Relationships & Assets?

[marcjb]

So with my last relationship, I trusted my ex fully until she gave me reasons not to. I was engaged and we were also looking at some property together.

 

Since our breakup, I have now purchased a place of my own and I will never trust blindly again. I want to make myself aware of the legal aspects regading relationships and assets.

 

Possible scenarios:

 

- Already owning property / assets then getting married. Wife cheats and a divorce is filed by husband. Does she get anything?

 

- Same as above, except no known cheating and she just wants a divorce because she "isn't happy". Does she get anything?

 

- Same as two scenarios above, except property is purchased together. Would things be split equally?

 

Would a prenub really be the only way to protect yourself? Does a prenub still apply if children are brought into the picture later on? In what instance would allimony be a concern? Any other scenarios I should be aware of?

Edited August 13, 2014 by marcjb

[jay1983]

Everything yes. Alimony is awarded if you've been married 10 years or longer and is usually for about 5 years depending on how long you've been married. Child support is a portion of your income and the mother can do whatever she wants with the money. A prenub only protects what you have before getting married and to top that off.

 

Elizabeth Cioffi Wins Prenup Battle - Business Insider

[marcjb]

Why should a woman be entitled to allimony if she also has a job?

[carhill]

Possible scenarios:

 

- Already owning property / assets then getting married. Wife cheats and a divorce is filed by husband. Does she get anything?

 

- Same as above, except no known cheating and she just wants a divorce because she "isn't happy". Does she get anything?

 

- Same as two scenarios above, except property is purchased together. Would things be split equally?

Much depends upon jurisdiction. Your best advice will come from an estate planning lawyer, working in concert with a family law attorney.

 

I recall some lawsuits against mortgage lenders in my state resulted from a period, including when my exW and I divorced, where lenders required spouses of parties financing or re-financing real estate loans as a sole borrower to record a quit-claim of their interest in the encumbered property. That was apparently in conflict with community property laws and requiring, under duress, a party to contract away those rights. Interesting stuff.

 

My best advice is to crunch the numbers on what you need to protect and what it will cost to protect it. I use a rough number of 5/100, so if I have 1MM to protect, 50K is my target legal fee amount. I had to do some of this as a trustee and the costs actually ran a bit less, and right on what my lawyer had estimated.

 

Usually, worst case scenarios only result from hotly contested divorces. Where the D is more amicable, in my state a couple can use a MSA and be pretty liberal in their agreement. The court essentially rubber-stamps the MSA and it's done. In some cases, the court might find a lopsided MSA to be unfair or in conflict with the spirit of the law and make adjustments. However, a good lawyer or mediator can address this possibility and get things through the court with a minimum of rancor and cost.

 

If I have one phrase that I would suggest you read up on, it would be this: co-mingling.

 

Watch out for that. Good luck!

[No Limit]

You don't need to marry to spend your life with someone, you know.

And you two can still were classic-looking rings if you like.

[marcjb]

You don't need to marry to spend your life with someone, you know.

And you two can still were classic-looking rings if you like.

 

Yea, this is what I have thought most of my life too. I told my ex that I didn't really see the point in marraige when we talked about it after being together for a year.

 

She wanted to get married, and I told her that even though I didn't see the point in it, if it's something she wanted, we could get married as I knew I wanted to spend my life with her anyway. I just said that we can later as I thought being together for a year was too little time. We needed to get past typical relationship hurdles that are sure to arise. So after I thought we did, that's when I proposed.

 

Now with what happened regarding our breakup, and the fact that I'm single and have now purchased property these questions are coming to mind for when I'm in a relationship again. I am looking to protect myself first and foremost.

Edited August 13, 2014 by marcjb

[marcjb]

Ok, so looks like my options are either prenup or no marriage if I'm in a relationship again.

[carhill]

Depending on property and jurisdiction, another thing to look at is land trust and/or irrevocable trust. A prenup is nice but other vehicles can solidify protection in cases where a pre-nup might be pierced. Once I went through the D process and also, concurrently, had to handle some estate and trust issues, I learned more about prenups, the pluses and minuses, and other vehicles for asset protection.

 

Like I mentioned, watch out for the co-mingling thing, even if not married. Things can get sticky in contested actions/lawsuits. The other option is to be poor. Hard to get blood out of a turnip so people don't bother. However, smart women don't hook up with a poor guy so there ya go

[jay1983]

Ok, so looks like my options are either prenup or no marriage if I'm in a relationship again.

 

It gets tricky with bank accounts. Most married couples have some kinda joint account. Carhill can probably break that down.

[d0nnivain]

A prenuptial agreement is a good idea. Fault even if cheating has no effect whatsoever on the division of assets. All marital assets, usually defined as assets used by the marriage (including a home you owned before marriage but which you both lived in) can be divided. The validity of a pre-nup diminishes over time; the longer the marriage the less likely what you signed 5+, 10+, 20+ years ago will still be binding, especially if circumstances changed. Pre-nups also have no bearing on non-economic issues especially on children. You can't say in advance that you get the kids. The court will always & only look at what's in the best interests of the children.

 

Alimony is a function of lifestyle & both parties ability to earn a living. Economic disparity may entitle one party to rehabilitative alimony but the concept is less favored under modern law. The longer the marriage the more likely a court is to award alimony. For example if 2 people who both work & earn money, even if one earns 2x as much as the other but they are only married for 5 years, it's unlikely that alimony will be awarded. After a 40 year marriage where one side never worked outside of the home & is now too old & without skills to get a job, that person may get alimony.

 

To be valid, a prenup will also be scrutinized to assure that full disclosure was made up front.

 

Marriage is about love. Divorce is about money. You are smart to protect your assets. When DH & I married, the process of negotiating our pre-nup forced us to talk about uncomfortable subjects & I think made us stronger as couple for having gone through the exercise. I also said, I would rather negotiate this stuff up front when I loved the person & wanted to make things work rather than later when we hate each other & wanted to rip each other's faces off.

[thefooloftheyear]

A prenuptial agreement is a good idea. Fault even if cheating has no effect whatsoever on the division of assets. All marital assets, usually defined as assets used by the marriage (including a home you owned before marriage but which you both lived in) can be divided. The validity of a pre-nup diminishes over time; the longer the marriage the less likely what you signed 5+, 10+, 20+ years ago will still be binding, especially if circumstances changed. Pre-nups also have no bearing on non-economic issues especially on children. You can't say in advance that you get the kids. The court will always & only look at what's in the best interests of the children.

 

Alimony is a function of lifestyle & both parties ability to earn a living. Economic disparity may entitle one party to rehabilitative alimony but the concept is less favored under modern law. The longer the marriage the more likely a court is to award alimony. For example if 2 people who both work & earn money, even if one earns 2x as much as the other but they are only married for 5 years, it's unlikely that alimony will be awarded. After a 40 year marriage where one side never worked outside of the home & is now too old & without skills to get a job, that person may get alimony.

 

To be valid, a prenup will also be scrutinized to assure that full disclosure was made up front.

 

Marriage is about love. Divorce is about money. You are smart to protect your assets. When DH & I married, the process of negotiating our pre-nup forced us to talk about uncomfortable subjects & I think made us stronger as couple for having gone through the exercise. I also said, I would rather negotiate this stuff up front when I loved the person & wanted to make things work rather than later when we hate each other & wanted to rip each other's faces off.

 

 

I know a lot of divorced guys...Not a single one inst paying alimony...If they aren't they had to "cut a deal" (hand her a pile of cash)-which is basically the same thing...And at least half of these guys are paying lifetime alimony...not sure where you live, and I know the rules vary by state, but here, if you are a guy and want a divorce, its pretty much a financial bloodbath.

 

I tell all guys I know contemplating marriage to cover their asses...Dont want to be a wet blanket, but the reality is that there is better than a 50% chance that you are going to get hammered in a divorce..especially if there are kids involved...

 

TFY

[CarrieT]

Marc, in all cases, you would need to see a lawyer.

 

Here is Nescafe's thread [clickety] about pre-nips and I talked at length about them as I went through one before my recent marriage.

 

You have too many variables at stake and there are ways you can protect property before a marriage. My new husband did something very similar: He has an established medical practice and without the pre-nip, if a divorce would have occurred, I could have claimed 50% of it because of community property laws here in California. I signed away those rights, but with other provisions.

[beach]

Ok, so looks like my options are either prenup or no marriage if I'm in a relationship again.

 

Even If you have a prenup - don't intermingle YOUR money with hers.

 

IF you want to keep your stuff "separate" do not ever place her name on title to anything you plan to own by yourself. This includes bank accounts and property.

 

If she's insistent that you put her on title - that should be an indicator she's after your material possessions...

[d0nnivain]

If you aren't going to intertwine your lives & that means some of your money, what's the point of getting married? If you really want to keep everything separate, just live together.

[carrie_o]

If she's insistent that you put her on title - that should be an indicator she's after your material possessions...

 

Not necessarily. It could be about convenience. My husband and I have our own accounts at different banks but we are each technically on the other person's account. It really does make things easier. For instance, if we are out and it is my turn to pay but I'm distracted or something, he could pay with his debit card for my account. Or if there is a problem with his account and he isn't around, I have the authority to talk to someone to fix it.

 

Back to the topic, could you get a pre-nup and periodical post-nups to cover your assets? I'll admit I don't know much about post-nups but it seems they would help keep the agreements relevant.

[d0nnivain]

Post nups are actually called ante-nups. The idea seems to take all the romance out of things. Why isn't saying I love you every day & having a good marriage enough of a re-assurance that the other person isn't going to run away & soak you? As scared / paranoid as I was before we married, every day I feel closer to my husband & that our bond is stronger. I don't need him to sign another piece of paper to prove that to me.

 

Ironically, before he died, when we were encouraging my father to divest himself of certain assets as part of his eldercare / Medicaid planning, my dad was worried that if he (my dad) signed certain assets over to me, that in the event of a divorce because they were titled to me, my husband would get 1/2 of my dad's stuff. DH was the one who suggested an ante-nup where he'd again disclaim entitlement to any assets transferred to me by my father.

 

There are ways to protect yourself against the downside but at some point shouldn't marriage be at least a little bit about love & trust?

Edited August 13, 2014 by d0nnivain

[carhill]

It gets tricky with bank accounts. Most married couples have some kinda joint account. Carhill can probably break that down.

We never had a joint bank account, except for one I established at the behest of my lawyer to fund a home purchase that would become my exW's in the D. It became a bargaining chip, converting separate property to joint property to dangle a valuable carrot versus going after my other real estate holdings and business, which she could easily have done. A calculated risk. Lawyer did good. Win-win. She still lives there and likes it. TBH, I'm the luckiest man alive, marrying without any financial contract with the assets I brought into the M. A true gold digger could have cleaned my clock. IMO, the OP is smart looking at this stuff now, a lot smarter than I was.

[newmoon]

Why should a woman be entitled to allimony if she also has a job?

 

not in all cases, of course, but courts recognize the role women take on as partners during a relationship and that (often) means the woman gave up a f/t time job or career during some portion of the marriage in order to support her husband, be at home with kids, etc. it is meant to compensate for some of the financial losses women face during a marriage. and many women fresh out of a marriage have lost career skills and might not get a great f/t job immediately. for example, my mom worked f/t until she had kids, and then quit for a period of time, used her savings to help my dad, went back to work p/t, etc. alimony "repays" some of what women give up. and men can get it too, so it's not just for women

[iiiii]

From what I have seen prenups are becoming more and more routine, and fewer people (especially young people) get offended if their prospective spouse brings up the topic, because it's the normal thing to do. Much like bringing up the topic of STD testing before having sex, I suppose.

 

If one partner is bringing many more assets into the marriage than the other, I can see why a prenup could be a good idea to discuss. Most prenups don't cover assets accumulated during marriage, due to the idea that both partners have probably contributed in some way (whether it was actually working or looking after the house or kids so the other one could work).

 

I think you're always better off to consult a lawyer practicing in your own country or state, though, since things vary so much regionally. For example, in some countries the law will treat you and your assets as if you were married after so many years of cohabiting, and so a wise person will consider the idea of a so called "prenup" within this time frame even if they're not planning on marriage.

 

Luckily for me and my partner, we both bring assets into our relationship of very roughly equivalent value (we both own houses, for example), so it's not something that really troubles either of us.

[FitChick]

The man and the woman need their OWN lawyers. Don't use just one for both of you. Never be fooled into blindly signing a contract. And as the article pointed out, a lopsided pre-nup is likely to be overturned in court.

[thefooloftheyear]

not in all cases, of course, but courts recognize the role women take on as partners during a relationship and that (often) means the woman gave up a f/t time job or career during some portion of the marriage in order to support her husband, be at home with kids, etc. it is meant to compensate for some of the financial losses women face during a marriage. and many women fresh out of a marriage have lost career skills and might not get a great f/t job immediately. for example, my mom worked f/t until she had kids, and then quit for a period of time, used her savings to help my dad, went back to work p/t, etc. alimony "repays" some of what women give up. and men can get it too, so it's not just for women

 

The problem is this....

 

Very few men "force" their wives to stay home and give up their career...In fact, very few people truly make enough to afford to live on one salary..

 

So what winds up happening is that the woman "chooses" this lifestyle..She voluntarily sidetracks her career out of her choice-not because she was told to or was forced to...But even with this, they are awarded full and sometimes obscene alimony judgements..

 

Here is a recent example....Friend of mine..

 

They were married almost 30 years...He makes 200K and she makes 80..All kids were grown and out of the house when the divorce took place and was finalized..

 

He was required to pay for her attorney..They split assets, but he gave her the house(paid off -worth slightly more than a million) and was required to give her 75K a year for life(which I believe is until he is 70 years old)...Someone please explain why she got this judgement? I just dont get it..

 

TFY

[marcjb]

not in all cases, of course, but courts recognize the role women take on as partners during a relationship and that (often) means the woman gave up a f/t time job or career during some portion of the marriage in order to support her husband, be at home with kids, etc. it is meant to compensate for some of the financial losses women face during a marriage. and many women fresh out of a marriage have lost career skills and might not get a great f/t job immediately. for example, my mom worked f/t until she had kids, and then quit for a period of time, used her savings to help my dad, went back to work p/t, etc. alimony "repays" some of what women give up. and men can get it too, so it's not just for women

Sure, but that would be child support. From what I understand slimony is separate. Why should a woman get alimony if she also has a full-time job?

[newmoon]

The problem is this....

 

Very few men "force" their wives to stay home and give up their career...In fact, very few people truly make enough to afford to live on one salary..

 

So what winds up happening is that the woman "chooses" this lifestyle..She voluntarily sidetracks her career out of her choice-not because she was told to or was forced to...But even with this, they are awarded full and sometimes obscene alimony judgements..

 

Here is a recent example....Friend of mine..

 

They were married almost 30 years...He makes 200K and she makes 80..All kids were grown and out of the house when the divorce took place and was finalized..

 

He was required to pay for her attorney..They split assets, but he gave her the house(paid off -worth slightly more than a million) and was required to give her 75K a year for life(which I believe is until he is 70 years old)...Someone please explain why she got this judgement? I just dont get it..

 

TFY

 

read this again "They were married almost 30 years" ...

 

that is why she got the payout. that is a huge portion of her life devoted to this man and supporting him and that is how a court sees it, even though she (and other women) may have "chosen" this path. you can see their financials from the outside but you can never know what she gave up. tons of women use personal savings to help support the dreams of men and they give up jobs (even if they choose that). and truly, lots of men can get support as well, so this isn't limited to women. courts recognize that coming out of that marriage she will likely not be employable and the alimony supports her out of the marriage and for the years invested too. if a husband is working f/t and the wife is p/t with kids or not employed, she cannot be saving into a 401K or other workplace investments for her future. so her financial future is often in the hands of her working husband. so, most women married 20+ years will also get a nice pension from a marriage too.

Edited August 14, 2014 by newmoon

[thefooloftheyear]

read this again "They were married almost 30 years" ...

 

that is why she got the payout. that is a huge portion of her life devoted to this man and supporting him and that is how a court sees it, even though she (and other women) may have "chosen" this path. you can see their financials from the outside but you can never know what she gave up. tons of women use personal savings to help support the dreams of men and they give up jobs (even if they choose that). and truly, lots of men can get support as well, so this isn't limited to women. courts recognize that coming out of that marriage she will likely not be employable and the alimony supports her out of the marriage and for the years invested too. if a husband is working f/t and the wife is p/t with kids or not employed, she cannot be saving into a 401K or other workplace investments for her future. so her financial future is often in the hands of her working husband. so, most women married 20+ years will also get a nice pension from a marriage too.

 

Nonsense....

 

How in the world do you know her level of devotion or support?

 

 

I am a very successful businessman by anyone's measure..I am 1000% sure that I would have been even MORE successful if I hadnt been married....Id have one less mouth to feed and one less person knocking down all of my ideas(thank God I didnt bother to listen to the doubting and negativity)...I gotta ask, what is this "support" people keep mentioning? Like was the wife his "agent" or PR person??

 

The point is there doesnt need to be any proof of what the other person did or didnt do...A guy can go to court and say that all his wife did was drag him down, plant her ass on a couch while he was out killing himself, etc.....It could be 100% true, yet no one will care..She'll get hers-because the laws are outdated and women wont fight for equality in that case. Why would they? It benefits them to keep the status quo....

 

And as fare as "a lot" of men getting support, I dont know of any..Its probably 100:1...Heck, the one guy that could have gotten support couldnt do it because he feared the shame of doing it...Like it was "unmanly" or something..

 

Think about this...When was the last time you heard a guy saying something like "Im gonna take her to the cleaners with this divorce"...never....Yet, its the mantra of every divorced woman out there..

 

You hear many divorced women eagerly looking to get married again..Guys...almost never....Ever wonder why?

 

The rules need to be changed...The playing field needs to be evened, or else you are just going to see more and more guys covering their asses and with heavy handed pre-nups or better yet, not deciding to marry in the first place..Marriage stats have been trending down for years and this is the main reason...Guys get slaughtered..

 

TFY

[beatcuff]

So what winds up happening is that the woman "chooses" this lifestyle..She voluntarily sidetracks her career out of her choice-not because she was told to or was forced to...

 

too funny, so who is doing the dishes, preparing the meals, cleaning the house, doing the laundry. you are setting back MEN's rights years by playing into the women's hands: that their contribution to the household via UNPAID work is not being credited.

 

He was required to pay for her attorney..They split assets, but he gave her the house(paid off -worth slightly more than a million) and was required to give her 75K a year for life(which I believe is until he is 70 years old)...Someone please explain why she got this judgement? I just dont get it...

 

i make 3 to 4 times my W. she works as many hours as me, its that my pay is based on my ideas (a/k/a perceived value). W does (basically) all the household duties. so why would she not "deserve" some alimony for the years of unpaid work. i fully expect after 20+ years of M if we D, W would get half the assets and at least some alimony. to expect otherwise is foolish.