Author New Again Posted November 29, 2009 Author Posted November 29, 2009 That's pretty much spot on. I suggest you discuss your situation with a family lawyer. I also don't understand how you plan to be a stay at home mom and use the bulk of your income to pay off his mortgages. That's a contraction in terms, as being a stay at home mom implies having no income. Well, for one thing, I wouldn't be popping out a kid the second we were married. Therefore, I would be working until that point, which could be several years.
Ody Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Listen Unless the guy is genuinely wealthy I would not sign a pre nup as a girl And Im a guy Bare minimum, and it isnt thta much nowadays, it would have to be a couple of million. Even that seems low The thing is it's not just about protecting assets, it's also about making the divorce not one of those messy, stressful debacles, or worse one of those family destroying wars if there are kids. I know this couple, actually a bit of a gender reversal, she makes way more money than him, but it's def not a couple of million. They are getting a divorce after less than a year, basically this douchebag cheated with some other woman and then left, moved back in with his parents. He was basically mooching off her for years when they were engaged, really they should have never gotten married. But anyway, of course you cant see that when you're in love so she went ahead with it, and sure enough 10 months later their lawyers are wrangling toe to toe. Just seems a pre-nup would have avoided this nonsense, and she should have been foresighted enough to at least do that, given the income disparity. I think that for her, the hassle is probably almost as bad as losing some money. Now that I think about it, in a way a prenup would be more important if you have less than a couple mil. Basically, if you are rich and get hosed in a divorce it means downgrading your Maserati to a Benz. I have no sympathy. But in the middle class or even upper middle class range, it can mean losing your house, etc. Sure there's the added golddigger danger I suppose, but eh, I find it hard to have more sympathy for a rich guy's prenup than otherwise.
threebyfate Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 When your assets like property are still mortgaged, a prenup will do you diddly-do, particularly if appreciation of the property value comes after you get married, taking into consideration the current state of real estate. Sounds to me like he needs to understand how prenups, marital assets and divorce laws work...
Author New Again Posted November 29, 2009 Author Posted November 29, 2009 When your assets like property are still mortgaged, a prenup will do you diddly-do, particularly if appreciation of the property value comes after you get married, taking into consideration the current state of real estate. Sounds to me like he needs to understand how prenups, marital assets and divorce laws work... Those were the things I was questioning, because that didn't make sense to me. I also know nothing about prenups, other than everyone wants them these days. I'm not sure how serious he was/is, but I think he was considering setting them up as corporation or something like that, that I could choose to invest in if I wanted. Protecting them was something he was thinking about, but I do think he said it without having put much or any thought into it beforehand. It definitely got me thinking though.
Sam Spade Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 1st, I wouldn' marry anybody without a prenup, and that's that. 2nd, prenups don't need to be adversarial (they are only claimed to be such by women ). A prenup merely articulates what will be considered separate and marital property, and in the event of a divorce who gets what. So, nobody in their right mind will insist on a prenup that says that the stay at home mom gets nothing . However, prenup is particularly important in the case of stay at home moms, since in the absence of one he gets stripped off half his wealth by default. I bet he simply wants to write in some reasonable provisions in (e.g. the stay at home mom gets X% and some bucks per month until she finds a job etc.) rather than leave it to the courts to roast him.
Sam Spade Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Women who are stay at home moms generally get totally screwed in the event of a divorce. For example, when the judge is determining alimony, he will determine what the mother should be making once she returns to the work force - but these numbers are notoriously inaccurate, because the judge doesn't take into consideration how long it will take a mother who hasn't been working to get a job; the fact that she hasn't been working for however many years means she wasn't earning raises and pay increases, so the judge's numbers will be inflated and she will be earning less AND not receiving enough alimony. That's kind of a worst case scenario. But being a stay at home mom has a lot to do with it. The years that one is a stay at home money and not earning a paycheck is also several years of not having one's own savings, etc. A stay at home mom is entirely reliant, financially, on her husband. Here's a simple solution - DON'T be a stay at home mom. It is unnecesary, and is nothing but a luxury. Take a year off work while the baby is young, then get back to work and you've got no problems.
threebyfate Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Those were the things I was questioning, because that didn't make sense to me. I also know nothing about prenups, other than everyone wants them these days. I'm not sure how serious he was/is, but I think he was considering setting them up as corporation or something like that, that I could choose to invest in if I wanted. Protecting them was something he was thinking about, but I do think he said it without having put much or any thought into it beforehand. It definitely got me thinking though.Reliant on jurisdiction, there are ways to protect your assets under a corporate umbrella. But...good luck with this, if he wants you to be a SAHM. Proving that you've contributed nothing to the business will be difficult, since you'll be taking care of the children, hence freeing up his time from domestic duties, to focus on his "business".
Author New Again Posted November 29, 2009 Author Posted November 29, 2009 Here's a simple solution - DON'T be a stay at home mom. It is unnecesary, and is nothing but a luxury. Take a year off work while the baby is young, then get back to work and you've got no problems. You consider it to be unnecessary, and you consider it to be nothing but a luxury. This thread is not about individuals' values, beliefs and preferences in regards to child rearing.
CLC2008 Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Don't get side bar'd OP... Perhaps the prenup can be as such: all assets that are combined will be split based on the differential of your income should you divorce. For example, if your boyfriend makes three times as much as you, and if you were to divorce, he is entitled to 75% and you are entitled to 25% of those assets (I'm not sure if the math is right but that's the general idea). Alimony/Child Support fills in the gap for the time you are unemployed while being a stay at home wife/mother. The wills, both of you should have, especially if/when you have children.
jerseyboy Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 The thing is it's not just about protecting assets, it's also about making the divorce not one of those messy, stressful debacles, or worse one of those family destroying wars if there are kids. I know this couple, actually a bit of a gender reversal, she makes way more money than him, but it's def not a couple of million. They are getting a divorce after less than a year, basically this douchebag cheated with some other woman and then left, moved back in with his parents. He was basically mooching off her for years when they were engaged, really they should have never gotten married. But anyway, of course you cant see that when you're in love so she went ahead with it, and sure enough 10 months later their lawyers are wrangling toe to toe. Just seems a pre-nup would have avoided this nonsense, and she should have been foresighted enough to at least do that, given the income disparity. I think that for her, the hassle is probably almost as bad as losing some money. Now that I think about it, in a way a prenup would be more important if you have less than a couple mil. Basically, if you are rich and get hosed in a divorce it means downgrading your Maserati to a Benz. I have no sympathy. But in the middle class or even upper middle class range, it can mean losing your house, etc. Sure there's the added golddigger danger I suppose, but eh, I find it hard to have more sympathy for a rich guy's prenup than otherwise. Substantial assets cause different problems. Is there a business involved for example. Ancillary obligations. Im not saying its a stupid idea. Although I cant imagine the process involved. You do this, I do this, you get that. It would take a couple of real mercenary types to do it properly. I couldnt do it., Wouldnt even want to do it. Even the idea of trying to put a dollar figure on her just seems disgusting and contrary to anything Im actually feeling.
threebyfate Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Reliant on jurisdiction, there are ways to protect your assets under a corporate umbrella. But...good luck with this, if he wants you to be a SAHM. Proving that you've contributed nothing to the business will be difficult, since you'll be taking care of the children, hence freeing up his time from domestic duties, to focus on his "business".I should add that with the above, the separate asset needs to be self-fueling, in order for it to be separate. If there are still mortgages to be paid, how are those mortgages being paid? If any money is used from income generated post-marriage, there are implications to the separate status of the corporation. So, unless his properties pay for their own mortgage, then he's got a problem. Also, if he uses income from the rental properties to supplement family income, he's still got a problem. Again, refer to jurisdictional differences in laws.
calizaggy Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Why not sign the pre nup and pretend as if you are marrying a poor guy just for love? And what is all this talk about women getting screwed in a divorce? It seems current laws are the opposite..
Star Gazer Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Those were the things I was questioning, because that didn't make sense to me. I also know nothing about prenups, other than everyone wants them these days. In California, TBF's analysis of Canadian law as it relates to separate versus community property would be flatly wrong. If you're concerned about how it would work, speak with a family law attorney in your state. The law varies from state to state, and absolutely from country to country.
norajane Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 If he wants a pre-nup, get yourself a good lawyer and negotiate the terms so they make sense. There's no reason you have to sign something that says you get zero and he gets everything, particularly when you are talking about assets existing prior to marriage but that become more valuable after marriage and to which you contribute. Also, pre-nups don't have to be evergreen - they can have predetermined ends so that they become invalid after a certain number of years of marriage. And, the lawyer can tell you what the laws are in your state regarding division of marital assets in the event of a divorce. They are not all the same and will have a huge impact on what happens to assets accumulated after marriage. Have the lawyers spell it all out and both of you can be protected, not just one of you.
Star Gazer Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 NJ's post is the best advice I've seen on the subject of prenups.
norajane Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 NJ's post is the best advice I've seen on the subject of prenups. That's what happens when you watch Sex and the City and see Charlotte negotiating her pre-nup with Trey's mother...
threebyfate Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 I'm a big believer in pre-nups and now post-nups. But people have to do their homework, previous. For example, in some jurisdictions, a prenup will be invalidated if signed too close to the wedding, in that it can be considered a form of emotional blackmail of "I won't marry you unless you sign the prenup".
Author New Again Posted November 29, 2009 Author Posted November 29, 2009 Lots of good advice here! I know that in the end this needs to be discussed with lawyers, but I don't even know what I don't know at this point, what questions to ask, what some options are, etc. as a starting point. I'm a big believer in pre-nups and now post-nups. But people have to do their homework, previous. For example, in some jurisdictions, a prenup will be invalidated if signed too close to the wedding, in that it can be considered a form of emotional blackmail of "I won't marry you unless you sign the prenup". Interesting. P.S. Do people who sign pre-nups also sign post-nups, or are they primarily for people who didn't sign a pre-nup?
TheWooWooKid Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 For example, in some jurisdictions, a prenup will be invalidated if signed too close to the wedding, in that it can be considered a form of emotional blackmail of "I won't marry you unless you sign the prenup". Undue influence?
Tayla Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Right on both counts. However, what if he wanted the divorce? She (me) is screwed. PRE-NUPS Protect both sides, Most contractual agreements signed are to be made fair to both parties. Here is the kicker, after ten years then they are withdrawn by both marital couples and follow the guidelines of the state of residency. They are NOT FOREVER, ad infinium. They are to safeguard the person who carries pre-owned assets. Research the rules/guidelines for Prenups- ALL of them state that BOTH sides are to have separate legal Counsel at least ONE MONTH Prior to marital vows to review the document It must be signed by witness's and be reviewed by a judge BEFORE the marital vows transpire. Its not as simple as some folks make it out to be. I would suggest to the Gent, that if he is really concerned and understands the TAX Laws and Ownership, he would create a TRUST that retains ownership with you as one of its leading members. You would then get to reside in property and the Trust money would be used to maintain the property, pay up keep and you would be sheltered from legal battles. Consult an attorney on that idea. Many marital couples do that anyway to ensure no tie ups in IRS or estate taxes..... Let me get something clear- During that supposed time that you are child rearing- HE is paying your insurance, paying the mortage, paying the utilities,making car payments, credit card payments, taking you and the family on vacations, Paying medical bills, paying insurance, paying taxes,paying for clothing,paying grocery, paying for any personal necessities (personal grooming services, nails done, spa). Paying any babysitting service for times where you need to tend to other matters...Just curious if you understand he is doing all this as part of the deal too, so its not a one way street where he makes out like a bandit. I personally wouldnt sign the prenup (Not that I am against them, I am very much for them!). I just wouldnt sign one that takes away my freedom to work and be an equal contributing member of the family by paying what I consider my half of the financials.
threebyfate Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 Interesting. P.S. Do people who sign pre-nups also sign post-nups, or are they primarily for people who didn't sign a pre-nup?I know why we did the post-nup, which was that we eloped too quickly due to little Bump. Our original intent was a prenup. I honestly don't know why any other couples get post-nups. After-thought? Who knows? Once again, do the research on your jurisdictional laws. I have no idea where most members reside.
Author New Again Posted November 29, 2009 Author Posted November 29, 2009 Let me get something clear- During that supposed time that you are child rearing- HE is paying your insurance, paying the mortage, paying the utilities,making car payments, credit card payments, taking you and the family on vacations, Paying medical bills, paying insurance, paying taxes,paying for clothing,paying grocery, paying for any personal necessities (personal grooming services, nails done, spa). Paying any babysitting service for times where you need to tend to other matters...Just curious if you understand he is doing all this as part of the deal too, so its not a one way street where he makes out like a bandit. Yes of course. My only concern in regards to that is the possibility of difficulties getting a job later on, as it is for those who are out of the work force for awhile, and not having any savings like I would had I been earning income rather than raising a family. I see this type of situation as similar to living paycheck to paycheck (no savings) and all of a sudden getting fired and leaving the job with no recommendation, or a bad recommendation, and with no related work experience. The man, on the other hand, has not lost his job, AND has savings (presumably). Thanks for the idea about the trust.
Sam Spade Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 You consider it to be unnecessary, and you consider it to be nothing but a luxury. This thread is not about individuals' values, beliefs and preferences in regards to child rearing. Well, that's fine - just sayin' that every choice involves tradeoffs. If being a SAHM is important to you, then just accept that you WILL get behind in your career, and you WILL take a pay cut, that's all.
Author New Again Posted November 29, 2009 Author Posted November 29, 2009 Well, that's fine - just sayin' that every choice involves tradeoffs. If being a SAHM is important to you, then just accept that you WILL get behind in your career, and you WILL take a pay cut, that's all. Can't disagree with that
threebyfate Posted November 29, 2009 Posted November 29, 2009 I've never heard of a prenup expiring unless you include a sunset clause. Trust laws also vary per trust, per jurisdiction.
Recommended Posts