Have any of you heard of this?

[Veracity]

Guys,

A dear friend of mine is seriously considering marrying a woman from Moldova. (The woman has an eleven-year-old daughter)
He's been looking to a lawyer friend of ours for advice on the matter. The lawyer friend wrote some things in an email that has sort of opened my eyes.

I used to think "foreign bride + a prenuptial agreement = success" but I have since found out that a prenuptial agreement cannot protect you in the ways that I thought it could.   

I'm in the airline industry. Over the years, I've heard stories about pilots who married foreign women but their wives stayed overseas. The Fedex pilots had wives in the PI and the American Airlines pilots had wives in South America. Have you guys ever heard of this?

I always wondered why these guys did this, but after reading my lawyer friend's email, I think I understand why. They love their women, they marry them, they see them often, but they are not bound by US divorce laws.

These airline guys are all legally married, but they're not married in the US....they're married in their wives' countries.

Frankly, I'm thinking more about it than I used to.

[Ray]

It's not where you are married that counts, but where you get divorced.

We have been telling our readers here for years that pre-nups mean very little if anything.

Ray

[Woody]

It's not where you are married that counts, but where you get divorced.

We have been telling our readers here for years that pre-nups mean very little if anything.

Yup. I know that I am exposing myself to a big risk by looking at marriage and importing, but that risk is necessary considering what I want and where. If I get screwed in this endeavor then so be it, not sure if I would be willing to repeat if I lost my shirt the first time around. Then again, I am not planning on there being a second time around.

[euforia51]

It's not where you are married that counts, but where you get divorced.

Is there a good explanation of this somewhere here? It's the first I've thought about it because like Woody says, I'm not planning on a second time around.

[robert angel]

Some other guys should probably weigh in here because I don't have a lot of experience here, but I 'think' that no matter where you marry her, whether it's Botswana, Manila, Mongolia, etc--once you bring her ONTO US soil, if she decides she wants to divorce you while she's HERE, (that trip to Disneyworld could be mighty expensive) you're gonna go through pretty much the same wringer you would,as if she came from, say Davenport Iowa--but maybe you'll pay even more--a lot more, if she gets a lawyer who bills for a lot of hours as he does 'international research', pays for translators, etc. You're paying sooner or later, for her room and keep, while the case proceeds, and quite possibly after as well.

I paid about $8000 for a divorce to a fellow American citizen, and that was settled in the first day of mediation--no long drawn out ordeal, no jury.

Anyway you look at it--if you marry her abroad, then ever bring her here and she decides to 'do a number on you', I bet you're going to be royally screwed.

Things can get pretty slippery for people who think they're really slick.

There's always a faster pussycat and a better mousetrap out there....

[william3rd]

full faith & credit. . . . . a valid marriage performed anywhere is cinsidered to be a valid marriage here.

[Jeff S]

Different states have different laws. Here in California, it's a community property state. You're entitled to your separate property (everything you owned before the marriage) so long as you keep it separate property, and she's entitled to half of the marital assets. Nothing unfair about that, if you two are truly entering into a partnership.

[ignorante]

I may not be a lawyer in your state (depends upon your state), but she can divorce you here, even if she lives in Cambodia.  Most states require only that one person live in that state to have jurisdiction over a divorce action.

[robert angel]

And don't forget, in almost all states, pre nups aren't worth spit. They may actually work against  you, besides costing you $$$. I had two lawyers actually talk me OUT of having one done up.

[CeeTeeEnn]

Very interesting post. I am surprised to read that prenups aren't worth jack in almost all US states; i was led to believe that the opposite was true.

By way of contrast, here in the UK prenups were shunned by the legal system for years despite being adopted in most of continental Europe. However, owing to the combination of a few well-publicised cases where ex-husbands tried to fleece their more well-off ex-wives in the divorce courts (it would have to be that way round!) plus the parlous state of the state finances (here most divorce case contestants are eligible to receive state-sponsored legal aid) has prompted the current government to issue legal guidelines to Judges prompting them to respect prenups wherever possible. Ironically, pro-family and pro-marriage campaigners have welcomed these guidelines in the belief that they will help arrest the declining institution of marriage here, as now more men will consider getting married with a prenup attached whereas before they wouldn't have wanted to risk getting screwed in the divorce courts! Interesting times we live in; let's see what happens.

However, i'm also intrigued by William's comments that a marriage performed anywhere is considered valid in the US. Is that really the case? That is not so over here - for example, a gay marriage (recognised as a full bona fine marriage in certain countries and US states) is still not recognised as a marriage per se under UK law, and the same applies to child marriages (where one of the partners was under 16 at the time of marriage) or polygamous marriages (as applied to the 2nd, 3rd etc. spouses.) I'd be interested to see if this is the case in all US states, or if state legislatures differ according to the degree by which they recognise marriages sanctioned abroad.

[ignorante]

Very interesting post. I am surprised to read that prenups aren't worth jack in almost all US states; i was led to believe that the opposite was true.

Well, that is not really true.  It will be valid if it meets the requirements of your state, and in just about every state, it cannot leave her dependent upon government programs.  I do not think you can waive child support in any state, either.  So there are things that are permitted and not permitted, and ways to go about it.  This is not something I would do without using a lawyer, actually, two of them.  Get her a lawyer (her own) before she signs, so there is no question about understanding it and freely and voluntarily entering it.

But if you think you can have a woman sign a piece of paper and then throw her away after 20 years for a younger model, and she gets nothing, well, it does not work that way.

Frankly, you have to have some pretty significant assets before entering into the marriage to even make this a worthwhile endeavor.

[ignorante]

However, i'm also intrigued by William's comments that a marriage performed anywhere is considered valid in the US. Is that really the case?

http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/marriage/marriage_589.html

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/marriageabroad.htm

[william3rd]

Well, that is not really true.  It will be valid if it meets the requirements of your state, and in just about every state, it cannot leave her dependent upon government programs.  I do not think you can waive child support in any state, either.  So there are things that are permitted and not permitted, and ways to go about it.  This is not something I would do without using a lawyer, actually, two of them.  Get her a lawyer (her own) before she signs, so there is no question about understanding it and freely and voluntarily entering it.

But if you think you can have a woman sign a piece of paper and then throw her away after 20 years for a younger model, and she gets nothing, well, it does not work that way.

Frankly, you have to have some pretty significant assets before entering into the marriage to even make this a worthwhile endeavor.

In addition, regardless of what your prenup says, the I864 affidavit of support has been used successfully to "trump" a prenup as it applies to support obligations.

The last major prenup case in CA that I read stated that an otherwise valid prenup can be set aside given certain circumstances.

[ignorante]

last major prenup case in CA that I read

  Yeah, just to be clear and add a little to what William3rd posted, there are going to be similarities in every state, but the specifics will be different in each state, so this is not something you want to try and do on your own without an attorney who has not only done these but perhaps survived some challenges to them as well.

[ignorante]

Some more reading for those interested.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/128454-prenuptial-agreement-and-the-i-864-affidavit-of-support/

[Bob_S]

I used to think "foreign bride + a prenuptial agreement = success"

Eh?  Why would you be thinkin' that?  Our laws are not set up for guys to be able to screw over poor ignorant foreign peasant girls.  Our laws are set up to be anti-male.  Period.  No matter what else, assume that and you'll be safe.  So if you want a better formula, try this:
A Good^* foreign bride + you being a good husband = success.
* = good wife material, not just some hottie trophy bride

I'm in the airline industry. Over the years, I've heard stories about pilots who married foreign women but their wives stayed overseas. The Fedex pilots had wives in the PI and the American Airlines pilots had wives in South America. Have you guys ever heard of this?
I always wondered why these guys did this, but after reading my lawyer friend's email, I think I understand why. They love their women, they marry them, they see them often, but they are not bound by US divorce laws.

Not necessarily.  The wife can sue for divorce in the state of residence of the husband.  There are many other reasons for having an arrangement of the wife remaining overseas.  For example:
1.  He loves her but does not trust her to not become Americanized.
2.  Because they are pilots, the wives are left at home alone a lot, so the husband wants the wives near their families for support and company.
3.  Cost of living/quality of life.  The husband can simply provide a better life for his family in a foreign country than he could in the U.S. on his salary.

These airline guys are all legally married, but they're not married in the US....they're married in their wives' countries.

Wrong-o.  Legally married overseas is legally married here.  I married my wife overseas as did Jeff S., and just recently piglett among others here.  Our marriages were legal there and are recognized as such here by all government levels and private organizations that matter (i.e. banks and mortgage lenders).

[Veracity]

Bob S,

Yes, I thought of the other reasons for doing it too. Americanization being the first....but I also saw it as a way to protect assets....whether it's true or not.

[Woody]

Bob S,

Yes, I thought of the other reasons for doing it too. Americanization being the first....but I also saw it as a way to protect assets....whether it's true or not.

It can protect assets, as long as she remains ignorant of US law. Then again, I wouldnt want to have children with a woman that could be so easily duped.

[jm21-2]

I would assume in these cases that the husband has the vast majority of the income and wealth. In that case it really matters where his residence is, not the wife's residence.

Like Woody said, it would depend basically on how dumb she was. Also whether she had the funds to pursue a divorce in the US. Of course, eventually if they separated the guy would probably want a divorce and he'd probably have to do it on her terms. Since she had never resided in the US he would typically need her agreement to divide up property.

[Ray]

Like Woody said, it would depend basically on how dumb she was. Also whether she had the funds to pursue a divorce in the US.

Not in California!

She only has to be smart enough to hire a divorce lawyer. The lawyer will petition the court for all of her legal fees to be paid by the husband since she has no significant income or assets. 9 times out of 10, the husband in this case would be ordered to pay both his and his wife's legal costs.

William can correct me if I'm wrong... 

Ray

[Bob_S]

Yes, I thought of the other reasons for doing it too. Americanization being the first....but I also saw it as a way to protect assets....whether it's true or not.

One of the best ways to protect yourself is to live in a community property state.  Then, don't make any major purchases after you are married (except an extra car if she needs it) until you know absolutely you can trust her with your life and wealth.  If you are renting, keep renting.  I know it can be our instinct to be a good provider and immediately go out and buy a house as soon as you get a wife, but stuff that instinct for a while.  If you buy a house while you are married, it will be half hers.  Don't buy a business or make any investments.  Wait until you know your relationship is sound.  If you have significant assets in investments you want to protect for any pre-existing kids, put it in a trust.  If you do it right, the trust should be separate from community property.  Talk with a lawyer about it, but an established family trust made before you get married may be better protection than a pre-nup.

[jm21-2]

Not in California!

She only has to be smart enough to hire a divorce lawyer. The lawyer will petition the court for all of her legal fees to be paid by the husband since she has no significant income or assets. 9 times out of 10, the husband in this case would be ordered to pay both his and his wife's legal costs.

William can correct me if I'm wrong... 

Ray

You could get a judgment for fees here in WA, but a judgment is not usually enough to entice a divorce attorney to take on the case. Takes a long time and quite a bit of effort to get paid. Especially after a divorce where the guy's paycheck is already being garnished for child support, spousal support, debt from the marriage, etc. Maybe it's easier to collect judgments in CA.

[william3rd]

Not in California!
She only has to be smart enough to hire a divorce lawyer. The lawyer will petition the court for all of her legal fees to be paid by the husband since she has no significant income or assets. 9 times out of 10, the husband in this case would be ordered to pay both his and his wife's legal costs.
William can correct me if I'm wrong... 

Ray

depends on your income in part. Substantial disparity in income can result in a "leveling of the playing field" so that the parties have equal access. Its going to get worse next year due to some law changes. However, if you get caught hiding crap or playing games or get nailed for DV, you will be paying for all of  her attorney fees.

Sometimes the good guys can win out. . .

My fav was a russian case about 12 years ago. Short engagement, fiancee visa(it took about a month or so back then).  Huge wedding, 5 star hotel reception for over 300, long romantic honeymoon. Wife was conniving with her mother (who was flown from Russia for the big event) from the first day. Told him she didnt love him at any time during the courtship.. Wanted "half" of everything. Wife found a russian attorney licensed in CA. Wanted big support. Threatened the husband on how much he was going to lose. Things were looking grim. But wait!!! Ohhh too bad, so sad.

Everything was held in a trust set up by the parents. The trustee was paid 3000 per month in salary and owned absolutely nothing. He got to use everything. Boo hoo hoo- no support, no attorney fees, annulment based on fraud and then back to mother russia.

Most of the GCGs are smarter than that one.