Russian Women Discussion
RWD Discussion Groups => Married => Topic started by: BillyB on July 21, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
-
Billy,
You might be OK getting zero in a divorce settlement, but most people arent.
I being in fairness. I'm not okay with getting zero in a divorce settlement. Men should get themselves in a position to where they have good earning potential even after a fall. Most men seem to be scared of the financial damage that comes with divorce. I understand the damage but I'm not scared to marry a woman either.
US divorce laws are generally pretty fair.
True but judges aren't fair. They have biases and care about keeping their job. Today's trend is taking care of women and no judge wants to get into the news for being unfair to women. It may hurt their future should they want to get into politics. After my divorce I told my ex's attorney the judge favors women. She told me all judges favor women and recommends her male clients to settle and she doesn't care if her female clients take it to court. If the state allows in divorce court, get a trial by jury. They aren't likely wanting to impress a woman's group and are more likely to follow state guidelines when it comes to splitting assets. Judges are allowed a lot of discretion in family court and can stray away from state guidelines. Appeal an answer? Not likely. An appellate court will most likely will refuse to hear a disgruntle man who thought the divorce court judge erred by $30k when other people are appealing million dollar cases or are going to prison for life. Those cases matter more for people affected than a divorce case.
And the law in most states allow a man or woman to keep assets they obtained BEFORE the marriage, as long as it is not comingled.
My state is one of those states that recognize property belonging to the one who purchased it before marriage and awarding that property to that person in the event of a divorce. Lets say you lived together with a woman before marrying and all assets were separated at the time. Lets say you bought a house before marrying the woman. The judge may rule the woman was in a common law marriage with you before legally marrying. Also if the house had little equity in it when you bought it and later married but has a lot of equity in it during a divorce, a judge may feel the wife is entitled to a lot of it. Discretion is the key and a judge can find a way to move assets from one party to another.
imo- A quality FSU lady wants a smart man to take care of her and future children, not an idiot that would sign away everything he owned to someone he knew for a short period of time
People who marry usually don't fully know each other. A guy doesn't have to sign anything away but a woman can view a prenup as a sign the man who wants to marry her doesn't trust her. Prenup are important in certain situations but most people don't need them.
-
A guy doesn't have to sign anything away but a woman can view a prenup as a sign the man who wants to marry her doesn't trust her. Prenup are important in certain situations but most people don't need them.
As a lawyer I'd advise people who have some assets to talk to a lawyer about designing a prenup to fit their situation. If you are getting married and have children and assets from a previous relationship, you need a prenup to take care of those assets and children. This is a very common situation.
Own a business and getting married? You need a prenup. There are many small business owners in this situation. In this case a small business can actually be valued well into the millions. The small business owner may not even realize just how much the business is worth.
Have shares of stock, stock options or other equities and getting married? You need a prenup.
Worth over a few hundred thousand dollars and getting married? You need a prenup.
These are just a few of the situations in which an individual might need a prenup designed for their particular situation. Notice I didn't mention man or woman in the post. In today's world there are many very well off women who have assets and need those assets protected just as much as a man might.
If in doubt talk to a lawyer. Not just any lawyer but a lawyer who specializes in writing prenups.
-
As others have mentioned, Judges have great discretion in divorce settlements; and all Judges female and male favor the women.
That's because they know female support groups will form protests to help women while no one will form a support group to help men.
And the idea that assets acquired prior to marriage and not co-mingled during marriage are safe is totally false. I know from personal experience of close friends of mine. I will illustrate how it happens with just some round numbers.
Example: Man has 1 million in assets before marriage. During marriage the couple acquire net worth of 1 million. No co-mingling of husbands first 1 million.
At divorce, the correct situation would be they split the 1 million so she would end up with $500,000 and he would have his original 1 million plus the $500,000.
In practice, the Judge says to man, yes your separate 1 million is not subject to splitting at divorce. But since you have the 1 million, I am awarding the entire second 1 million to the wife.
-
As others have mentioned, Judges have great discretion in divorce settlements; and all Judges female and male favor the women.
That's because they know female support groups will form protests to help women while no one will form a support group to help men.
And the idea that assets acquired prior to marriage and not co-mingled during marriage are safe is totally false. I know from personal experience of close friends of mine. I will illustrate how it happens with just some round numbers.
Example: Man has 1 million in assets before marriage. During marriage the couple acquire net worth of 1 million. No co-mingling of husbands first 1 million.
At divorce, the correct situation would be they split the 1 million so she would end up with $500,000 and he would have his original 1 million plus the $500,000.
In practice, the Judge says to man, yes your separate 1 million is not subject to splitting at divorce. But since you have the 1 million, I am awarding the entire second 1 million to the wife.
In my State, the judge has little discretion in division of assets. Marital assets are 50 50, in some cases 49 51. Uncomingled assets held properly from before the marriage belong 100% to the holder. Sooooooo In my state the man you used in the example would keep 1.5 million.
However the judge has LOTS of discretion in alimony, custody and child support.....and that's where you hear people complaining about unfair judges. The judge could conclude the guy was a jerk, and throw on a couple of extra thousand a month in Alimony, or could conclude the woman was a gold digger trying to get the previously held assets and reduce the Alimony from a fair number
-
In my State, the judge has little discretion in division of assets.
I don't believe that. Can you show us a government website that? There's so many gray areas when dividing assets that all the rules can't be written in a book and that is why family court judges have a lot of discretion.
Sooooooo In my state the man you(ML) used in the example would keep 1.5 million.
Based on the scenario ML mention that's the way it's supposed to happen in many states but it doesn't. If that man lived in your state and a judge ruled he doesn't get to keep the 1.5 million, there's nothing a guy can do but appeal and it's a long shot for the ruling to get reversed. If the appeal court does hear the case and ruled the judge didn't follow state guidelines, they won't necessarily rule on what the percentage should be. They will send it back to the lower court judge to adjust his ruling. The lower court judge may not give the guy 1.5 million. The judge may give the guy 1.1 million and the ex 900k.
If allowed in a state, get a trial by jury for a divorce. A jury of peers are more likely to follow state guidelines and not worry about using discretion or the consequences of a woman's group coming after them.
-
I don't believe that. Can you show us a government website that? There's so many gray areas when dividing assets that all the rules can't be written in a book and that is why family court judges have a lot of discretion.
Based on the scenario ML mention that's the way it's supposed to happen in many states but it doesn't. If that man lived in your state and a judge ruled he doesn't get to keep the 1.5 million, there's nothing a guy can do but appeal and it's a long shot for the ruling to get reversed. If the appeal court does hear the case and ruled the judge didn't follow state guidelines, they won't necessarily rule on what the percentage should be. They will send it back to the lower court judge to adjust his ruling. The lower court judge may not give the guy 1.5 million. The judge may give the guy 1.1 million and the ex 900k.
If allowed in a state, get a trial by jury for a divorce. A jury of peers are more likely to follow state guidelines and not worry about using discretion or the consequences of a woman's group coming after them.
Here is an article for you that discusses some points between "Community Property States(50/50)" vs "Equitable Distribution States." There is some other basic information about divorce. IMO- I doubt MLs example would happen even in a Equitable Distribution State. Equitable Distribution States have guidelines for Judges.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/#51b6566b2b66
btw- Georgia is the only State that allows for a jury to determine division of assets. But I wouldn't recommend that, because the legal fees would be astronomical. The couple is better off letting their attorneys make a deal and avoid the trial costs.
-
Here is an article for you that discusses some points between "Community Property States(50/50)" vs "Equitable Distribution States." There is some other basic information about divorce. IMO- I doubt MLs example would happen even in a Equitable Distribution State. Equitable Distribution States have guidelines for Judges.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/#51b6566b2b66
Article only talks about state guidelines. Doesn't mention the judge's role and restrictions doing his job. Judges are human and in family court law, they are allowed a lot of discretion to judge value of assets and how to split them up. Almost after every court case there is one or both parties upset with the judge's decision and if judges weren't allowed a lot of discretion, there would be tons of appeals. If you want to appeal a divorce like I did, you will be given this info by attorneys. Chances to win an appeal is minimal. An appeal should only be done to get the other party to agree to settle for something different than what the judge had ruled on. The guy ML knew should've appealed.
btw- Georgia is the only State that allows for a jury to determine division of assets.
Who's telling you that?
http://www.sandiegodivorceattorneysblog.com/jury-trial-for-a-divorce/
I wouldn't recommend that, because the legal fees would be astronomical. The couple is better off letting their attorneys make a deal and avoid the trial costs.
Ask the guy that ML knows how much it cost him letting a single person, a judge, make all the decisions. A jury of 6 or 12 are less likely to stray from state guidelines than a judge would.
-
Article only talks about state guidelines. Doesn't mention the judge's role and restrictions doing his job. Judges are human and in family court law, they are allowed a lot of discretion to judge value of assets and how to split them up. Almost after every court case there is one or both parties upset with the judge's decision and if judges weren't allowed a lot of discretion, there would be tons of appeals. If you want to appeal a divorce like I did, you will be given this info by attorneys. Chances to win an appeal is minimal. An appeal should only be done to get the other party to agree to settle for something different than what the judge had ruled on. The guy ML knew should've appealed.
Who's telling you that?
http://www.sandiegodivorceattorneysblog.com/jury-trial-for-a-divorce/
Ask the guy that ML knows how much it cost him letting a single person, a judge, make all the decisions. A jury of 6 or 12 are less likely to stray from state guidelines than a judge would.
Billy
Do you read the articles you post? Your article discusses what few States allow a jury trial, and what the juries can rule on. The Jury has very narrow authority in most states. Only in Georgia can a jury rule on division of marital assets
I thought MLs case was a fictious one. If a guy really is out there saying that he got zero of the marital assets, he is a liar. Now I can see a guy trying to save face with friends after getting a divorce saying that . A guy adding a FSU wife onto his 5 million dollar estate, and upon losing half of it claiming it was the judges fault to his buddies because he didnt want to admit he added his new young wife to the deeds is possible
-
As others have mentioned, Judges have great discretion in divorce settlements; and all Judges female and male favor the women.
That's because they know female support groups will form protests to help women while no one will form a support group to help men.
And the idea that assets acquired prior to marriage and not co-mingled during marriage are safe is totally false. I know from personal experience of close friends of mine. I will illustrate how it happens with just some round numbers.
Example: Man has 1 million in assets before marriage. During marriage the couple acquire net worth of 1 million. No co-mingling of husbands first 1 million.
At divorce, the correct situation would be they split the 1 million so she would end up with $500,000 and he would have his original 1 million plus the $500,000.
In practice, the Judge says to man, yes your separate 1 million is not subject to splitting at divorce. But since you have the 1 million, I am awarding the entire second 1 million to the wife.
ML, that's not the way divorce law works, in general. There may be some exceptional circumstances such as the woman is disabled and unable to find work that might lead to a ruling which gives more assets to the woman than she'd usually receive.
This is also a good example of why the man should have a prenup before marrying. It's also important to make sure the prenup is done well before the marriage takes place. This will make sure there's no question that the prenup was not forced on the woman just before marriage leaving her with little opportunity to read, understand and seek counsel before signing the prenup.
-
Billy
Do you read the articles you post? Your article discusses what few States allow a jury trial, and what the juries can rule on. The Jury has very narrow authority in most states. Only in Georgia can a jury rule on division of marital assets
If ML's friend was living in Texas, a Texas jury determines what is separate and community property, not the judge. What can hurt a person is the judge unfairly determining what is separate and what is community. After a jury decides, a judge can then split up the community property. A judge is also less likely to inject his/her bias in a jury trial.
I thought MLs case was a fictious one.
I can easily believe it. I bought a house and property before marrying my first wife. We had separate bank accounts. We didn't comingle any assets. We were still dating but when I bought the house and property, she was living in my other house. The house should've been mine but the judge considered it a marriage even before we legally married so the ex got half of the equity in the property. There were two appraisers at the trial. My expert appraiser was lower. The ex's appraiser was higher because he failed to take into account there are power lines and wetland on the property. He chose to believe my ex's appraiser and forced me to quickly to get that money to the ex. He said there's $300,000 equity in that house and the ex gets $150,000 and a $20,000 car. We were married for only 3 1/2 years and she wasn't making any money. The judge didn't even factor in a $7500 loan I made to the ex's family to get returned.
No way I could've sold at the price the ex's appraiser said it was worth so I had to sell for less. The house wasn't fully paid off yet so after the sale, the bank took their cut which left $151,500. The wife got $150,000 and I got $1500. A house that should be 100% mine according to my state's laws was split 99% to my wife and 1% to me. She got almost all of it. Of course I had another house before the ex moved in with me that the judge allowed me to keep . My case is almost as bad as the case ML described with one house to the husband and other house to the wife.
Most people aren't smart enough to get it on how judges can move money from one person to another and pretend it's fair but I recognized right away what my judge was doing. I pleaded with him that although the house is in my name, to please allow my wife and her attorney to be in charge of the sale and give me half of what's left over after the bank takes their money. He refused. Deep down he knew my ex wasn't going to get the $150,000 he wanted her to get if she was in charge of the sale. Deep down he knew her appraiser was wrong but chose that appraiser because it'll get her more.
GenMish, you are idealistic and feel many of the divorce laws are fair and judge's can't deviate from them. More and more American men today are refusing to get married. Many of them are scared what can happen to them in the event of a divorce. I was like you one time believing a judge must follow the rule of law but after watching my divorce unfold, I'm a believer on how judges use their discretion to greatly favor one party over another.
-
If ML's friend was living in Texas, a Texas jury determines what is separate and community property, not the judge. What can hurt a person is the judge unfairly determining what is separate and what is community. After a jury decides, a judge can then split up the community property. A judge is also less likely to inject his/her bias in a jury trial.
I can easily believe it. I bought a house and property before marrying my first wife. We had separate bank accounts. We didn't comingle any assets. We were still dating but when I bought the house and property, she was living in my other house. The house should've been mine but the judge considered it a marriage even before we legally married so the ex got half of the equity in the property. There were two appraisers at the trial. My expert appraiser was lower. The ex's appraiser was higher because he failed to take into account there are power lines and wetland on the property. He chose to believe my ex's appraiser and forced me to quickly to get that money to the ex. He said there's $300,000 equity in that house and the ex gets $150,000 and a $20,000 car. We were married for only 3 1/2 years and she wasn't making any money. The judge didn't even factor in a $7500 loan I made to the ex's family to get returned.
No way I could've sold at the price the ex's appraiser said it was worth so I had to sell for less. The house wasn't fully paid off yet so after the sale, the bank took their cut which left $151,500. The wife got $150,000 and I got $1500. A house that should be 100% mine according to my state's laws was split 99% to my wife and 1% to me. She got almost all of it. Of course I had another house before the ex moved in with me that the judge allowed me to keep . My case is almost as bad as the case ML described with one house to the husband and other house to the wife.
Most people aren't smart enough to get it on how judges can move money from one person to another and pretend it's fair but I recognized right away what my judge was doing. I pleaded with him that although the house is in my name, to please allow my wife and her attorney to be in charge of the sale and give me half of what's left over after the bank takes their money. He refused. Deep down he knew my ex wasn't going to get the $150,000 he wanted her to get if she was in charge of the sale. Deep down he knew her appraiser was wrong but chose that appraiser because it'll get her more.
GenMish, you are idealistic and feel many of the divorce laws are fair and judge's can't deviate from them. More and more American men today are refusing to get married. Many of them are scared what can happen to them in the event of a divorce. I was like you one time believing a judge must follow the rule of law but after watching my divorce unfold, I'm a believer on how judges use their discretion to greatly favor one party over another.
Let me give you some advice Billy
When you obviously(and so poorly) try to mislead people, I can understand why the judge trusted your ex and not you. Personally I would believe you sold the property to a family member 150k below market value than your story.
Why? Because I am basing my opinion of you on what little info I have with you. You tried to mislead our audience because Texas jurors can determine marital property value while ignoring our disagreement about division of assets ........this quote from your posted article
"Jurors in Texas can also determine the value of the assets, and determine which assets are considered separate property versus community property. However, the Judge will be the one to actually determine the division of such assets. "
Judges HATE liars and those that are out to deceive, even when its trivial stuff.
My advice to you is to be truthful with a judge, they are pros as to seeing through liars. That way if you were actually telling the truth about your 150k injustice, it wont be repeated the next time
-
Let me give you some advice Billy
When you obviously(and so poorly) try to mislead people, I can understand why the judge trusted your ex and not you.
I don't think you've ever been married because you don't have any experience with divorce. Length of marriage and time assets were purchased are all documented on paper so a person can't lie about it. Expert witnesses are used for high dollar assets such as property. A person can't lie about the value of the property because expert witnesses are considered the experts on value. Of course good attorneys know which appraisers appraise high and low compared to others and use the ones they need to benefit their clients.
Even if a person lied in court or is an asshole, if they were in a 30 year marriage and deserves 50% of everything based off state guidelines, a judge is not supposed to punish them for being a more of a liar or asshole than their spouse.
Personally I would believe you sold the property to a family member 150k below market value than your story.
You've been watching too many movies thinking a soon to be ex spouse can simply screw the other spouse by selling the property for way below value. In divorce court, the judge or jury figures out how much equity is in the property after an appraiser estimates it's value. If it is decided it's split 50/50, the judge tells the person in charge of selling the home to give the other party a set amount based off known numbers to calculate equity. So if a judge tells me to give $150,000 to a soon to be ex based off his belief there is $300,000 equity, I can't do what you think I'm capable of doing by selling the property far below market value because I'll only screw myself.
GenMish, you are of the impression judges can't deviate from State guidelines and don't have a lot of discretion. Everybody who tells you differently are liars and deserve what they got if a judge punished them. Your mind can't be changed but for other guys reading, they may find some valuable info from those who been there, seen that, done that.
-
Whether it is believed or not by some here . . . my example was real and happened to two men that I know.
And I know of a third case.
Man and wife had a small real estate development (no, this is not me).
They had sold off maybe half the lots and had banked the cash which was after taxes and after all development costs paid.
Divorce proceedings started.
Wife's attorney presented figures showing the wife to keep the after tax after costs cash and man to get the acres remaining times sales price.
Man's attorney rightly pointed out that was comparing apples to oranges.
Judge said he had no intention of getting bogged down in trying to measure different types of dollars; and awarded as the wife's attorney presented.
Man's attorney said it would cost a ton to appeal, and he had never seen a judge's opinion overturned anyway.
-
Man's attorney said it would cost a ton to appeal, and he had never seen a judge's opinion overturned anyway.
I got another attorney for an appeal after my divorce. She told me no matter how unfair the judge was in the divorce trial, judges are allowed a lot of discretion and it's not a reason for an appellate court to hear my case. She said there's a 5% chance they may hear the case IF she could prove the judge did something wrong presiding over the case but even if the appellate court agrees to hear the case and rule in our favor, they will send it back to the lower court to have the same judge revise his ruling which may not be much different than the first ruling.
So why did I pursue the appeal with the odds being against me? Because there's a chance to save money. Going after an appeal buys me time and I wouldn't have to sell the house so quickly. The ex being fully divorced from me would have to pay for her own attorney. Going after an appeal also plants a seed in their head they could lose big which motivated them to settle for less. I paid over $5k to start the appeal process and saved tens of thousands of dollars. They ex still got over 50% of the equity in the house but at least it wasn't 99% anymore.
We had to visit our divorce judge one more time and the judge didn't seem happy I went after an appeal disagreeing with his ruling. Judges hate it when an appellate court reverses their rulings. It may affect future promotions if they have a reputation for being wrong often.
-
Whether it is believed or not by some here . . . my example was real and happened to two men that I know.
And I know of a third case.
Man and wife had a small real estate development (no, this is not me).
They had sold off maybe half the lots and had banked the cash which was after taxes and after all development costs paid.
Divorce proceedings started.
Wife's attorney presented figures showing the wife to keep the after tax after costs cash and man to get the acres remaining times sales price.
Man's attorney rightly pointed out that was comparing apples to oranges.
Judge said he had no intention of getting bogged down in trying to measure different types of dollars; and awarded as the wife's attorney presented.
Man's attorney said it would cost a ton to appeal, and he had never seen a judge's opinion overturned anyway.
That cant be the whole story. The obvious solution in that case was to divide that after tax money, order the remaining acres sold, and split those proceeds
Im kinda liking this thread, I don't feel so taken advantage of anymore by paying my attorney $400/hr to accomplish the obvious
-
In the UK prenups ARE becoming sl.more prevalent - but most are thrown out by family court judges - esp. where kids are involved
I actually agree with BillyB on something - if you marry someone you may not trust - don't get married
-
This post is going to be very harsh and likely its a shit way to make a first post, but I saw the topic on prenups and couldnt help but to give my input.
Prenups are worthless, they can be thrown out on grounds such as being "unfair", with "unfair" being decided by the same biased against men family court judge.
Prenups are just a psychological defense, an intimidation so your ex decides not move against you and take everything you have because of the hassle of fighting the prenup. It cant be anything more, when the entire validity of the prenup, no latter how well made, is entirely dependent on a family court judge's hammer.
But just like a guy will drive to snow and mud to get a treasure , a woman will fight a completely winnable uphill battle if the prize is good enough for her. And once the prenup us tossed out, your uphill battle begins, one that can be way harder than hers. These risks are only made worse when having children, because you fall under even more family court laws.
And dont think not getting married will save you, because of common law marriage laws.
I know this post sounds harsh, but I think its fair to clarify how we are virtually destitute and defenseless in the legal area, and how if we get screwed up or not depends entirely on our woman's willingness to screw us or not and that if she does, the law is against us. These are the risks we are signing in for when living with a woman as a husband or even boyfriend (common law marriage) or when having children with her. And we have to be aware of those risks, even if it sucks.
My advice: Take steps to ensure you never fall under marriage laws and family court laws. Get a world class lawyer and study and cover all possible holes.
-
My advice: Take steps to ensure you never fall under marriage laws and family court laws. Get a world class lawyer and study and cover all possible holes.
But you have already told us earlier that none of this (like a prenup) really protects in the end result.
-
But you have already told us earlier that none of this (like a prenup) really protects in the end result.
Well you could, I guess, live with her in Russia without marrying her (assuming Russia doesnt have common law marriage) or live in a country with sane divorce laws and judges.
If it is in the US though..... I honestly dont know what you can do. Maybe a world class lawyer could build up a tight proof strategy that family courts cant touch. But I dont know if such a thing exists.
About children, I am at loss with this one, if you want to have children with your woman, I dont know if its possible without playing the (no pun intended) Russian Roulette and subject yourself to all the laws that come with that, like child support.
-
Well of course there should be child support.
It is the losing of substantial assets and alimony payments that are the killer.
-
Well of course there should be child support.
It is the losing of substantial assets and alimony payments that are the killer.
Child support in and on itself, the way it should work its not bad, it is in fact only fair.
The problem is that family courts use them to screw you if they cant in divorce. There are also insane child support rulings where you are ordered to keep your children (and of course by extension their mother, who family courts almost always give custody to) at "the lifestyle they are used to". Which pretty much takes away significant assets, maybe half or even nearly everything.
In essence child support is now less about supporting the child and has become a placeholder alimony and assets removal weapon.
-
Sighs
As someone who has won the t-shirt I will repeat .. Pre-nups are for those who shouldn't become Husbands / Wives and esp parents .. in the first place
-
Sighs
As someone who has won the t-shirt I will repeat .. Pre-nups are for those who shouldn't become Husbands / Wives and esp parents .. in the first place
Why not? There is nothing wrong with wanting to be protected. Prenups are only activated in the event of a divorce, so if you are so sure your marriage will last forever, you should have no problem signing one. After all, it will never become effective, right?
But as I said earlier, at the end of the day prenups are worthless, because they are as valid as a family court judge's hammer says it is.
-
Why not? There is nothing wrong with wanting to be protected. Prenups are only activated in the event of a divorce, so if you are so sure your marriage will last forever, you should have no problem signing one. After all, it will never become effective, right?
But as I said earlier, at the end of the day prenups are worthless, because they are as valid as a family court judge's hammer says it is.
I think you are missing the point - by even asking an intended to sign one, you are saying I do not trust you how you will be in the future - SIMPLES
Isn't this about sharing in good times and bad - for richer and poorer, etc.,
I walked from a relationship - not into someone else's arms - just could not live with the former love of my life .... it was worth every penny I lost, financially
-
Sighs
As someone who has won the t-shirt I will repeat .. Pre-nups are for those who shouldn't become Husbands / Wives and esp parents .. in the first place
In the US there are valid reasons for a prenup. Prenups are state issues and vary by state. If a husband or wife has children from a previous relationship then it is wise to have a prenup to protect their financial interests in case of divorce or death.
Some business relationships will require a prenup. For example, if one spouse owns a business in partnership with several others there may be a need to have a prenup to complement the business ownership agreement(s). For example, if one owner dies what happens to that owner's share of the business? Does it go to the other owners? To the surviving spouse? To the children?
-
I think you are missing the point - by even asking an intended to sign one, you are saying I do not trust you how you will be in the future - SIMPLES
Well, going by that logic, then you could argue that just by asking to sign a marriage contract, you are saying "I do not trust you", after all the biggest impact of a marriage contract is its effects for a divorce.
Isn't this about sharing in good times and bad - for richer and poorer, etc.,
Yes, you are completely right. In good and bad, for richer and poorer. Within marriage, within the relationship, as soon as the relationship ends, that ends.
-
"As someone who has won the t-shirt I will repeat .. Pre-nups are for those who shouldn't become Husbands / Wives and esp parents .. in the first place"
true words!!! good "onya mate"
if you can't put preservation of your family ahead of self-preservation
then stay true to yourself and stay single
as a husband/father the amount of personal sacrifices you make for your family
is dwarfed only by the rewards that they give you in return
i've had MANY close friends go through divorce
seen it up close in all it's terrifying detail
like all tragedies in life,
a gentleman should respond by maintaining a stiff upper lip and carry on
and continue supporting those around him who will be equally suffering
but thinking of yourself instead is not what a real man would do
-
Thats how mom mom "accidently" ended up with two-3 credit cards here. She didnt didnt remember how she applied for them. I didnt know untill I caught her in action in TJ MAx or some such.. She checks out.. THe cashier gives the usual "Do you want to apply for a CC with us" Mom (smiling) - uhu,,, Please sign here.. Me - Mom, what are you signing? I dunno....she said "sign here". Thats about how foreign women sign prenups..
-
Question
Are Prenups legally acceptable with K 1 Visas? If so, it would be hypocritical to stand up for a K1, and also ask for a Prenup. Dont cha think? But I do understand a suitor with many assets contacting a lawyer before marriage whether K1 or getting married abroad.
I recently ended a 23 year marriage with a FSU lady, and I thought the division was fair. (what I despise are the enormous legal fees because lawyers try to dupe their clients to contest every little thing at a tune of $800/hr) While I did comingle previously held assets, I thought we both contributed after 23 yrs to the ending asset base enough to where I don't regret the initial comingling
If I marry again an FSU lady, I might consider putting money in trust for my children first...but I would not ask for a pre nup. That would be like asking the marriage not to work
-
the trust for your children is a great idea
my cousin did my will and set up a trust for my kids
my wife and I went over everything together
I wanted to protect our children from the possibility that if one of us died
and the other remarried, their new spouse would not be able to grab everything for themselves
the terms apply to us both, and we both are in agreement 100%
sorry for your divorce
that must have hurt plenty and I'm not even considering money at all
-
There have been long threads about pre-nups here before.
Some are very much for pre-nups and some talk quite negatively about them.
Then there was a survey of the net worth and yearly income of the guys here.
Turns out that those who were quite negative about pre-nups had virtually no net worth and low yearly earnings.
So those trying for sainthood then, and those trying now, are merely using that as a stand in for their 'have not much to lose anyway.'
-
YOU don't care MORE about your FAMILY than yourself or money?
that's ok, your choice
as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with how much money is in your wallet
but instead how much love is in your heart for your family
I am lucky, I have an abundance of both
going over estate planning made me realize
one day, every single thing I own will belong to someone else
all wealth is transitory
but my love for my family will long outlast me
-
YOU don't care MORE about your FAMILY than yourself or money?
that's ok, your choice
as far as I am concerned it has nothing to do with how much money is in your wallet
but instead how much love is in your heart for your family
I am lucky, I have an abundance of both
going over estate planning made me realize
one day, every single thing I own will belong to someone else
all wealth is transitory
but my love for my family will long outlast me
Pre-nups are not for 'family' in the broad sense. They are for spouses.
But then you knew this.
And you are merely repeating all the 'saintly' stuff that was stated endlessly in the earlier threads.
A sure sign of insignificant net worth . . . regardless.
-
your own words
"Pre-nups are not for 'family' in the broad sense."
actually the reverse is true
in the "BROAD" sense it very much is about family
and is why I don't want or need one
your ASSUMPTION about me was ill-founded and was as a result WRONG
however...
my ASSERTION
that someone who employs a prenup cares more about themselves and money than their family
should be self evident
I am no saint...
the only legal document that exists in regards to “my” wealth
protects my wife’s and children’s interests and not mine
when my father was alive he was my family legal counsel
he didn’t have a prenup either
I know, I was the executor of his estate
and as a full partner in one of the oldest, most respected DC law firms, he was FAR from being poor....
speculating about my net worth is pointless
if you searched my real name on google, you'd see people do it all the time however
I find it annoying
come to think of it there MAY be another reason I feel I don't need a prenup
an offshore trust maintained by nominee directors in the wonderful tax haven of The Isle of Man (love their funny coins!)
which among other things maintains linked accounts in Sterling and USD
since you are American and prefer dollars
the checque below is for you
if I changed your name and my name to the correct ones, and I hadn't scratched out the name of the trust
you would be able to cash this
and the account would still be quite solvent
and then there's always the Sterling account
BTW, what do your offshore account checks look like?
-
There have been long threads about pre-nups here before.
Some are very much for pre-nups and some talk quite negatively about them.
Then there was a survey of the net worth and yearly income of the guys here.
Turns out that those who were quite negative about pre-nups had virtually no net worth and low yearly earnings.
So those trying for sainthood then, and those trying now, are merely using that as a stand in for their 'have not much to lose anyway.'
pretty snarky considering if a man has only earned a paid for modest home during his life ,and loses it, it's still everything he had.
In relation to his annual earning power,and years he has left to recover it. it's a lifes work.
Whether its 15 mil, 5 million or 350,000 the mans views on letting his ex wife have it would be relative only to his earning potential in years to replace it (and what years he had left)
To be fair I do think you have a point, its easier to be flippant about less.
However I recall the survey on income and do not recall it bore exacting relevance to the mens positions on prenups as you do.
It's possible, even likely it coincided, but I think there were outliers in both groups just like you see in this thread.
I'm no fan of prenups, but I certainly recognize that its quite individualistic.
A person with business partners, prior children, various state laws, there are all kinds of contributing factors.
Amusingly, I'll cite something just as
arbitrary in that it *seems* most of the pile of men that have come here over the decade almost specifically to ask the prenup question where:
1.seeking. validation to get one.as they had already made up their minds and just wondered how a fsu woman would react,and scared shirtless they were already screwed.
2. Often had nothing of real true wealth
(But possible a home, small stock portfolio . Which regardless, were risking all they had )
3.where normally in complete utter panic mode as they had met a girl once,or twice, proposed and had a k1 going, and THEN it suddenly dawned on them that yea that might lead to marriage, you know ,one of those legal things that could effect their far more precious pocket books! So they went on the internet to see what they could find about Russian women and prenups and lighted here or RW gee etc. because countless threads on it from similar last minute freakouts make it at the top of a Google search of those key words.
It was down right funny to me,
so I likely was a tad less empathetic than I would be to someone who had thought this out well, during a slightly reasonable time of courtship ,had circumstances dictating one, and had broached the subject with their soon to be wife in more adult fashion than a school boy worried about losing a promise ring he spent his summer job earnings on.
:popcorn:
-
No, I would not want a prenuptial agreement before marriage. I will only marry once and I will not be contemplating divorce before the marriage. It will be for the rest of my life and/or hers. I would want to leave everything I own to her if something were to happen to me. I would want to make sure that she would be taken care of in the event of my death and Id want to have a life insurance policy in case of such an event.
Marriage is a very serious relationship and should be taken as such. If I have doubts before I marry her, then she is not the woman for me. If there is a need for a prenuptial agreement then there would be no marriage for me.
Just my two cents...
-
No, I would not want a prenuptial agreement before marriage. I will only marry once and I will not be contemplating divorce before the marriage. It will be for the rest of my life and/or hers. I would want to leave everything I own to her if something were to happen to me. I would want to make sure that she would be taken care of in the event of my death and Id want to have a life insurance policy in case of such an event.
Marriage is a very serious relationship and should be taken as such. If I have doubts before I marry her, then she is not the woman for me. If there is a need for a prenuptial agreement then there would be no marriage for me.
Just my two cents...
One of the funniest posts I have ever seen here.
-
FYI, do you know what's better than a prenup?
holding assets in an offshore trust in a shell company
virtually impossible for a US court to touch or even locate
piece of cake to pass along to your heirs
protects you not just from a divorce but ANY legal shenanigans
just sayin...
-
FYI, do you know what's better than a prenup?
holding assets in an offshore trust in a shell company
virtually impossible for a US court to touch or even locate
piece of cake to pass along to your heirs
protects you not just from a divorce but ANY legal shenanigans
just sayin...
Anything reported to the IRS is discoverable. Assuming the offshore trusts are generating income, how does one avoid reporting to IRS?
Under FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), financial institutions and entities in safe havens such as Switzerland will now report potential non-compliance by U. S. citizens. Even Costa Rica and the Cayman Isnalnds are cooperating with the US. If not in a safe haven country, do you feel the funds are secure and can be withdrawn?
-
the simplest approach is to establish an offshore trust or corporation in a tax haven, I like the "Isle of Man" (also great place to visit in the late summer!)
you use what is called a "nominee director" so your name doesn't show up at all on the outside of the trust (so there's no US ownership at all on the outside!)
my director's name comes from a local family in the Isle of Man (they also have cool coins I like to collect!)
then you get a bank account in the trust's name
then you deposit money in the account
the account has to be euros or sterling and not dollars (this is so after the deposit no subsequent transactions will be in dollars - if it's dollars there will be a record back to the USA)
so you do lose some FOREX on the initial transfer, but generally get it back in interest from the deposit
now to fund this transfer
the offshore company writes you an invoice for "something"
you pay the invoice
that's basically it...
as long as you don't do business in the UK you have no tax liability there
-
........the simplest approach is to establish an offshore trust or corporation in a tax haven, I like the "Isle of Man" .............................................. euros or sterling and not dollars . ........................................................
I will need to consult with Moby about the future economic stability of the UK.
..... the offshore company writes you an invoice for "something"
you pay the invoice .....
And when you want your money, you invoice the company? If such becomes prevalent the IRS will lobby for some inter-government agreement.
-
the simplest approach is to establish an offshore trust or corporation in a tax haven, I like the "Isle of Man" (also great place to visit in the late summer!)
you use what is called a "nominee director" so your name doesn't show up at all on the outside of the trust (so there's no US ownership at all on the outside!)
my director's name comes from a local family in the Isle of Man (they also have cool coins I like to collect!)
The Isle of Man doesn't allow nominee directors. You must be thinking of one of your offshore trusts in other tax havens? Perhaps Luxembourg? Anyone who has a tax haven has at least one in Luxembourg? What about the Cayman Islands? Great weather and a tax haven.
So many other great tax havens. Hell you probably have a trust in all of them?
http://www.demontfordbell.com/isle-man-private-companies
then you get a bank account in the trust's name
then you deposit money in the account
the account has to be euros or sterling and not dollars (this is so after the deposit no subsequent transactions will be in dollars - if it's dollars there will be a record back to the USA)
You're probably thinking of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) passed in 2010 and went into effect in 2014 (I'm sure you blame Obama for this). FATCA says that any non-U.S. bank must report accounts held by American citizens worth over $50,000. I'm sure the aggregate of your offshore trusts are well into the tens of millions of USD. Hundreds of millions of USD? If the non-US banks don't report such accounts they can be subject to 30% withholding penalties and possible exclusion from U.S. markets.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102915/tax-implications-opening-foreign-bank-account.asp
BTW it doesn't matter in what currency the offshore trust is in FATCA says it must be reported to the US government.
so you do lose some FOREX on the initial transfer, but generally get it back in interest from the deposit
now to fund this transfer
the offshore company writes you an invoice for "something"
you pay the invoice
that's basically it...
as long as you don't do business in the UK you have no tax liability there
Isle of Man companies pay 0% corporate tax in the UK so it doesn't matter whether or not you do business in the UK. Krimster you really must read up on Isle of Man companies you've undoubtedly missed golden opportunities in the UK to make millions of pounds or euros or USD or Swiss francs.
I have no idea what you're saying with your funding comments. If you're referring to how you get money into your Isle of Man offshore trust, it's really simple. The trust can hold many different types of assets such as bank accounts, property, stocks, bonds.
For example, you could buy a villa in the French Riviera. Transfer funds to a company you've established in an offshore tax haven, say the Caymans. Best not to use the same offshore trust as you want to own the villa, this will make it a little more difficult for US authorities to track. Once that's done transfer ownership to the Isle of Man trust.
If you sell the villa in the future you'll of course not want the funds traceable to you so you'll keep the funds abroad and have them transferred to your US accounts in amounts under $10,000 US.
Hope that's been helpful.
-
dewd,
as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about
even the link you provided spells it out for you in VERY simple language, but you just can't understand it
so let me make it simple for you
the terminology they use is "managed company", see below, Ok, l
literally everything you wrote is just misunderstanding on your part, so please step aside or I may have to get physical with you
and your towering height scares me naught, my verbal sling has slain many giants before thee!
"The Isle of Man has for a long time pushed the use of managed companies (these are companies where the local formation agent provides the directors and secretary) instead of companies with client directors.
-
dewd,
as usual, you have no idea what you're talking about
even the link you provided spells it out for you in VERY simple language, but you just can't understand it
so let me make it simple for you
the terminology they use is "managed company", see below, Ok, l
literally everything you wrote is just misunderstanding on your part, so please step aside or I may have to get physical with you
and your towering height scares me naught, my verbal sling has slain many giants before thee!
"The Isle of Man has for a long time pushed the use of managed companies (these are companies where the local formation agent provides the directors and secretary) instead of companies with client directors.
Then obviously you don't understand the difference between nominee directors and client directors. Probably due to your extensive use of lawyers and accountants to shield yourself and your many millions of USD from the prying eyes of the IRS, FBI, DEA, CIA, NSA, NCIS and the many other alphabet agencies of the government of the USA.
-
Typical Sting 123 ( masquerading as 'Dave NY')
When busted gets all bitter and makes daft assertions about others' lives...
It is so clear who is googling to TRY keep up....and failing miserably
-
wavy davy
you'd better get some ointment for that BURN I gave 'ya....
-
I've never heard of the concept, in law, of a "client director". I've only heard of it as a service concept. So what is it from a legal perspective?
Money managers on the Isle of Man sell the concept of "nominee" directors, but in most common law jurisdictions, including the Isle of Man, there is no such thing as a nominee director in law. Directors have fiduciary duties to all shareholders, regardless of who appointed them.
I am fairly certain that even if a US citizen's assets are held offshore in a corporation, even behind a trust, there is a tax reporting requirement if the US citizen has any beneficial interest in the assets. Canada's reporting requirements for offshore assets is based on US law, and it requires reporting of any interest in excess of $10,000. I know the US thresholds are higher, but I don't know them offhand.
As for prenups, I have personally known very wealthy men who did not have prenuptial agreements. Most fared just fine, even after losing significant net worth. Two that come to mind are two men who were very wealthy before they married, and both were in long term marriages (over 20 years) when they divorced. One's spouse had always been a SAHM, the other became involved in the husband's business. It was a tech business, operating internationally. She wasn't on the tech side, though, and her loss would not be felt by the business, whereas his would have been.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
your explanation is TOTALLY why I didn't go into law!!!
don't nitpick the terms
it's the concept that's important
it's like just the other day at breakfast when my family and I were discussing the use of mixed metaphors between physics and finance
terms like entropy for example
or "Schroedinger's cat" a purely hypothetical cat that exists in a state that is both dead and alive
just like Schroedinger's cat a specific tax/asset protection scheme can be both legal and illegal at the same time...
on one side of the equation you conduct "business" and on the other side you bank the money
nobody in the USA can look inside the other side, and once the money is no longer in dollars it disappears off the Fed radar
c'mon who here doesn't have phony vendors on their books, pleaze "white folks" give me a break!!!!
remember, you're innocent until someone can prove you guilty
and if it's impossible for someone to prove you're guilty
then it's impossible for you not to be as pure and innocent as fresh snow
-
I don't have phony vendors in my books.
The problem with attempting to "beat" the Feds is, they have substantial resources at their disposal, and if you are caught, just as millions of those who stashed money in Swiss bank accounts, or offshore accounts did, they penalties are substantial.
Legal concepts exist for a reason. If, for example, your nominee director decided to authorize the payment of dividends to shareholders other than you, you would have no recourse in law, other than to prove that such an action was not in the best interests of all the shareholders. If your nominee director fails to do something you wish, same issue. You are relying on that nominee to do what you wish, and, particularly if that director is appointed by a bank that's managing your assets, he/she may have ideas that don't align with yours.
This post was composed without the aid of google.
-
"I don't have phony vendors in my books."
well of course not, that would be TERRIBLE 8)
"The problem with attempting to "beat" the Feds is, they have substantial resources at their disposal, and if you are caught..."
it's actually pretty simple to beat the feds, y'know why? cuz it's supposed to be!
word!
the odds of arousing suspicion enough to trigger an investigation is likely 10,000 to one
and they'd have to tip their hand by having a court order
I already have an airtight defense prepared which I've had verified by one of the best tax lawyers in NYC
I sleep soundly at night (and on silk sheets no less)
and my children will end up with a nice offshore account one day
cuz it looks like my wife and I aren't gonna use it, unless there's a zopmbie apocalypse in the USA possibly this has already occurred, first symptom of infection is believing God sent Donald Trump, this is wrong on so many different levels that I think I will need medication, ahhh yes, that's better, so ummm BO, so what are you wearing now?
would you like to know what I'm imagining that you're wearing???
let's see who will come to your rescue
hopefully the lady doth not protest too much
please don't call "you know" to "get me"
I'll be good, from now on, pinky promise
-
I am fairly certain that even if a US citizen's assets are held offshore in a corporation, even behind a trust, there is a tax reporting requirement if the US citizen has any beneficial interest in the assets.
You are missing the point. Krimster is outlining a scheme......sorry, plan.....for someone who seeks to hide....sorry, protect...... assets from a divorce.
Not only must the husband conceal the money from his wife, he must not report the income/funds to the IRS. Otherwise, the divorce attorney's forensic accountant would easily find the money.
Krimster claims it can not be discovered. What a plan! Not only does the husband hide his money, he evades.....sorry, avoids... taxes.
I know a fine, upstanding, patriotic citizen such as Krimster would never evade paying his rightful taxes, so he would never implement a Isle of Man scheme. I wonder if this is similar to what Paul Manafort did.
-
" I wonder if this is similar to what Paul Manafort did. "
Yes, but he did it rather poorly...
-
As a lawyer I'd advise people who have some assets to talk to a lawyer about designing a prenup to fit their situation. If you are getting married and have children and assets from a previous relationship, you need a prenup to take care of those assets and children. This is a very common situation.
Own a business and getting married? You need a prenup. There are many small business owners in this situation. In this case a small business can actually be valued well into the millions. The small business owner may not even realize just how much the business is worth.
Have shares of stock, stock options or other equities and getting married? You need a prenup.
Worth over a few hundred thousand dollars and getting married? You need a prenup.
These are just a few of the situations in which an individual might need a prenup designed for their particular situation. Notice I didn't mention man or woman in the post. In today's world there are many very well off women who have assets and need those assets protected just as much as a man might.
If in doubt talk to a lawyer. Not just any lawyer but a lawyer who specializes in writing prenups.
+5Prenup should be the standard, in France it's named separated assets marriage.
You said for men and women, generally the worthy women would sign one, however the divorced worthy women i got enough informations escaped to share their assets protected by their fellas in the courts (95% of judges are women in the family court here in France)
-
I got another attorney for an appeal after my divorce. She told me no matter how unfair the judge was in the divorce trial, judges are allowed a lot of discretion and it's not a reason for an appellate court to hear my case. She said there's a 5% chance they may hear the case IF she could prove the judge did something wrong presiding over the case but even if the appellate court agrees to hear the case and rule in our favor, they will send it back to the lower court to have the same judge revise his ruling which may not be much different than the first ruling.
So why did I pursue the appeal with the odds being against me? Because there's a chance to save money. Going after an appeal buys me time and I wouldn't have to sell the house so quickly. The ex being fully divorced from me would have to pay for her own attorney. Going after an appeal also plants a seed in their head they could lose big which motivated them to settle for less. I paid over $5k to start the appeal process and saved tens of thousands of dollars. They ex still got over 50% of the equity in the house but at least it wasn't 99% anymore.
We had to visit our divorce judge one more time and the judge didn't seem happy I went after an appeal disagreeing with his ruling. Judges hate it when an appellate court reverses their rulings. It may affect future promotions if they have a reputation for being wrong often.
Well done!