Wedleases...

[Deleted]

Have anyone heard/read about this new concept proposed by a lawyer?

articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-04/opinions/41067335_1_lease-real-estate-lifetime

Why don’t we borrow from real estate and create a marital lease? Instead of wedlock, a “wedlease.”

Here’s how a marital lease could work: Two people commit themselves to marriage for a period of years — one year, five years, 10 years, whatever term suits them. The marital lease could be renewed at the end of the term however many times a couple likes. It could end up lasting a lifetime if the relationship is good and worth continuing. But if the relationship is bad, the couple could go their separate ways at the end of the term. The messiness of divorce is avoided and the end can be as simple as vacating a rental unit.

[Bob Ross]

Dumbass lawyer, proposing something that would cut off his massive income stream from handling divorce cases.

[kittensaver]

Yah - we already have this. It's call cohabitation.

[justme]

If you're not sure whether you still want with the person in a year why in the world would you go through signing all the contracts and stuff. An easy out after 10 years? Yeah, ok, maybe? But why bother with one year?

[imawino]

Doesn't the fact that divorce exists pretty much male ALL marriages a "wedlease"?

[swamp]

I promise to love, honor, and cherish you for term of 10 years, and renewable as mutually agreeable.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I'm assuming after 5-10 years there are going to be co-mingled assets and possibly kids.  So HOW exactly would it be less messy than a divorce? 

[swamp]

Aug 20, 2013 13:25:30 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I'm assuming after 5-10 years there are going to be co-mingled assets and possibly kids.  So HOW exactly would it be less messy than a divorce? 

because the lawyer said so. 

[Deleted]

Maybe we should ask zib. She's fluent in leagalese... 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

because the lawyer said so.

When you put it that way it makes total sense.

[Phoenix84]

How would it solve divorces?  At the end of the "agreement" there's still the issue of what to do with the kids, the house, the furniture, the 401k's, the investments ect.  I don't see how that would make the task of unwinding a marriage any easier. 

In practice, I fail to see how this is any different than getting a divorce.  You can get a divorce anytime, and wheather you have a "wedlease" or a divorce, you'll still have to hammer out the details typical to a divorce.

[Deleted]

They can get it amended every time something life changing happens. 

[Phoenix84]

Maybe the "wedlease" would have terms and conditions associated with it?  But that's like a prenump, which we have now.  And from what I understand, judges don't always accept the prenump anyway.  It just doesn't make sense, why sign a "wedlease" when you already have legal options in place that are effectively the same thing?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Have anyone heard/read about this new concept proposed by a lawyer?

What a way to drum up business!  Every 1,2,5,10 years you need to contact your friendly neighborhood lawyer to draw up contracts for your next lease.

[Tiny]

I can see were something like the 'wedlease' might be a way to get around 'unfavorable divorce laws' - like how back in the olden days (ie the 1960's and 1970's) you had to prove to a judge there was a REASON for the divorce above and beyond "we nolonger wish to be married".     Does that still happen?  Does one spouse have to be the bad guy (or gal) so the marriage can end?  I don't think so... does some official have a say in wether or not the marriage ends?  Or is divorce just a matter of filing paperwork? (yeah, there may be contention over the paper work which might lead to a judge getting involved....)

What happens in a divorce when only one person wants out? Is that what currently makes for a kind of 'messy' divorce? Do both spouse have to agree to the divorce or can one of them keep it from happening?

Don't know enough about modern day divorce - it seems that the divorced couples in my real life were BOTH ok with ending the marriage - the quicker and less messy the better.

[Deleted]

Thinking about it, with the divorce rate in this country added together with what my divorce cost me (about 75% of everything that I had accrued over the years & all of the money that I had at the time)......Really I kind of LIKE the idea.

[Deleted]

God I would have LOVED to tell my ex.......................YOU AREN'T RENEWED, get out!

[Virgil Showlion]

You could extend it to all kinds of things.

A kidlease, for example.

Who wouldn't want to try out a cute little tyke for a 6 month term, complete with warrantee and no-hassle return policy?

[Phoenix84]

Aug 20, 2013 12:59:31 GMT -5 Bob Ross said:

Dumbass lawyer, proposing something that would cut off his massive income stream from handling divorce cases.

Actually quite the opposite I would think.  You'd have to go through the messy divorce process as we do now because things would still be co mingled from the marriage, but in addition to that if you want to renew your marriage, you'd have to contact your friendly neighborhood attorney.  Furthermore, if anything I think it'd increase the numbers of "divorces" aka "non renewals."  Because the fact that the renewal is coming up would force the couple to talk about their marriage, rather than just not say anything.

[Deleted]

Some spouses actually like each other. (or so I've heard... )

[Deleted]

When does our Friendlease expire, BTW?

[Deleted]

I must have been drunk when I signed that thing!!!!



<--- secretly squeezing with delight

[Deleted]

Same times you're not! Which is what makes us such good friends!!!

[Miss Tequila]

Aug 20, 2013 13:25:30 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I'm assuming after 5-10 years there are going to be co-mingled assets and possibly kids.  So HOW exactly would it be less messy than a divorce? 

19 years of marriage and no co-mingled assets...there would be a fight over the kids with both of us yelling "not it"!

[Works4me]

If an attorney came up with it, it's got to make more money for the attorney!

[NastyWoman]

We need to get this guy (Paul Rampell) to join us on YM!!! Just think, in the current setup lawyers only get to us if we are divorcing or going.  In this new situation they could squeeze us coming, staying, and going! Once they get this concept accepted they can then lobby Congress to make renewing the Wedlease a mandatory event every two years or so.  A continuous stream of income.  And then Uncle Sam can also get into the deal by charging bi-annual renewal fees to help the IRS offset the cost of the of keeping track of who gets to claim wedlease status .    The opportunities are endless here... PURE GENIUS

[Nazgul Girl]

    People who want to stay single could have a Wed-Less contract .

[milee]

Not sure how helpful it would be legally, but I can see some advantages to such an arrangement.

1)  It would encourage couples to talk about equitable division of assets and children in advance of when they're so angry they can't be rational or fair.  Not that everybody would necessarily want to abide by what was agreed to in advance, but it would provide a road map and maybe keep some splits reasonable.

2)  Although it sounds similar to a pre-nup, I think it would have less stigma and allow each person a reasonable bargaining position so would be more equitable feeling than a pre-nup.  Although they don't have to be this way, in the vast majority of cases a pre-nup is only brought out when there's a vast inequity in position and one party is trying to prevent the other from scamming them; one party is definitely dealing from a position of strength.  Plus, no matter how fair it is and how the subject is broached, bringing up a pre-nup is often perceived as "I don't trust you and don't want to share my money, so let's get married, but you have so sign this thing to protect me."  On the other hand, a lease that was arranged in advance would be more of a discussion of equals talking about the future and how they were going to handle the future.  So they might accomplish similar things but the terminology and bargaining position would be different and, IMHO, a lease would be more positive.

3)  Divorce carries stigma.  It implies (to many) failure.  Non-renewal of a lease wouldn't have the same connotations.

[Virgil Showlion]

3) Divorce carries stigma. It implies (to many) failure. Non-renewal of a lease wouldn't have the same connotations.

Exactly. You can just fail preemptively by telling them about your 'wedlease'.

"Everyone, meet John. My rent-a-hubby for the next five years."

[milee]

I think the most valuable result of the whole wedlease idea would be to get people to talk about important details before they're married.  So many couples never talk about the nitty gritty details that a wedlease would entail, that at least it would be a way for couples to determine if they are on the same page. 

It's a little like signing a Buy/Sell agreement when you form a partnership in a business.  Forces the partners to think while times are good about how things will be handled when times are bad or they are no longer speaking.

For the record, I've been married 23 years now.  No prenup.  So it's not like I don't believe marriage is important or good.  But when DH and I formed our business, we formed it as equal partners with a buy/sell agreement in place.  Had I known more about buy/sell agreements or wedleases, I think I would have done a better job of communicating with my DH prior to our marriage about some sticky topics and that might have saved us some heartache. 

If/when DH dies, I have zero interest in being married again, but would consider an arrangement similar to a wedlease and not consider that a failure.