Would a prenuptial agreement protect my future retirement investments?

If the prenup is done correctly, it would help. However, in order for the prenup to be worth more than the paper it is printed on, it shall need to be prepared correctly. Hire an attorney to help you. You can either contact one of the attorneys who are answering this question or you can use the avvo find a lawyer tab.

Prior to Cioffi-Petrakis, it was an absolute "YES." After Cioffi-Petrakis, the answer is, "Unfortunately, maybe." See, http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ny_appeals_court_voids_prenup_due_to_millionaires_alleged_oral_promises_to_/ http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-cioffi-wins-prenup-battle-2013-4 http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2013/D37430.pdf The long and short of Cioffi-Petrakis is as follows: 1. Wife signs pre-nuptial agreement; 2. Wife's lawyer signs as witness to pre-nuptial agreement; 3. Pre-nuptial agreement is "more fair" to the wife than the then leading case "upholding" the validity of the pre-nuptial agreement in New York; 4. Couple files for divorce; 5. Wife is now unhappy with how little she is entitled to under the pre-nuptial agreement; 6. Wife creates this story about how her husband "orally promised her" the house, more money, XYZ, and basically told her, "Oh, don't worry baby, this paper doesn't mean anything; in fact, after 1 year, I'm just going to rip it apart; and your lawyer standing right here as a witness, he won't insist on throwing those statements of mine into the pre-nupt, nope." 7. Some law student pulling crazy hours between classes, journals, extra-circulars, and work "conflated" the "fiduciary duty" that "spouses" owe each other with the lack of fiduciary duty that "non-spouses" (even "prospective spouses," but still "unmarried" persons; i.e., non-spouses) have towards each other. 8. Nobody else Sheapardized the cases to see that a "fiduciary duty" ONLY applied between "spouses" (i.e., "ante" nuptial agreements, NOT "pre" nuptial agreements). 9. And the Second Department Appellate Court issued a decision binding on all lower courts, that held that (1) "prospective spouses" owe each other a "fiduciary duty" when entering into a contract, and (2) that despite a merger clause being part of a prenuptial agreement, the party getting the short end of the stick in retrospect can just "pretend" that "oral statements" outside the contract "induced" them into signing the contract (and the pre-nuptial agreement goes out the window). That a merger clause is not a bar to an action for fraud in the inducement (entitling the claimant to the complete rescission of the contract) is not "new" law. See, Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris, 5 N.Y.2d 317, 320 (1959) (“[W]here the complaint states a cause of action for fraud, the parol evidence rule is not a bar to showing the fraud either in the inducement or in the execution despite an omnibus statement that the written instrument embodies the whole agreement, or that no [oral] representations have been made.”); see also Sabo v. Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155, 161 (1957) (“Indeed, if it were otherwise, a defendant would have it in his power to perpetrate a fraud with immunity, depriving the victim of all redress, if he simply has the foresight to include a merger clause in the agreement. Such, of course, is not the law.”). At the end of the day, the entire concept of pre-nuptial agreements is ridiculous. Think about it. A party is entering into Contract M, which will "create" legal liability for the parties. But, "before" they enter into Contract M, they first enter into Contract P, which will attempt to "limit" the legal liabilities created in the first place by Contract M. What happens if a court decides to disregard Contract P? The parties are stuck with Contract M! I don't know. Maybe I like to think of things in very basic terms. But if you want to avoid the "risk" of legal liability resulting from getting married, then . . . I don't know . . . DON'T GET MARRIED! You don't "need" to be married to have children, love each other, live together, etc. It's an anti-feminist relic of the past, designed to enforce the man's obligation to "maintain" his "property" (i.e., wife). But if your partner insists, as a condition precedent to her love for you, then it's your live - your choice. But that's an attorney's perspective.