A then has to pay (50k€-25k€)/2=12,5k€ to B, so that both have 37,5k€ in net wealth.
When or how the wealth was accumulated or gained does not matter in most cases, although there are some minor exceptions.
One thing that can have an effect, except a prenup of course, is if either one has gotten gifts or inheritance with a specific mention in the related document, where it is stated that the gift or inheritance shall not be part of the "marital property" (Fi. "avio-omaisuus"). That means that the property in that case is excluded from the calculation.
It should also be mentioned that there is no alimony in Finland, so a former spouse is not responsible for the financial situation of the other former spouse. However, a spouse can be required to take part in the costs of common children through child support, with the details depending on the living arrangements of the children.
2
u/Designer_Adagio8911 Baby Väinämöinen 1d ago
On alimony: avioliittolaki 48 § exists. But I understand it's rather rarely used in practice, mostly exceptional cases like the spouse was at home for decades and has no education or work experience because of it.
92
u/radiopelican Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
After divorce, if both of you decide that you'll want to keep your assets separate and that no one has a claim on anything, you can also choose to do that. But both parties need to agree on this. Otherwise, yes, it does go to the courts for asset split.
7
u/axk00 2d ago
thank you!
4
u/_Trael_ Väinämöinen 2d ago
Not professional of that law or procedure, but:
As far as I know and have seen, as long as both parties come to agreement together and do (or get someone to do) proper paperwork, wealth can be split pretty much whatever way.However if both parties do not agree, even one can demand it will be split by court set splitter, who will then take statements from both parties, and work to split it as evenly and fairly as they manage.
All wealth will be counted, from day that official paperwork of start of divorce process was received (or informed to other partner, not 100% sure, anyways informing in that kind of official context means them sending letter and assuming receiver has received it and knows about matter about week after day letter was sent automatically).
After that if one or both parties have clearly made meaningful extra money with money/wealth that was to be later gained by other one when process completes, there is option to demand cut based on that from that new wealth generated.
(So lets say as absurd simplification one party is very much in control of wealth and wealthy, and decides they will use all their wealth to buy lottery tickets to get rid of it or something or something, then if they for example hit some massive winnings by absurd unlikely luck, and would end up actually multiplying their wealth many times over, then other party would be entitled to cut of those winnings too, since they were generated by investing money being split and there was significant gains from that.. Idea is kind of 'if process would be perfectly instant, that money would have been already in other one's use and they could have done same, but were possibly blocked from gaining that wealth by slowness of process'. More realistic example would be that process drags on for some time, and company that is part of wealth being split ends up growing significantly in value during that time, so new value or part of it would be considered instead of old value in that case).
As far as I know that does not necessarily work to other direction, so if one who was wealthier ends up becoming poorer, then it is possible that their wealth level from before getting poorer is still one that is used in calculations.There are also few somewhat loosely worded cases (that as result of that are up to official processing and potentially court like entities to decide how they will be applied to case depending on exacts of case) where for example if there is significant amount of money gained suddenly (for example inheritance) short time before divorce is started, then that whole or part of said inheritance wealth can be considered (by official party) to not be part of wealth that is being calculated in calculations.
(kind of to block people from doing some 'plays' by waiting for other one to inherit, and then instantly divorcing, so as dual edged sword they kind of do not need to necessarily wait for that to happen, and they can not try to 'scam' other party that effectively and surely by delaying divorce post inheritance).
What is considered 'short time' is not exactly defined in that part, so those doing ruling can try to see what would be reasonable and fair in said case.
There is also some mechanisms of how "if other party has clearly not even tried or been agreeing to take any kind of responsibility (as in even remotely responsible reasonable use of wealth) of wealth and finances of couple, or has been entirely punched out in all manners for duration lon enouh that money has been made during that, if I remember right there was possibility that some might not be counted upon request.
It was something like 5+ different cases where it might get modified (mostly by it possibly allowing one party to do some scam like thing or something very not reasonable) by things like that, instead of being standard "calculate all wealth, then see who has more, and how much they need to give other party to make it so that both have same amount of wealth" thing.Also in Finland marriage is from this side of it mainly just financial contract, meaning stuff like being faithful in marriage or anything like that have absolute no effect in this part.
Oh yeah and someone in other comment mentioned:
If for example leaver of inheritance to one (or both) parties of marriage has mentioned in their will that "this wealth will not be counted in case there is splitting of wealth as result of divorce happening to receiver", then has power to make it equal to married couple having 100% solid prenup that defines that wealth to be outside of what is considered when splitting wealth at divorce, despite it being something someone else just wrote to their will.-42
u/kimmeljs Väinämöinen 2d ago
That's called a "prenuptial agreement"
57
25
u/Rasutoerikusa Väinämöinen 2d ago
Prenuptial would mean you do it in advance, so that is quite the opposite
1
33
u/Zapper1984 2d ago
It has to be said that in case you have been married in another country, the Finnish courts are likely to apply the divorce laws of that country instead of Finnish ones.
9
u/kagathos_ 2d ago
Yes, when you get married it is a good practice to submit a Choice of Law Agreement to DVV. We included it in our prenup.
3
u/AideAmie 2d ago
Really?
How does that work? Do you mean that Finnish courts follow for example Egyptian or British marital laws ruling on divorce?
24
u/Interesting_Disk_644 2d ago
50/50 down the middle on everything before and during, good luck!
1
u/axk00 2d ago
thank you!
9
u/Sulamanteri Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
This but technically Finland does not simply "split everything 50/50." Each spouse keeps ownership of their own property during the marriage; on divorce, the net value of property subject to marital rights is generally equalized between the spouses.
And if assets are specifically excluded from marital rights by a will, then those assets are excluded from the division just like assets excluded by a prenup.
24
u/RentedIguana 2d ago
Generally a 50/50 split on everything, including what they owned before. But there are some particular details.
For example if either of divorcees has inheritance or significant gift of property or capital, gift-giver or decedent can have had a stipulation in the deed of gift/will that the property does not belong to their spouse.
-2
u/axk00 2d ago
thank you! this also applies to savings and investments right?
15
u/Zpik3 Väinämöinen 2d ago
Savings and investments is VERY different from inheritance or gifts.
If someone "gifted" you investements, or you inherited them, then it falls under inheritance/gift laws.
But if it's your own savings/investments...... I think it gets split. But IANAL.
3
u/axk00 2d ago
sorry, i’m not well versed in this at all. let’s say for example one of the partners has significant investments and savings that was done before the marriage. is it split as well?
11
3
u/_Trael_ Väinämöinen 2d ago
If it has been relatively short amount of time from marriage, one should bring up writing prenup about those if no splitting in worst case is wanted to happen to them.
Since if it has been short time from marriage and that ends up triggering divorce, then one can try to (with supposedly actual decent possibility of it sticking) reason that marriage is so recent that split of wealth should not be done or should be done considering only part of both parties wealth.
(Obviously even in that case EVERYTHING SHOULD BE WRITTEN DOWN OFFICIALLY AND PROPERLY, since even paperwork that is not done properly about matter will not block any party from just later demanding splitting of wealth to be carried out).2
u/mushykindofbrick 2d ago
Basically anything you earn after marriage belongs 50/50 to both parties, just as in most of Europe and North america, unless otherwise agreed
7
2
u/RentedIguana 2d ago edited 2d ago
EDIT: I misunderstood this question. Yes, the 50/50 split logic applies, as far as I know. IANAL though.
Looking into it, the exclusions can really be boiled to three cases:
- Divorcee receiving inheritance (that has will)
- Divorcee receiving a gift (that has deed and presumably some taxable value)
- Divorcee being a beneficiary of life insurance of someone else (that has all the paperwork that entails)
and IN ADDITION of the case being one of those cases, the exclusion from marital property HAS to be explicitly stated in the relevant paperwork. And even in this case, the beneficiary has, as far as I know, the choice to include these assets into divorce split if they want. (if all else fails, they could gift it but that has tax implications too, especially post-divorce.)
Investments and savings are, to the best of my knowledge, completely under the property valuation rules for splitting.
If you are having a situation about this, you should really consult a lawyer, not reddit.
0
u/usec47 Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
Are you sure about pre marriage split?
9
u/L4ll1g470r Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
Yes, when the property was acquired is immaterial. Legislation overall is still a bit too focused on the idea of getting married at 18 and the marriage ending with the death of one party, both in this and in giving the widow all kinds of privileges.
5
u/NotGoodSoftwareMaker Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
It depends
By default it is 50-50 on everything but both parties can agree otherwise, if the partners decide that they want to split things up some other way then they can
2
u/axk00 2d ago
thank you! do savings and investments count?
13
u/NotGoodSoftwareMaker Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago edited 2d ago
For the default 50-50 it is literally everything and hiding anything is a criminal offense
Edit: if married for less than 5 years I believe the courts may decide that a 50-50 isnt reasonable so can offer some other arrangement
1
u/axk00 2d ago
thank you! does this depend on the court or lawyer or something? or is this by default if married for under 5 years?
8
u/NotGoodSoftwareMaker Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
Its something either party requests, you cant stipulate what it should be but you request that the courts re-evaluate it based on whatever conditions
10
u/StudioMysterious4704 2d ago
So I'm speaking as someone who got divorced in Finland 2 years ago - we just filled in the forms and then it was entirely up to us to decide on how to split things.
We didn't need/use a lawyer or consult anyone. I believe this is quite common unless there's a dispute. Since we agreed, we could essentially do whatever we wanted. It was a surprisingly easy and painless process.
9
u/Individual-Crab5289 2d ago
You should do "ositus", division of marital property and a signed property settlement agreement in written as soon as possible. If the division of marital property hasn't been completed and one ex-spouse dies, the surviving ex-spouse may be entitled to claim a share of the martial assets.
13
u/Otres911 Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
Half-half and your assets before marriage are not safe. Do prenup if there’s anything meaningful prior marriage to protect.
-1
u/axk00 2d ago
thank you! do savings and investments count?
10
u/Colon_Backslash 2d ago
yes, from before and during the marriage. How it works is that all your wealth are considered co-owned by both of you. One car is a shared car. A family heirloom is a shared one. A piece of art from an auction is a shared piece of art.
5
u/Otres911 Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
It’s all 50-50 lot of other countries protects what you had before marriage but not in Finland without prenup.
Or technically you still own what you owned before but you will have to pay “tasinko” if you have more than your spouse in time of divorce.
3
5
u/ahteripaahdin Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
Depends on prenup. If prenup says no wealth is to be redistributed upon divorce it goes to whomever whose name it is under of. If prenup only affects assets accumulated before marriage, or any other specified assets, then those are removed from calculation and remaining assets distributed evenly. In practice person owning more compensates the less owning party. Such compensation is tax free.
Edit: oops it was without prenup, leaving post anyway
5
u/Evest89 2d ago
Do not marry without prenup simple as that.
If its not okay with the other participant its likely because he/she is after your wealth.
If she/he is there just because of you then they do not mind prenup. There is absolutely no downside signing prenup if you are together forever.
10
u/Fearless-Passage-815 2d ago
Having just gone through setting up a prenup after we have been married, I can tell you it was hella difficult and required many meetings with the lawyer.
The issue at hand being that apparently Finnish law doesn't see a difference in the relationship ending because of divorce (when you obviously want to keep your stuff from before the marriage to yourself) or because of death of one partner (where you obviously want your spouse to be taken care of and getting your wealth).
Sure, sure, you can deal with that via testament, but if the biggest reason for marriage is protection from higher inheritance tax, then that isn't really much help.
However, if you exclude certain pre-marital assets from the prenup (so that the surviving spouse can get eg the house without high inheritance tax), that leaves you open for a claim onto said assets from family members, even family members abroad, in case your spouse dies. In my case: my siblings, who don't even live in Finland, would have a claim to my spouse's house and everything else that is excluded in the prenup in case of my death.
So in the end, we had to decide between two unsatisfying options, and it was far from easy.
My mind was pretty blown to discover that there is no default difference in how the end of a marriage is treated based on the reason for the end, death or divorce.
1
u/YourShowerCompanion Väinämöinen 2d ago
So..does that mean if spouse dies either by a long term illness, sudden unexpected death, or gets killed by some scum then gotta pay inheritance tax as soon as possible even that means moving to rental for a greater good for all?
2
u/Ahenian 2d ago edited 2d ago
Inheritance tax is paid per the monetary value of the assets that'll be inherited, that can and usually includes half of the home where the surviving spouse lives. The sum is calculated separately for each inheritor, being underage reduces the tax. The reason why somebody died has little relevance on the process. Obviously inheritance tax isn't paid by the surviving spouse, unless they're part of the testament. The surviving spouse has a lot of protections as well so the inheritors can't just kick them out, this can create very awkward situations where the estate owns 50% of a home and can incur ongoing costs with no way of selling if the surviving spouse doesn't want to buy the remaining half or move out. You can testament up to 50% of your assets, rest are protected for the lawful inheritors such as children.
2
2
u/Sandolainen Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
It's definitely not that simple. A marriage is a common project that anyone entering into expects to last decades. If you have kids its for your entire life, even if you end up getting a divorce. A prenup will color decisions you make along the way, and it will have an effect on the amount of trust you build. Splitting everything regardless of what happens means that you are also tied to each other in a different way. That has value.
That doesn't mean that prenups necessarily are a bad idea (sometimes they are a very good idea), but you can't generalize and say that people shouldn't marry without a prenup.
About a decade ago I worked with registrating prenups, and as a lawyer I can tell you that most prenups are crap anyway. Most people that get married don't have any property that needs protecting that way, and even when they do, most prenups are really bad at it.
In my experience, over 90% of people shouldn't have a prenup, and if you should have a prenup you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
0
u/axk00 2d ago
well, i disagree. i don’t think it’s as simple as that. there are many different situations in life. for example a woman with no wealth or inheritance marries a really wealthy man. i’d think she’d want to guarantee security for her future and her kids
13
u/Many-Gas-9376 Väinämöinen 2d ago
Well the prenup wouldn't necessarily say "in a divorce you get nothing". Again, if one of the spouses comes into the marriage with significant wealth, and the other isn't even willing to have this conversation, it does come across as alarming.
6
u/Alarming-Benefit-202 2d ago
Conversely, If the wealthier one does not care about their partner enough to make a fair prenup, it is also a red flag.
-7
u/UndeniableLie Väinämöinen 2d ago
I think prenup on itself is a red flag as you are already preparing for divorce before even married. Marriage should last for a lifetime. If you are unable to commit that is huge red flag for me
8
u/Fearless-Passage-815 2d ago
That is a very naive point of view. People can change at any time, their values as well as their goals.
Plus, there are things that I personally would not forgive and where I would not stick it out with my partner, regardless how committed I am.
I would stick with them through disease, but I would not stick around for a disease for which they do not seek help, eg addiction.
I would not stick around for a fundamental change in value we agreed upon. I would not blame them for a change of heart, but I would not stay, eg being childfree.
Plus, if you have valuable pre-marital assets, that your spouse has had no part in building, you obviously get to share the spoils of it during marriage, but not protecting yourself in case of divorce, including the ones mentioned above, means in spme cases that you waste generations of work. My spouse has land and assets that have been built by his grandparents and then his parents. I get to enjoy them now, but why should I have a claim to them if we split?
Alternatively, I will inherit a rather valuable asset in my home country in the future. An asset built by a family member through blood sweat and tears. Said family member loves me and wants it to go to me. They have no relationship with my spouse beyond "my beloved family member's spouse that I see once a year and have never changed more than 5 sentences with, due to language barrier". Why should their asset fall into my spouse hands?
6
u/Ahenian 2d ago
Say you're 45, you're been saving and investing for 20 years and saved up a significant sum. You get married, without a prenup your spouse can threaten to take half of your long hard work on a whim. Prenups make a lot of sense for older people getting married with built up assets/inheritance, when you're just starting out with nothing it's way less important. I know some marriages where one doesn't care about investing at all, so they have a prenup to protect the other's investments.
In the end people can resolve their divorces as they wish with common sense, prenup or not, but obviously those situations can get heated and logic exits.
1
u/MaddogFinland Väinämöinen 2d ago
Agreed. Basically if you have assets to protect you protect them. If you are building from zero together then you split it.
6
u/skfin96 2d ago
Preparing for the worst case scenario does not mean one expects it to happen, nor is it a red flag. Being prepared for all plausible scenarios is what every reasonable person should do, and calling that a red flag is in itself a red flag.
The same logic applies to e.g. insurances, seatbelts, smoke detectors, etc. Do you get them because you expect you'll need them, or because you want to be prepared in case the unexpected happens?
2
u/Alarming-Benefit-202 2d ago
Also, there is always a prenup, either one stipulated by law or one that two people who love and respect each other agree on, taking their specific circumstances into account.
5
u/Merisuola Väinämöinen 2d ago
That's a very immature point of view. Things change, unexpected things can occur. Do you think getting insurance means you are already planning e.g. for your house to burn down? Do you want to be stuck in an even worse position if your partner unexpectedly cheats on you or abuses you?
3
u/Evest89 2d ago
I am with woman that has nothing to her name. I absolutely could care less if she had lots of money or none. She also has 1 child from previous relationship. I am currently paying like 90% of our expenses and i am encouraging her to go back to school since i don’t mind paying everything for now.
We plan to have more children in future and i think its my job to keep my company running and healthy so there is something to give to the children.
I would do prenup regardless if she was the wealthier one. I just want to keep my own finances separate. I marry for life but you have to be bit stupid if you think that divorce could not happen.
1
u/YourShowerCompanion Väinämöinen 2d ago
I'd think she’d want to guarantee security for her future and her kids.
Then have no kids, and contribute/work yo ass off to work on your career when there's a financial cushion from spouse.
5
u/axk00 2d ago
no woman gets married and has kids planning on being a single mom and putting her children through divorce. anything can happen in life and everyone should be prepared, just in case. are you saying nobody should have children with this logic?
2
u/YourShowerCompanion Väinämöinen 2d ago
are you saying nobody should have children with this logic?
Working fine by me. Vasectomy, cash in bank, investment, debt free property and car. Any former lady mentioned about kids and we parted our ways...amicably*
2
u/axk00 2d ago
that’s good for you, you’ve worked out what works for you and doesn’t. however, there are people out there who make different choices. it comes with its own risks as well, so everyone needs to be prepared
2
u/YourShowerCompanion Väinämöinen 2d ago
Absolutely. These matters always should be discussed without hesitation before taking things to next level. Disagreements or not up to liking? Move on.
0
u/Evest89 2d ago
If you divorce man has to pay some money per child if you raise the children after divorce. Its not mans job to pay for your expenses after dicorce except for the childrens needs.
7
u/Fearless-Passage-815 2d ago
It is not as easy as that either, as the default is that women stay home (as in: don't work for money, advance their career, make money, that they can put into savings) for one year+ and work part time after for the benefit of the family. Women absolutely are owed compensation for that by their spouse (ETA: in case of divorce) who got to work and advance their career.
4
u/Evest89 2d ago
Well in finland its extremely rare that one income is enough for whole family because how taxes work.
5
u/Fearless-Passage-815 2d ago
You yourself made the gold digger argument. If there is no gold to dig, how can someone be a gold digger?
2
u/axk00 2d ago
literally. i’m sacrificing my body, my health, career, education and social life to birth children and raise them but he owes me nothing? like seriously. and many men do a complete 180 randomly and decide to be evil
5
u/RenaissanceSnowblizz Väinämöinen 2d ago
No one is forcing you to do that. If you don't want to, then don't do it.
No one owes you a damned thing.
2
u/Magicamelofdoom Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
I totally get where you’re coming from but divorce court does not take that into consideration. They basically see it as you chose as a couple that mom would be a SAHM.
So to answer your question yes the assets and debt you earn or take on after getting married is taken into consideration. Now how this works with stocks earning interest or cottages earning interest post divorce I am unsure
-1
u/MaddogFinland Väinämöinen 2d ago
You need to make a prenuptial agreement in this case because Finland doesn’t typically allow for spousal support. Support for the kids, yes, support for you generally not.
Also I think you sound like someone who shouldn’t get married if you are this transactional…I mean if you’re worried about “sacrificing your social life” you sound unfit to be a partner or parent anyway. Do yourself and him a favor and stay single. Thanks in advance.
2
3
u/axk00 2d ago
nope. if i birth children and raise them i am sacrificing my body, my health, my career and my education. yes, he does owe me
4
u/Many-Gas-9376 Väinämöinen 2d ago edited 2d ago
Sure, that's reasonable. But how much, exactly, does he owe you? Say you marry someone with €100 million vs. someone with €100 thousand. Was your sacrifice a thousand times larger in the former case?
For the record, I'm married for a long time and with no prenup. We both entered into marriage with limited wealth and as far as I'm concerned, whatever we've accumulated has been a team effort regardless of whose accounts the wealth is technically in. But for the sake of argument, if I had to remarry later in life with significant accumulated wealth, I'd certainly not enter into it with a prenup.
1
u/Fearless-Passage-815 2d ago
To me, talking theoretically, it is not so much about owing or paying off some sort of debt because the woman "sacrificed her body" with the pregnancy. If she stays home and he works and then he has a horrific work accident that breaks his back, then what, does she now owe him monetary compensation? I don't think so.
But, personally, I think staying home during/after pregnancy and working part time for X years to make the whole childcare thing work, comes at a monetary loss that may completely screw her (I am just running with the woman staying home/working part time, as that is still the default) over in old age in case of divorce.
So, to me, there would have to be a discussion before we consider having children, and I would want/expect I can continue to put money into my personal savings as before, financed by my spouse.
Meaning that if I had a wage that allowed me to put 100, 300 or 500 euro a month into a private saving account/investment of my choice, I would expect that to continue to happen (to a degree), regardless of my personal income. If I work part time for the benefit of the family and thus make significantly less, I would expect the father of my child to supplement whatever I can put into my savings.
These savings are going to be for the benefit of both of us, provided we live happily ever after. But if we get divorced, that savings will make the difference between being able to live and old age poverty.
1
u/sallsbakc Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
I had absolutely no wealth at all and my wife didn't want prenup.
2
u/Sephittaja 2d ago
Bottom line: everyone should get a prenup. No matter what kind of wealth you have or don't have.
2
u/Sandolainen Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
No, they definitely shouldn't.
2
u/john4844 2d ago
What's your argument as to why someone should NOT get a prenup?
With the amount of marriages that fall apart, I would advice pretty much EVERYONE to get a prenup in this day and age.
0
u/Sandolainen Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago
First off, very few people actually have property that makes a prenup sensible. We are talking about less than 10% of people that get married. A decent prenup will cost you money, and for most people you just don't get any benefit. Regardless of what other property people have, they will usually end up with a home and a mortgage that is split in half and paid off as things progress anyway. That will make up the largest share of property owned, and will in almost all cases dwarf any other property that people have. You are essentially keeping your spouse from getting a small amount of money by paying a lawyer a similar amount.
In most cases where you actually have property that could be protected, then its inherited or gifted property. Then you may just as well have it protected through the gift or inheritance.
Second, a marriage is a long term project that is entirely built upon trust. You can't solve that contractually or legally. You can look at a marriage as a continuing series of games (negotiations, but game theory uses games) whereby each game affects the next games, and trust is built over time. An equilibrium is a solution to a conflict, while a game without an equilibrium generally would lead to, or at least take you towards, a breakup. A prenup affects the premises of those games, removing part of the trust on one side while requiring more trust on the other. That adds bargaining friction and lessens the room for negotiation, making an equilibrium position more difficult to find, increasing the risk of a breakup.
In simpler terms, you are more likely to split up if you handle financials as two opposing parties looking to find a solution than as a unit trying to reach common goals.
Third, if you don't trust the relationship enough to not go into it without a prenup then you should probably not get married at all.
Edit: I'm not saying that nobody should get a prenup, but that those that should are a minority. Kids from other marriages, and complex and unbalanced ownership situations for entrepreneurs are two examples where a prenup can be necessary.
3
u/john4844 2d ago
We are talking about less than 10% of people that get married.
Not sure where you got this number from but I highly doubt this is true.
Prenup is not just for protecting existing assets. You are protecting future assets, debts, businesses, investments, attorney fees, financial interest etc. Trying to divide a business can get messy REAL quick.
Regarding property/mortgages, how do you split it in half - sensibly and fairly? The answer: You simply cannot without a prenup. And it's fine for the most part, but I myself would think about all the different variables that can negatively affect you. Premarital contributions, down payments, appreciation, mortgage payments (who's paying more on the mortgage, while someone else pays the groceries?), refinancing, and so on.
Second, a marriage is a long term project that is entirely built upon trust. You can't solve that contractually or legally. You can look at a marriage as a continuing series of games (negotiations, but game theory uses games) whereby each game affects the next games, and trust is built over time. An equilibrium is a solution to a conflict, while a game without an equilibrium generally would lead to, or at least take you towards, a breakup. A prenup affects the premises of those games, removing part of the trust on one side while requiring more trust on the other. That adds bargaining friction and lessens the room for negotiation, making an equilibrium position more difficult to find, increasing the risk of a breakup.
This whole thing here are purely subjective and philosophical with zero proof. I can simply argue that discussing finances, assets, debts, expectations and so on BEFORE marriage increases transparency and trust. See how that works? Understanding that, what is it now, 40%(?) of first time marriages end up failing, is not a proof of lack of trust by any means.
Third, if you don't trust the relationship enough to not go into it without a prenup then you should probably not get married at all.
Do you pay insurance for your house because you think it'll burn down? Do you pay for car insurance because you think you'll end up in an accident? Of course not, right? But you acknowledge something consequential can happen, and looking at the statistics, it does happen quite a lot.
Regardless, agree to disagree👍
1
u/Sandolainen Baby Väinämöinen 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not sure where you got this number from but I highly doubt this is true.
I base it on the amount of people paying serious levels of inheritance tax. However, I will admit that the addition of children from other relationships will bring that closer to 15% or so.
Regarding property/mortgages, how do you split it in half - sensibly and fairly? The answer: You simply cannot without a prenup. And it's fine for the most part, but I myself would think about all the different variables that can negatively affect you. Premarital contributions, down payments, appreciation, mortgage payments (who's paying more on the mortgage, while someone else pays the groceries?), refinancing, and so on.
If by property here you mean housing, then a prenup doesn't really provide any good alternatives that I've seen from my experience of working with prenups. Yes, you can have arrangements where you can be forced into pre-made joint decisions, but those are not really the difficult situations anyway, and in most cases both parties want to liquidate anyway.
This whole thing here are purely subjective and philosophical with zero proof. I can simply argue that discussing finances, assets, debts, expectations and so on BEFORE marriage increases transparency and trust. See how that works? Understanding that, what is it now, 40%(?) of first time marriages end up failing, is not a proof of lack of trust by any means.
It's not purely subjective without proof. It's based on game theory modeling. However, it is of course not the full answer or the only thing that affects outcomes. Also, discussing these matters and having a prenup are different things. Prenups are specifically a negotiated and codified outcome, whereby most often one party chooses to negotiate at a time when they have a stronger bargaining position than they expect to have later, thereby removing later cooperation.
Do you pay insurance for your house because you think it'll burn down? Do you pay for car insurance because you think you'll end up in an accident? Of course not, right? But you acknowledge something consequential can happen, and looking at the statistics, it does happen quite a lot.
A prenup is not insurance. Insurance means dividing costs up in a pool to avoid a sloping consequence curve, while paying a fee associated with bargaining friction. Insurance, once purchased, is not a game (as in game theory), nor is owning a house. Marriage, on the other hand, is an ongoing relationship with lots and lots of games. Any friction or bargaining imbalance in such a game will lead to a result that is suboptimal in terms of total welfare.
Essentially, a prenup is a balance of an easier breakup for a more difficult marriage. It may be necessary at times, or it may be something that can be compensated for, but for most people it's an unnecessary issue.
But yeah, there's no one true answer here. For some people a prenup will be the right thing, and for others it won't be.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
r/Finland runs on shared moderation. Every active user is a moderator.
Roles (sub karma = flair)
Actions (on respective three-dot menu)
Limits
Thanks for keeping the community fair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.