My experience with this

[Richard]

... in response to Re: Re: Agree 100% with you.. Many RW's, posted by JR on May 2, 2002

In your experience, does the guy seem to come out better than if he had not had a prenup?

[JR]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Agree 100% with you.. Many R..., posted by Richard on May 2, 2002

First I want to say that I do believe in a pre-nups and think that they are necessary. I understand there are many different situations, though: IE : children, businesses etc.

When an American man brings over a RW who has basically nothing, there is always a risk involved. We have to hope for true love, but can not be naive to the fact that the divorce between AM/RW is also high.

To answer your question: I would like to say yes. However in most cases the judge always seems side with the woman.

In my case: I think {or want to think} it did help, BUT was nothing like I had thought it should be OR had planned on it being. Every case will be different of course.

[Richard]

... in response to I'm going to get one..., posted by MarkInTx on May 2, 2002

there is still property to distribute. Sometimes "equitable distribution" isn't 50-50 it is 60-40 or 80-20 in favor of the woman.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to In Texas, there may be no alimony, but ...., posted by Richard on May 2, 2002

Which is why I'm getting a pre-nup signed.

I gave my first wife the house in the divorce. I did this in order to secure custody of my daughter. (And I'd do it again...)

I moved into the house of my second wife when we got married. I made the house payments while I was there, but of course when we divorced (her decision, not mine) I left and she still had her house.

So, I am starting over. All of the house payments I made for 12 years went into someone else's house. (I might as well have been renting...)

I'm getting a new house now. There is NO way that ANYONE is going to get it except for my daughter.

I just can't accept anything else. I feel like I have to do this for her. It has nothing to do with Love. I loved completely and utterly, and never ever had a thought for a divorce when I married.

But it takes two to get married... and (I have learned) it takes two to stay married.

Add the whole "Green Card runner" scenario into the mix... and I'm not saying "I do" until she tells me "I won't (take your house off of you...)

That may not be romantic... but It is reality...

[squirecam]

... in response to In Texas, there may be no alimony, but ...., posted by Richard on May 2, 2002

60/40? 80/20??

To me thats bs.

The reason "community property" was invented in the first place was to eliminate the "(in)equitable divisions" and just split things acquired during marriage at 50/50, rather than awarding "your" property to your ex. You are right, if you may get stuck with 80/20, you DO need a prenup.

Squirecam

[squirecam]

... in response to I'm going to get one..., posted by MarkInTx on May 2, 2002

Mark,

Correct me if I am wrong, but texas is a community property state, right?

The community property laws would split all assets acquired after marriage 50/50. Most people would consider that "fair" already.

What kind of prenup are you expecting to get? I dont know Texas law, but Im willing to bet that a prenup that says all the community property is yours and she gets the nearest street corner has little chance of being upheld in court.

It's the alimony that would worry me. But apparently you dont have to wory about that.

Squirecam

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: I'm going to get one..., posted by squirecam on May 2, 2002


But there are some things which would concern me...

Child support for her child, for instance. Community property split after marriage is fine... except if she also gets house equity.

In other words, if I own my house when I marry.. and we are together five years... can she try to get 5 years worth of house equity?

And, don't forget... financially, it's not excatly an equal marriage. If I bring someone over, and pay her way, and she doesn't work. And she leaves in two years... what IS she entitled to, after all?

Mind you, I don't EXPECT this to happen. I would never marry a woman who I THOUGHT this would happen with.

But I thought my last marriage was forever, too, and she left after three years. There is no guaranty of anything in life.

If someone leaves after three years... what do you think is FAIR?

I want that settled ahead of time.

As for what would be unheld in a court of law... anything can be upheld. Any contract between two people should be legally binding.

I'm sure this all sounds very callous to everyone, and I will get flamed for "planning for failure" but in my experience, if you don't plan... you pay...

[squirecam]

... in response to I'm not sure yet, posted by MarkInTx on May 2, 2002

"I'm sure this all sounds very callous to everyone, and I will get flamed for "planning for failure" but in my experience, if you don't plan... you pay..."

You dont sound callous to me. You sound smart, for recognizing the risks.

"Child support for her child, for instance."

Child support (of your child) is a given.

"Community property split after marriage is fine... except if she also gets house equity."

Yeah, normally she would. Community property is your income, and items purchased with that income. Just like if you bought a car, you bought "equity".

Note that if you own a home for 5 years before she moves in, that 5 years of equity is yours, not the "community".

"And, don't forget... financially, it's not exactly an equal marriage. If I bring someone over, and pay her way, and she doesn't work."

What you may get is a tax write off for moving expenses. I dont know, im not an accountant. But its the same status as marrying an AW who does not work. Her "homemaking" is her community contribution.

"And she leaves in two years... what IS she entitled to, after all?"

In NV, w/o a prenup, 50% of all post marriage assets plus alimony and child support. Very painful I'd say.

But you know this ahead of time... So play the "game"

1) Get a prenup - in russian and english

2) Be Fair - that probably means she gets the 50%. I would at least prenup out any alimony.

3) Increase her earning potential. Here's what I mean.

California CP laws state that community property interests can be used in getting an education. This situation occurred when doctors and lawyers had their spouses put them through school, then divorce them once they graduated, leaving the spouse sol. California allows the community to recover the education costs spent.

RW spouse comes to USA. Spouse finishes school (2 years) and gets green card. She then files for divorce.

In divorce proceedings, argue that "the community" put "her" through school, and thus "you" are entitled to either some of "her" earnings post divorce (palimony) or to reimbursement of the education costs. See, it does pay to educate your spouse...    At least, its a barganing tool.

Squirecam

[Patrick]

... in response to Re: I'm not sure yet, posted by squirecam on May 2, 2002

You better talk with a family law attorney before you start making plans for your prenup.  I checked into this with three lawyers before I got married (in Calif).  Prenuptual agreements can not protect you from alimony in California unless the law has changed in the last 5 years.

What I found after talking with three attornies is that my pre-marriage assets were mine in the event of a divorce.  Any accumulated assets after the marriage are community property.  That would include passive accumulation (i.e. appreciation of your pre-existing investments).  You can protect your income from her (i.e. what you earn during the marriage is your's and your's only).  That didn't seem fair to me.

After talking with these three lawyers, I was advised to simply document my net worth prior to marriage and save the documents.  I was satisfied with half of everything earned or accumulated during the marriage being hers.

There seems to be a lot of ignorance about what prenups can actually do and almost all the guys posting here are simply expressing a prenup wish list.  Anyone interested in one of these aggrements needs to talk with a family law attorny in their area to get the real facts.

[BubbaGump]

... in response to Prenup out any alimony?, posted by Patrick on May 2, 2002

I always wondered about passive accumulation of assets.  A big problem in a wildly fluctuation stock market is that the assets are all over the place and what will her lawyer say if you're a bad invester and have less money after 3 years.  I save like crazy but I'm getting nowhere right now.  I wonder what she would say if I said "Hey, I got less money now than before we got married, so I need you to pay me 10K to divorce me."

[squirecam]

... in response to Prenup out any alimony?, posted by Patrick on May 2, 2002

"You better talk with a family law attorney before you start making plans for your prenup."

I'd agree here.

"Prenuptual agreements can not protect you from alimony in California unless the law has changed in the last 5 years."

I was referring to NV, not Calif or Texas law. Its too bad though, for I think prenups should be able to exclude alimony. Lucky that they can in vegas.

"Any accumulated assets after the marriage are community property. That would include passive accumulation (i.e. appreciation of your pre-existing investments)."

This would shock me, and is unfair. If you have $20,000 locked away in a cd, and then you marry and divorce, that $20,000 plus interest, as long as it is not co-mingled with community funds, should be yours.

"You can protect your income from her (i.e. what you earn during the marriage is your's and your's only)."

This seems a problem. Which would you rather have, following a divorce: splitting of 50% of assets acquired during marriage, or 5+ years of alimony payments. If you cannot stop alimony in CA, the less she gets in your combined assets, the more she will get in alimony. Seems to me that either way you get screwed. I'd rather get screwed up front, with a figure that is easy to calculate (50%) than write a check every month for 5 years, in a sum that some judge thinks is "fair".

Squirecam

[Richard]

... in response to Re: Prenup out any alimony?, posted by squirecam on May 2, 2002

""Any accumulated assets after the marriage are community property. That would include passive accumulation (i.e. appreciation of your pre-existing investments).""

"This would shock me, and is unfair. If you have $20,000 locked away in a cd, and then you marry and divorce, that $20,000 plus interest, as long as it is not co-mingled with community funds, should be yours."

I believe that this is fairly standard.  At least this is how its been explained to me before by lawyers practicing in 2 different states (Pennsylvania, New York)

I was also given the same advice Patrick was to document what you had going in.  I mailed myself a copy of the documentation as the postmark on the envelope established when the documentation was drawn up.  

[squirecam]

... in response to Re: Re: Prenup out any alimony?, posted by Richard on May 3, 2002

Then I would say your state legislature is screwing you. In NV, if your stock (bought before marriage) goes up, the increased value is yours. Separate property that is not co-mingled remains separate property.

Again, check your state and see a good family law atty.

[squirecam]

... in response to Re: One Question though, posted by Richard on May 1, 2002

Prenups are determined by state, so you have to know the laws in your state.

For instance, in NV, you can pre-nup out alimony (but not child support)

Couple of general rules though:

1) make sure she has her own atty (and YOU pay for it)

2) make sure she reads copy in russian, not english

3) Dont spring pre-nup on eve of wedding - HUGE no no (duress)

4) Make it fair - "she gets zero" is less likely to be upheld by a judge

Squirecam

P.S. go to amazon.com, there is a book, something like "prenups for lovers" - a "romantic" way to bring up the subject...

[Richard]

... in response to Re: Re: One Question though, posted by squirecam on May 1, 2002

That's the basics of Prenups you hear everywhere - whether the woman be American or Otherwise.  I have read / heard that umpteen times.

What I'd be interested in hear is how many of the married or nearly married have a prenup and how those who do went about discussing it.

With rare exceptions, no one seems to have stepped forward and admitted to having a prenup.  I *assume* this means very few people have them. Maybe people have other mechanisms to ensure that their assets go where they would like them too.  

I am not looking for legal advise here - I have access to that elsewhere that can be customised to my situation.