Marriage

I would advise people to opt for out of community of property too, but as an aside, it is rather sad how, when people are going through an acrimonious divorce, money often becomes the subject of an all-out war.

People use it as their weapon of choice in a divorce.
 
blunomore said:
I would advise people to opt for out of community of property too, but as an aside, it is rather sad how, when people are going through an acrimonious divorce, money often becomes the subject of an all-out war.

People use it as their weapon of choice in a divorce.
Click to expand...
you would be surprised - money is definitely a huge aspect but the most bitter battles are over pets and the vase which sits on the table as you come in the door. i guess all of these things are just tangible proxies for intangible hatred ...
 
dominic said:
you would be surprised - money is definitely a huge aspect but the most bitter battles are over pets and the vase which sits on the table as you come in the door. i guess all of these things are just tangible proxies for intangible hatred ...
Click to expand...



Surely the vase = money? Especially if it is a Ming vase ;)
 
blunomore said:
Surely the vase = money? Especially if it is a Ming vase ;)
Click to expand...

& perhaps you should direct Mr B's thinking towards that post as an indicator of your future conduct ;)

in one matter i was involved in the vase was worth R250 if that...it is, of course, the principle of the thing :rolleyes:
 
dominic said:
& perhaps you should direct Mr B's thinking towards that post as an indicator of your future conduct ;)

in one matter i was involved in the vase was worth R250 if that...it is, of course, the principle of the thing :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Does Edith Venter still hold the record for the costliest divorce or has she been dethroned? :D
 
Claymore said:
Things don't always work out the way they do in fairytales.

Also, apart from aspects of marriage, what about cases of sequestration? You make a screw-up in your business, and lose everything, do you want your spouse to lose everything too?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I know life is not a fairytale. Hells bells, marriage can and will test you to the core of your being, if you're halfway serious.

My point is at once more metaphysical and more practical. Metaphysically: if you enter into that hallowed state with a reserved and separate proprietal arrangement, there is already some aspect of your mutual self-donation that is mitigated, reserved, kept separate, held apart - and that flies in the face of what marriage in essence is. Property, and the risk associated with it over the marriage, are a part of that mutual self-giving and should in principle not be excluded in order to give full and complete effect to the intention of risking everything in and for and with the spouse.

Now you can call that idealistic. But simple integrity, for me at least, means I just can't imagine saying to my spouse "I unreservedly give you all I am and have, without reservation" whilst in the same breath I've reserved property to myself. Mutatis mutandis, I would wonder about my spouse's willingness to give and risk everything with and for me if she were to separate off her own property.

On a very practical level, unreserved mutual gifting goes to the very heart of what marriage ontologically is, in my view, and I wish to give the fullest and most practical effect to that intention. It also means I am more certain that our mutual commitment now will survive over the years, even and especially if/when all our property is lost. I know my wife is risking everything with me, and I with her, and that no property gains or losses can touch that central core commitment ... that I have not agreed even before we marry that certain things will be mine no matter what, and certain things hers. Our mutual giving is total, whole, entire, complete, unreserved, without the slightest thing or thought held back (and especially not by law or contract).

At another level, I would argue that antenuptial agreements symbolically and legally give greater weight to mere things (ie property) when the very core commitment of marriage says that I'm your and you are mine no matter what happens, and especially if we lose our property. "I take on everything you are and will be ... your property, your debts, your risk, your body, your fertiility, your whole and entire being-in-the-world" - this is what I and my wife gave and accepted >20 years ago, and that has been the greatest joy of my life.

This is our one life, our one marriage. We are serious about it, to the fullest extent we possibly can be, even in such lowly matters as law and property.

Anything less just aint enough for me.
 
Arthur said:
My point is at once more metaphysical and more practical. Metaphysically: if you enter into that hallowed state with a reserved and separate proprietal arrangement, there is already some aspect of your mutual self-donation that is mitigated, reserved, kept separate, held apart - and that flies in the face of what marriage in essence is. Property, and the risk associated with it over the marriage, are a part of that mutual self-giving and should in principle not be excluded in order to give full and complete effect to the intention of risking everything in and for and with the spouse.
Click to expand...

I agree with you from an idealistic point of view. Pragmatically, though, odds are very much against idealism winning out. I was lucky enough in my first marriage to have been married with ANC excluding accrual. I would have been happy at the time to marry in CoP, but as it turned out, it would have been a disaster - as time went on, it turned out my wife was far more interested in money than anything else.
 
My wife and I are married out of community of property with accrual.

We did this for the simple reason that as our careers develop we both may be placed in a situation where debt would be required should we want to start our own practices and we didn't want to put the other at risk.
 
Claymore said:
I agree with you from an idealistic point of view. Pragmatically, though, odds are very much against idealism winning out.
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean, Claymore.

It is my submission -- born from practical experience -- that marriage needs every help and support it can get to survive our current culture (a culture too focused on material things, on pragmatics and techne, and not enough on principles, in my view). One of the most pragmatic things you can both do to ensure the marriage is strenthened as much as possible -- tough times are inevitable -- is to physically, legally, and morally pool everything. My wife and I both know we've risked our whole lives and happiness and things with each other, and over the years that deepens the commitment and strengthens the marriage ... and this is borne out daily in the joint decisions we have to make about joint property. It also leads us to be more responsible in our professions and choices, because we know more than our own livelihoods are at stake. It is precisely to reinforce the marriage that we should pool all things, including assets and liabilities.

Is it perhaps not true that in our eagerness to protect property from creditors by antenuptial contracts we actually unknowlingly weaken the marriage bond, which is after all not just an emotional, psycholgical or spiritual thing, but also a physical (and legal) things? We wholly and utterly share our physical bodies, and our things are of much lesser consequence...share them fully also, lest our love for things rise up and poison the marriage...

And isn't this love of things one of the roots of the present crisis in marriage, in society? Is it perhaps not our elevation of mere things above the very heart and soul of marriage that subtly sabotages our commitment, introducing subtle reservations that slowly grow and fester, to spill out viciously when the marriage is under stress (as it surely will be, inescapably and inevitably)?

For anyone who ranks the relationship above things, I think it makes sense to give legal and practical effect to that by pooling everything. There's no getting away from the fact that antenuptial contracts aim to protect things rather than the marriage -- after all, they are premised on insulating one from the effects of another's failures, but that insulation comes at a price - too steep a price, in my view. I'd rather take every step to reduce the value of things and increase the value of the marriage and the mutual commitment. That means, practically speaking, putting all things at risk in the the marriage, for the sake of the marriage. It sounds like a paradox, but it's no less true for it.

For me and my wife, our marriage comes first -- and we both know this is not just prattle precisely because we have legally pooled our entire lives, including our things, and debts.

We're really and truly in this marriage - together. We sink and or swim - together. We're in this for the long haul, no matter what happens to our things - together. We both risk everything - together. Not one of us can emerge from a breakdown with more than the other... we are truly wholly and utterly equal.

In summary: the most practical thing you can do for your marriage is give the fullest effect to the ideal. It's that simple. And that hard.
 
Last edited:
As an aside, if you do want to limit liability for business ventures, why not use a limited liability company? It's much better than limiting the marriage.
 
If you think you're gonna contribute pretty equally to the household and want to have the cleanest break possible in case of divorce: ANC without accrual.
 
Never marry in rather marry out otherwise if in then you share every debit he/she has out you only take whats yours.
 
dominic said:
when you do a postnuptial contract you have to advertise in newspapers to let creditors know that you are changing your matrimonial property regime & they can object if it is to their prejudice
Click to expand...

What would be the costs involved in doing this?

I did not give this that much thought when I got married, but now I have had a change of mind.
 
Arthur said:
I understand what you mean, Claymore.

It is my submission -- born from practical experience -- that marriage needs every help and support it can get to survive our current culture (a culture too focused on material things, on pragmatics and techne, and not enough on principles, in my view). One of the most pragmatic things you can both do to ensure the marriage is strenthened as much as possible -- tough times are inevitable -- is to physically, legally, and morally pool everything. My wife and I both know we've risked our whole lives and happiness and things with each other, and over the years that deepens the commitment and strengthens the marriage ... and this is borne out daily in the joint decisions we have to make about joint property. It also leads us to be more responsible in our professions and choices, because we know more than our own livelihoods are at stake. It is precisely to reinforce the marriage that we should pool all things, including assets and liabilities.

Is it perhaps not true that in our eagerness to protect property from creditors by antenuptial contracts we actually unknowlingly weaken the marriage bond, which is after all not just an emotional, psycholgical or spiritual thing, but also a physical (and legal) things? We wholly and utterly share our physical bodies, and our things are of much lesser consequence...share them fully also, lest our love for things rise up and poison the marriage...

And isn't this love of things one of the roots of the present crisis in marriage, in society? Is it perhaps not our elevation of mere things above the very heart and soul of marriage that subtly sabotages our commitment, introducing subtle reservations that slowly grow and fester, to spill out viciously when the marriage is under stress (as it surely will be, inescapably and inevitably)?

For anyone who ranks the relationship above things, I think it makes sense to give legal and practical effect to that by pooling everything. There's no getting away from the fact that antenuptial contracts aim to protect things rather than the marriage -- after all, they are premised on insulating one from the effects of another's failures, but that insulation comes at a price - too steep a price, in my view. I'd rather take every step to reduce the value of things and increase the value of the marriage and the mutual commitment. That means, practically speaking, putting all things at risk in the the marriage, for the sake of the marriage. It sounds like a paradox, but it's no less true for it.

For me and my wife, our marriage comes first -- and we both know this is not just prattle precisely because we have legally pooled our entire lives, including our things, and debts.

We're really and truly in this marriage - together. We sink and or swim - together. We're in this for the long haul, no matter what happens to our things - together. We both risk everything - together. Not one of us can emerge from a breakdown with more than the other... we are truly wholly and utterly equal.

In summary: the most practical thing you can do for your marriage is give the fullest effect to the ideal. It's that simple. And that hard.
Click to expand...

No matter how much you love your wife, that does not insulate you from potential financial disaster. I'm not sure why it's such a wonderful thing to know that your wife will be poor with you if that happens. If I'm going down Honey, so are you. :) mwah mwah mwah hugs and kisses, lets go beg for food.

But now you're both screwed financially where it could have been only one of you.

It sounds like you have a great relationship with your wife, and I'm sure it's one many people envy. But its also a fact that many people divorce and go bankrupt without ever having planned to do that when they got married.

So you gambled that it wouldnt happen to you and won. Think thats a good enough reason for everyone else to try their luck too?
 
Arthur is 100% correct in how a marriage should be, but I believe it can be that with an ANC..

We are married out of community of property with accrual..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X