amaysngrace Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 That's part of the reason to get a prenup, to ensure for less property split, when the spouse shouldn't be entitled to it. Btw, my jurisdiction is like the other states, who have to share. It's not pretty. The good part, is that prenups are enforceable by law in Canada and will not be overturned, unless there's fraud, etc. I guess it does matter where you live. I wonder how many people fight their pre-nups when they get divorced? It seems a bit unfair for them to fight something that they've previously signed. I wouldn't give them anything if I was a judge. I bet those divorces get really ugly. You're lucky you live where you live. You don't have to deal with that because the pre-nup can't be fought. Me too I guess.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 Heres another side to the argument. My H and I had no large assets when we got married, and we had a joint bank account that we had both been paying into, which we used as a deposit on our house. Our house and my company are not owned by either me or my H- they are owned by our family trust that we set up after we got married. There are tax benefits to this, and also the house is safe if I ever get sued, which in my profession can happen occasionally. Both my H and I are beneficiaries of the trust as are any children we have. We have a third trustee, a solicitor, as you can't have only two. To dissolve it, all three trustees have to agree on the terms. So in the event of a split, its either 50/50, or held in trust for our children. So its kind of a post-nuptial agreement. My fathers trust has specifically stated that any income or inheritance I receive from that is mine and no spouse has any claim on it. (unless I choose to gift it or use it for joint purposes I guess) It works for us. If you're happy with your arrangement, then it's all good! My only cautionary, since I know diddly-do about New Zealand law, is wondering if the terms and conditions of the trust are binding, in that they trump spousal and inheritance rights. Conceptually, if something happens to you, wouldn't you want the monies to be held in trust for your children? As you know, I'm not a lawyer.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I guess it does matter where you live. I wonder how many people fight their pre-nups when they get divorced? It seems a bit unfair for them to fight something that they've previously signed. I wouldn't give them anything if I was a judge. I bet those divorces get really ugly. You're lucky you live where you live. You don't have to deal with that because the pre-nup can't be fought. Me too I guess.Prenups can be fought, just like anything else, but good luck winning!
sb129 Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 My only cautionary, since I know diddly-do about New Zealand law, is wondering if the terms and conditions of the trust are binding, in that they trump spousal and inheritance rights. Conceptually, if something happens to you, wouldn't you want the monies to be held in trust for your children? Yes, they do, we checked that out. And if something happens to me, any of my inheritance is to be held in trust for my children- they are also beneficiaries of my fathers trust, so that loophole is covered too.
Art_Critic Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 If you bought the home before the marriage and title is in your own name in fee simple, it doesn't somehow magically "become joint" unless you actually put him on the title. Premarital assets that are not comingled during the marriage remain your separate property, and the anti-comingling requirement is true whether or not you have a prenup. Actually what does become marital property is the equity gained from the time of the marriage's inception and any inflated equity also becomes a marital asset and that is because marital money is used to make the house payment and because the gain in inflated equity is also a marital asset. What does remain a non marital asset is the equity before marriage unless you provide for this thru a prenup. I dealt with this issue in my first marriage... If no prenup exists then and if a divorce was to happen the one party would have buy the marital portion from the other party or compesate in other ways for the worth of the marital portion.
Els Posted May 26, 2009 Posted May 26, 2009 I would. It shouldn't be offensive, just like both parties getting checked for STDs before having unprotected sex.
Recommended Posts