Where this was said
Prenup or No Prenup? — Nancy in Los Angeles
At 27:59 · chapter starts 21:30
Nancy in Los Angeles is 56, engaged to a 71-year-old retired man worth approximately $2.7 million ($2M investments, $700K paid-off home) and planning a Catholic wedding in October. She has $600,000 saved and makes $60,000 a year in entertainment. Her fiancé wants a prenup; she's opposed on religious grounds. Dave and Rachel acknowledge the evolution of their own position on prenups — they once opposed all of them, but now recognize they serve a protective function when net worths are extreme. Dave's practical point is that the statistically likely event isn't divorce; it's his death. Nancy hasn't even discussed what happens to the money when he dies, which is a far more urgent conversation. Dave suggests the prenup could guarantee Nancy, say, $500,000 in a divorce scenario — enough to restart — without entitling her to half of assets she didn't build. Rachel adds that a prenup increasingly signals mutual planning wisdom rather than distrust.
A prenup isn't a divorce plan — it's a net worth protection plan. When one partner has $2.7 million and can't go back to work, and the other has $600,000 and is moving cities, treating their assets as automatically merged ignores a very real financial reality.
Dave and Rachel noted that prenups have become increasingly common and wise when there is an extreme difference in net worth between partners.
