How Hasselhoff had his bride-to-be 'sign pre-nup at altar'

**Major Tom** · 25th-August-2006

How Hasselhoff had his bride-to-be 'sign pre-nup at altar'
Last updated at 15:11pm on 25th August 2006

Ex-Baywatch star David Hasselhoff was so desperate to protect his bulging bank account he got his wife to sign a pre-nuptial agreement 30 minutes before their marriage.
Pamela Bach, now 42, was in her wedding dress waiting to walk down the aisle when her husband-to-be thrust the piece of paper into her hands.
Thinking it was her marriage license, the actress failed to read the small print and added her signature before entering the church and saying 'I do'.
These astonishing events were revealed in the latest court hearing for the bitter divorce battle between Hasselhoff and Bach.
.....
The couple then fought over custody of their two daughters - 16-year-old Taylor-Ann and 13-year-old Hayley - until a court granted them joint custody of the girls.
Now new court papers show that Bach is disputing the validity of their pre-nuptial agreement and reveal the extraordinary events just moments before the wedding.
In a written statement, which has raised objections from her ex-husband, the actress claims Hasselhoff first mentioned a pre-nup less than a month before their December 9 wedding date in 1989.
"This was the first time Petitioner (Hasselhoff) had ever raised the issue of a prenuptial agreement, and because I had never heard the term 'prenuptial agreement' prior to that time, I had no concept of the legal impact associated with the document," she said.
Bach did as her fiance asked and met with a lawyer twice, but claims she was so baffled by the agreement she broke down in tears.
"We had to end the first meeting which I had with Petitioner's attorneys because I was crying so severely that I could not continue with the meeting," she explained.
It was the lawyer - not Hasselhoff himself - who advised the actress to hire her own legal team, and it was only then that she realized the meetings had been representing Hasselhoff's interests and not her own.
Bach did not sign any documents until half an hour before she became Mrs. Hasselhoff.
Apparently unknowingly, she put her name on the pre-nup while standing in a room at the back of the church dressed in her wedding gown.
"At the time the wedding was to commence, the court should be advised that I was 25 years of age, approximately two and a half months pregnant with our first daughter, and was already dressed in my wedding dress when I was approached and presented with a single sheet of paper," Bach said.
"At this time, I was in a small room at the back of the church and all of our wedding guests were already seated for the wedding.
"I did not have my attorney present, nor did I realise that I was being presented with a signature page related to the prenuptial agreement.
"Petitioner informed me that it was just paperwork. In fact I was under the impression that I was being asked to sign my marriage license."
She added: "I felt rushed and compelled to execute the document quickly, however... I did not realise that I was rushing to execute the final version of a signature page which would be attached to a pre-nuptial agreement."
These events are the latest in a bizarre series of twists surrounding the Hasselhoffs' divorce battle.
Just two weeks ago lawyers for the couple argued who should look after the pets before eventually ruling that Â£800 worth of vet bills run up this month should be paid from the joint account.
It was also decided that the Hoff's rent and his ex-wife's Mercedes Benz - together with the gardening bill and pest control costs should be funded equally.

More fool her for not reading the small print and just signing it!
Good for The Hoff I say!

**Marx** · 26th-August-2006

I think it was a bit low, the manner in which he put it across to her. But, on the other hand, it's not anything we wouldn't expect in return.
He's a man we'll look back on with admiration for having stood firmly on his morals & beliefs.

**Marx** · 26th-August-2006

A correction to the above:
Not so much admiration for morals, but having the balls to have done it. Prenups have been used against men for a good length of time, it's time we took on the same level of foresight - especially as in divorces, we tend to fare far worse without them on top.

**bas24** · 26th-August-2006

Hes been a smart man, i dont regard him as immoral or anything of that nature.

Its pretty simple: nowadays society gives women "special powers", and they use them against men.

This is an hidden war against men, therefore we must use every "dirty" tactics to save our asses, and we should not care about "morality" or such things. Remove the injustices against men and then we can talk about "morality". Until then, men should use dirty tactics to protect themselves from the "special powers" that Government gives to females.

**Fred X** · 26th-August-2006

Good on him

Though his ex tried to make excuses for why she 'had' to sign it

But that's to be expected I suppose

Whilst pre-nups are good, they have been over-ruled in the past- thus taking the safety blanket off them

That said- any precaution, no matter how small, is ever wasted

More men should follow his lead

**gwallan** · 26th-August-2006

Absolutely no sympathy for her. Regardless of the legal validity of prenups every prospective groom should ask for one.

There are two tests I believe men should apply to women in relationships/marriages.

One is the prenup. In a world where over half of marriages fail, 80% of divorces are initiated by women and the courts are shamefully biased against men it has become essential. If nothing else it will provide great insight into her attitude. After all a person who is serious about the marriage vows should have nothing to worry about. Be prepared to be accused of not trusting her.

The second is to say no to sex when she's raring to go. Her behaviour in the aftermath will be very illuminating. If your non consent is greeted with shaming, insult, aggression or emotional blackmail(ie "you don't love me any more") you are dealing with a potential abuser who will almost certainly use sex as a weapon or bartering tool in the relationship.

**myce** · 27th-August-2006

It sounds like he is dishonest and she is an airheaded twit. If a guy has to play a dirty trick to get his fiancee to sign a pre-nup, then that doesn't bode well for the marriage. I am surprised it lasted as long as it did.

**Fred X** · 27th-August-2006

Myce wrote:

It sounds like he is dishonest and she is an airheaded twit. If a guy has to play a dirty trick to get his fiancee to sign a pre-nup, then that doesn't bode well for the marriage.

In fairness, with the way men are unfairly treated by the system, I think to label him harshly is unwarrented

There are but 2 choices when fighting anti-male bias:

1) accept it and do nothing

2) reject it and do anything within your power to stop it

Hasselhoff chose 2- and I honestly can't blame him

**Major Tom** · 27th-August-2006

Quote from myce

It sounds like he is dishonest and she is an airheaded twit. If a guy has to play a dirty trick to get his fiancee to sign a pre-nup, then that doesn't bode well for the marriage. I am surprised it lasted as long as it did.

How exactly is he being dishonest? It's not really a dirty trick either.

The bottom line is that you should always read the small print on whatever you sign, and if you don't and you just go right ahead and sign the contract, you're an idiot and you can't blame the person the gave you the contract.

She clearly didn't read the contract at the time and now she is whinging about it. It's her own fault.

**Marx** · 27th-August-2006

I dunno, if it was pulled on me, i'd be quite unimpressed.

**Yan Yan** · 27th-August-2006

How very 'fair' you're all being.

He might be taking a few precautions but look at the facts. A rich and famous man is marrying a 42 year-old American woman. Why?
To keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'.

**Major Tom** · 27th-August-2006

Quote from karl

I dunno, if it was pulled on me, i'd be quite unimpressed.

As would I if I were in that position, but it would still be my own fault. :slap:Who else would I have to blame?
It's not like anyone forced her to sign it.

**myce** · 27th-August-2006

Quote from Major Tom

How exactly is he being dishonest? It's not really a dirty trick either.

The bottom line is that you should always read the small print on whatever you sign, and if you don't and you just go right ahead and sign the contract, you're an idiot and you can't blame the person the gave you the contract.

She clearly didn't read the contract at the time and now she is whinging about it. It's her own fault.

I still believe that a marriage is supposed to be based on trust. You don't expect that the person you're engaged to would try to trick you the way a used car salesman would. Understandably he needs to protect his assets, but I do not agree with the way he went about doing it. Not that her behavior was stellar either, crying her way out of a pre-nup negotiation and then telling the court that she was too dim-witted to understand it. If he has so little trust in and respect for his fiancee, then maybe the marriage was a bad idea. On the other hand, the article says she was already pregnant. That does make a difference and I'm guessing is the reason he married her. Perhaps he was worried that she would clean him out for child support if he didn't marry her?

**Major Tom** · 27th-August-2006

Quote from myce

I still believe that a marriage is supposed to be based on trust. You don't expect that the person you're engaged to would try to trick you the way a used car salesman would. Understandably he needs to protect his assets, but I do not agree with the way he went about doing it. Not that her behavior was stellar either, crying her way out of a pre-nup negotiation and then telling the court that she was too dim-witted to understand it. If he has so little trust in and respect for his fiancee, then maybe the marriage was a bad idea. On the other hand, the article says she was already pregnant. That does make a difference and I'm guessing is the reason he married her. Perhaps he was worried that she would clean him out for child support if he didn't marry her?

How did he trick her? Its a contract and she should have read it.

**Marx** · 27th-August-2006

Quote from myce

If he has so little trust in and respect for his fiancee, then maybe the marriage was a bad idea. On the other hand, the article says she was already pregnant. That does make a difference and I'm guessing is the reason he married her. Perhaps he was worried that she would clean him out for child support if he didn't marry her?

The problem is though, what he has done is likely based on that nasty thing called experience. I know there are certain things I can't trust certain people to do, equally there are people who know they can't trust me in some manner to do something the way they'd like it done. etc.
In short, if he's been bitten - especially by women he DID trust, can you blame him for taking precautions? I'm not saying he's wonderful for the manner in which he did this, but neither is he evil. It wasn't trickery, sly perhaps, but not trickery. I know if I have been bitten in a certain way, I stand clear of the 'type' of person whom I suspect will bite me in the future, or become extraordinarily cautious... paranoid? Perhaps.
Sometimes, you cannot afford to trust. I've learned that and I suspect in some form or another, so too have you.