Katharina Buczek
“And it spanned years, as my mom couldn’t leave since she was a stay-at-home mom with no income, and she wouldn’t even if she could since she thought she could change him,” she recalled.
“I, unfortunately, was way more involved than a child should have been and became a proxy therapist and referee to the two of them.”
She dealt with this from the time she was 14-years-old until she was 19 when her parents finally split. And it left her with some real trauma.
That’s why she believes the infidelity clause is necessary to ensure she never has to experience what her mom did.
The specific terms of this clause state that if either she or her fiancé cheats or physically abuses the other, all of their joint assets – and the decision of whether to keep or sell them – will go to the other party. On top of that, the person who cheated will need to pay back the entire cost of their wedding to the other party.
“Which is around $100,000 from our estimates, which we are splitting between the two of us,” she revealed.
She realizes that to prove cheating and abuse, they will need proper evidence. Once they find lawyers and formally begin drafting the prenup, she also wants to define exactly what would constitute cheating.
But, despite believing her terms were completely justified, her fiancé thinks otherwise. He claimed it would be totally unfair to expect the person who cheated to pay $100,000 for the cost of their wedding. He even called this “borderline manipulative” by making that person stay in the marriage.
“In my opinion, it’s more of a penalty, similar to what you would pay if you broke a contract, and marriage is essentially a contract. If a person violates it, I feel it is fair to expect them to pay compensation, like any other contract,” she reasoned.
Well, her fiancé insists that something like that should be based on trust more than anything else. And the fact she suggested including such a clause has led him to feel like she doesn’t trust him.
However, according to her, that simply is not true.
