mexican matchmakers

[mck]

... in response to The truth is..............., posted by Jebster on Mar 24, 2002

that is exactly what I meant to say. You put the words right in my mouth. There are sharks everywhere, even in Guadalajara. If you speak Spanish good enough and can spot the personalities well enough, you will not get eaten alive. But yes the chance of a shark attack increases 10 fold in Colombia as opposed to Mexico. If you go to Colombia, I am sure the women are beautiful and nice and sweet and everything else but if you don't speak spanish well and do not understand there personality, you could be in for a nasty surprise one or two years into the marriage. For example, I heard about a guy who went to Colombia and married a 25 year old and he was about 50. He was married to her for 2 years and they had 2 kids. After the second year of marriage she said she had to discover herself. She divorced him, got half of everything and also got child support on top of it. The guy claims that they are still friends and all this other stuff, but in the mean time she living high on the hog. I would of loved to of gone down to Colombia but if I had to bring in a girl on a K1 I would definitely of had an iron clad prenup.

[Patrick]

... in response to Re: The truth is..............., posted by mck on Mar 24, 2002

You better talk with a family attorney in your state.  I think you've got some (common) misconceptions about pre-nups.  I don't know where you live, but here in California, a pre-nup can not protect you from either alimony or child support.

As for your posessions, you're already protected as far as what you have going into the marriage.  As long as you document what you have going in and don't intermingle post marriage assets with pre-marriage assets, you should walk away with what you came in with.  Passive accumulation (i.e. gain in value on your assets) is half hers, but the value at the start of the marriage should be your's.  At least that's how I was told it worked here in California about 5 years ago when I checked.

What I was told (by three different attornies) is that pre-nups are most useful for protecting heirs who could lose their share in your estate in the event that you die during a marriage, and for protecting a business if you own, or are a part owner of one.  You can also protect your income during the marriage, in other words, what you earn in the marriage is your's and your's alone, but that seemed hardly fair to me since you're suppose to be a team when you're married.

Pre-nups can also be challenged in court, and are sometimes overturned.

I'm always a bit amazed at the level of ignorance regarding pre-nup agreements by most posters.  I think most are making assertions without ever having consuled a lawyer.  Anyone interested in one really needs to find out what the laws are in their particular state and not rely on information on any message board for getting the facts on them.

Be as sure as you can going in that you both are in it for the right reasons, and don't count on a pre-nup to protect you from bad decisions.  If you find that after getting the real facts from someone knowledgable (i.e. a lawyer in your area) that a pre-nup can indeed offer you some protection, then by all means, get one.   But I suspect that most guys will find that they aren't worth the effort, expense, and possible damage to your relationship for what they offer to the average man.

You need the facts to make an informed decision, and to get them you'll have to talk to a family law specialist in your state.  I would strongly urge anyone interested in one to get the facts from a lawyer BEFORE you bring the subject up with your girlfriend/fiancee.

[El Diablo]

... in response to Iron clad prenup???, posted by Patrick on Mar 26, 2002

Your comment about passive accumulation brings up something that has been fuzzy for me in my thinking about the implications of living in a community property state like California.   For instance, let's say I work most my adult life and accumulate through earned income a portfolio of 3000 shares in my own company's stock.  Then as luck would have it, my 22nd trip to Colombia finds me getting married albeit it at a ripe old age of 55.  At the time of my wedding the value of my 3000 shares of stock is $300,000 or $100 per share.  Now against the better advice of this board I marry an 18  year old honey and on the two year anniversary of her entry into the United States, she files for divorce.  

From the date of marriage to the date of divorce, I never touch my brokerage account with my 3000 shares of stock.  However during the two year period the stock triples and the $300,000 is now worth $900,000.  Are you suggesting that she is entitled to 50% of the gain ($300,000) despite the fact that the entire 3000 shares were purchased before the marriage?

I was somehow under the impression that these passive gains that occurred on assets earned prior to the marriage would not be included in the settlement provided of course that no co-mingling had occured.  

El Diablo

[Patrick]

... in response to Passive Accumulation, posted by El Diablo on Mar 26, 2002

I'm almost certain that's what I was told by the lawyers.  You should contact one.

[El Diablo]

... in response to That's what I believe, posted by Patrick on Mar 27, 2002


Patrick,

I did a little digging on the internet and found the California Family code online.  I'm not a lawyer but it looks to me like the earnings or appreciation of property bought prior to the marriage are not considered community property.  Here's the most relevant section.

770.  (a) Separate property of a married person includes all of the
following:
  (1) All property owned by the person before marriage.
  (2) All property acquired by the person after marriage by gift,
bequest, devise, or descent.
  (3) The rents, issues, and profits of the property described in
this section.
  (b) A married person may, without the consent of the person's
spouse, convey the person's separate property.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=fam&codebody=&hits=20

El Diablo

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: The truth is..............., posted by mck on Mar 24, 2002

Well, I ain't never been "sharked" by a Colombian nor a Mexican, although I have had my heart broken by one woman from each of the two countries. On the other hand, I'm STILL paying child support to that Costa Rican....go figure.

Lots of guys yell "SHARK! SHARK!" when in reality the relationship failed for reasons that have nothing to do with the lady "hustling" money or "selling" herself for a visa--his fault, her fault, "it just worked out that way", whatever reason.

Reguarding my previous post, like the others who cuationed you, I just question if you've thought it through after knowing her only 5 days, particulary when the lady has already told you up front that HER motive is to get a JOB, that's all. And no, I don't think that you are a troll.

[Hoda]

... in response to Re: Re: The truth is..............., posted by Michael B on Mar 24, 2002


makes it sounds a little suspect to me. I didn't read anything about "love" coming from her. Anyways, best of luck to ya, mck!