Worth: How large a risk does divorce pose to wealth today versus years ago? For many men, divorce was positive, financially speaking, because the man was the one who brought the money to the relationship and then had more control of it afterward.

"I JUST charged—I’ll admit it—$50,000 to do a prenup on a very wealthy young man whose father is one of the wealthiest people in the country." —John F. Schaefer

Sheila Ginsberg Riesel: Yes, it used to be that title controlled. And at the end of a marriage, if the assets were in a party’s name, that party walked away with those assets.
Morton E. Marvin: Connecticut was never a title state—at least during my life as an attorney—so title doesn’t mean anything these days. But we have some uniquenesses vis-à-vis New York laws. We don’t have a freeze date, which you do. We do not value licenses or celebrity status. We do not recognize separate property. We also don’t recognize inherited property, though that is starting to change a bit.
Riesel: That’s all the more reason why prenups in Connecticut would be a critical thing for people to think about.
Marvin: Connecticut passed a premarital statute in ’95. And our Supreme Court just came down in a very famous case in which they basically said, "You sign it, we’ll enforce it."
John F. Schaefer: Historically, premarital agreements were found to be void if they promoted or facilitated divorce. They were useful in protecting assets in the event of a death, but in the event of a divorce, they were historically found to be—because the law abhors divorce, supposedly—void. That has changed dramatically in the last 20 years.
Riesel: Exactly. Prenups, certainly in New York, are very honored and accepted. If your prenup passes basic requirements of disclosure and counsel, and no-fraud and duress, it is going to be enforced. You have the opportunity to protect your assets going into a relationship. You just have to be careful not to destroy the relationship before it starts.
Marvin: That’s why I don’t like premarital agreements.

Worth: Really?
Marvin: I am not a big proponent of premarital agreements for young people who are getting married today. I won’t do them. I think they are valid for a person who’s marrying for the second time, and who has a large estate and wants to protect children and grandchildren. I will consult on them, but I will not do them. I usually refer them elsewhere.
Riesel: I think when the young children of the wealthy get married, there’s a real concern that Mama and Pop or Grandma and Grandpa have about preserving the family wealth in that context.
Schaefer: What do you charge for one of those, Sheila?
Marvin: Not enough.
Riesel: I think that’s the right answer. I’ll be candid and tell you I find them the most difficult agreements to do. A divorce is easy—the relationship’s over; I’m doing the best I can for my client.
Schaefer: We don’t have any crystal balls; it’s tough. I just charged—I’ll admit it—$50,000 to do a prenup on a very wealthy young man whose father is one of the wealthiest people in the country. I represented the wife, or the wife-to-be. These kids are in their late 20s. Think of the risk I’m taking by trying to forecast how long this marriage is going to last and what she’s going to get if it fails.
Riesel: It’s a nightmare. They really are very difficult.
Lance S. Spiegel: Ten, 15 years ago, I litigated a prenuptial agreement. The attorney who represented the wife was on the stand for five or six days. The attorney who represented the husband was on the stand for five or six days. And they can’t charge. That story is one I often use to justify why I charge those types of fees.
Riesel: You’ve got to report it to your malpractice carrier as soon as you sign off on it.

Worth: Is that why you’re not interested, Mort?
Marvin: No. I’m just not a proponent for youth. I understand what Sheila said about parents and grandparents, and I think there are other ways you can protect those assets. Trust-and-estate planners can protect those assets. That’s the advice I give to clients. As you’re going into this marriage, are you marrying for love or for money? Take the money aspect out of it, and then you don’t have to worry about it.
Like John said, I don’t know five years from now whether she should get $100,000 a week or $5 a week—and why shouldn’t she benefit from some of the growth that’s been accumulated during the marriage, notwithstanding that it came from premarital assets or inherited assets? If you’re going to take the concept of marriage as a partnership, then the partnership has to have some validity.
Schaefer: If they’ve been married for five years and he’s got $200 million, she’s going to get something.
Spiegel: It’s an emotional minefield. It turns into an "I would never do that to you" discussion. Lawyers who are trying to protect their clients get blamed for it.