FSU women and marriage regulations

[Gylden]

Marriage is about love and compatibility not about how much one can enrich themselves financially.
If a woman must say what's in it for me, then she is not the right one for him and he is not the right one for her.
Of course with a prenup there should be justifiable assets to "protect". For example man with previous children/wife/wives with significant assets.
 

[Gator]

Just think about. Before a woman comes here she does not know local economics. For example - is $50K a big salary? What kind of life style does it provide? You would have to take tens of different details into consideration before you could answer this question. And you need to live here to know these details. Who is going to explain to her all those multiple "if"s and "but"s  pre-nup's terms  imply? A russian lawyer? How would he know?  An american lawyer? I dont think so. When talking about a foreign woman and AM, a pre-nup is ALWAYS in men's favor.

Prenup is not a bad word if prepared correctly.   
 
The prenup must be reasonable or a judge will ignore it when deciding a divorce case.   How to make it reasonable - besides having a Russian attorney, she should also be represented by an American attorney experienced in family law in the AM's state.  She will also need a good interpreter who understands legal terms.  Negotiating a prenup takes time and the legal fees will not be small.
 
The prenup must cover much more than what happens in case of a divorce.   Negotiation of such stipulations will reveal whether the AM is considering her welfare.  With all the attorneys involved,  the negotiations will reveal IMO far more about her  "protection" than discussions just between the RW and AM.   The AM and RW must disclose fully their finances including assets, and the economic implications are easily assessed by her qualified American attorney.   

[Doll]

a prenup may or may not work. Knowing the person you are marrying will reduce the chance that you will ever need a prenup, no?

In this case- no, because the OP is talking of protecting his business (or premarital property). Knowing the person might reduce the risk, but  I am sure you, Eddie, know how hard it is to understand what any FSU woman has on her mind.
 

[Faux Pas]

But I can tell you an even more important factor: THE JUDGE !!

10 judges can give 10 different rulings on the very same divorce.

True. A pre-nupt would change this how exactly?

Man had inherited $400-500,000 before marriage.

Judge knew it had to remain with man (and there was no co-mingling as this money had never been touched, only reinvested); but knowing of that amount, the judge gave woman about 90% of the marital property.  So it is really an illusion when you hear that property acquired before marriage is to be kept solely by the individuals.

Similarly, many (most?) prenups can be illusions . . . if the judge so decides. 

Oh, by the way . . . they both knew each other very well since age 5 or so and the families were very close.

This mantra of 'know the person' is pretty funny.

I assume there was no pre-nupt because you didn't mention one. Even if there were a pre-nupt, the judge could have still easily ruled the exact same way. My point being a pre-nupt can more often than not be a false sense of security. IMHO, not where ones priorities should lay when entering a relationship. It is only as good as the judge ruling on it.


Everybody's assets is a lot and worth protecting no matter how large or small. When a man and woman marry they become one (or should unless the contract stipulates otherwise) should either one have substantial assets, they along with the minute' assets of the other should both be directed in the collective interests of the couple as opposed to "just the man" or just "the woman". Remember these words. "If she's not worth giving half or more of your shit to, why marry her in the first place?"

[Faux Pas]

Prenup is not a bad word if prepared correctly.   
 
The prenup must be reasonable or a judge will ignore it when deciding a divorce case.   How to make it reasonable - besides having a Russian attorney, she should also be represented by an American attorney experienced in family law in the AM's state.  She will also need a good interpreter who understands legal terms.  Negotiating a prenup takes time and the legal fees will not be small.
 
The prenup must cover much more than what happens in case of a divorce.   Negotiation of such stipulations will reveal whether the AM is considering her welfare.  With all the attorneys involved,  the negotiations will reveal IMO far more about her  "protection" than discussions just between the RW and AM.   The AM and RW must disclose fully their finances including assets, and the economic implications are easily assessed by her qualified American attorney.

Gator,
It is very easy to understand "your" position on a pre-nupt. I don't disparage or fault you for that. You are retired, you married a much younger woman. Probably if there is a need for a pre-nupt this would be it.


However, for most (and speaking very generally) in this endeavor, a pre-nupt or mention is the first shot over the bow IMHO. I think I would be more worried of the woman that did want to sign one. It's a business arrangement in an emotional relationship. They mix like oil and water

[Doll]

The prenup must be reasonable or a judge will ignore it when deciding a divorce case.   How to make it reasonable - besides having a Russian attorney, she should also be represented by an American attorney experienced in family law in the AM's state.  She will also need a good interpreter who understands legal terms.  Negotiating a prenup takes time and the legal fees will not be small.
 

So, this makes the prenup reasonable? It makes it legal.

[Doll]

Guys, what is a "reasonable" prenup in your understanding (in the case of FSU bride)?

[Donna_Pedro]

Marriage is about love and compatibility not about how much one can enrich themselves financially.
If a woman must say what's in it for me, then she is not the right one for him and he is not the right one for her.

What a fine example of manipulation! "If you love me, you will sign.."  Yak.


Anyways, its curious how carefully everybody here has avoided a simple question- What is in it for a RW.
Let me make a font bigger - WHAT IS IN IT FOR A RW??

[Muzh]

Let's get real. The main reason that western men look for wives in the FSU, and especially Ukraine, is because there are plenty of attractive women there that wants to marry. I.e. good supply. No one would go looking there if there were few women looking for husbands.

Why can't we be honest?


The main reason is that middle-aged western men go looking in impoverished countries for hotties, they would only dream of in their own country, that are desperate to move form their hell-hole. This is why the infatuation with their worldly assests, their only source of attraction.


And before I get flamed on, think about the statements that are attached to these arguments. Most commonly "she'll trade up" thinly veiled in most of justifications.

[Gator]

Gator,
It is very easy to understand "your" position on a pre-nupt. I don't disparage or fault you for that. You are retired, you married a much younger woman. Probably if there is a need for a pre-nupt this would be it.

Age had nothing to do with it.  I wish I had one with my American wife only 4 years younger than me.  Retired or not, premarital  assets and private businesses with partners are items that should be protected from nuisance claims. 
 

However, for most (and speaking very generally) in this endeavor, a pre-nupt or mention is the first shot over the bow IMHO.

 
That is the way you felt and you did what you felt best.  Others will have a different opinion considering their situation.   I saw it as an opportunity to discuss some important issues besides divorce and spell them out in a legal agreement.  People die, women want to continue their education or start a business, illnesses occur, economic reversals occur, mothers want their children provided for, people get tired of living together, people meet someone else even though they were not looking, etc.
 

[Gator]

So, this makes the prenup reasonable? It makes it legal.

Doll, your attorney is your advocate charged with representing you and advising you.   The agreement could be unreasonable if your attorneys failed to do their job (if so, you have the basis for a malpractice claim) or if you ignored your attorneys' advice.   

[Gator]

Guys, what is a "reasonable" prenup in your understanding (in the case of FSU bride)?

Anyways, its curious how carefully everybody here has avoided a simple question- What is in it for a RW.
Let me make a font bigger - WHAT IS IN IT FOR A RW??

I believe I have suggested in my prior posts what a comprehensive prenup would address.  It seems that the two of you are operating under the assumption that a prenup is trickery.  Eliminate that thought and replace it with the concept that a RW could negotiate what she wants for her protection and quality of life including the car she is given to drive, education of her children from a former marriage, etc.  Anything and everything is negotiable.   
 

[Doll]

Doll, your attorney is your advocate charged with representing you and advising you.   The agreement could be unreasonable if your attorneys failed to do their job (if so, you have the basis for a malpractice claim) or if you ignored your attorneys' advice.

There is something more than " the attorney" advise," You sign it the way it is OR we are not getting married".

[Doll]

So, (again) what is a "reasonable" prenup?

[Gylden]

What a fine example of manipulation! "If you love me, you will sign.."  Yak.


Anyways, its curious how carefully everybody here has avoided a simple question- What is in it for a RW.
Let me make a font bigger - WHAT IS IN IT FOR A RW??

To answer your question "what is in it for a RW"?
Nothing more and nothing less than any other woman wherever she is from!
 

[Doll]

To answer your question "what is in it for a RW"?
Nothing more and nothing less than any other woman wherever she is from!

Which means?
 

[Gylden]

It means what it means.
I could pose the same question from the other side.....what is in it for the man?

[Doll]

It means what it means.
I could pose the same question from the other side.....what is in it for the man?

The "man" opened this thread and asked how to protect his money.
We assume the FSU bride come with nothing ( barely possible to get a decent job, no place to live, no money saved.
Ok, I am "canceling" my question because  the "AM" side doesn't want to be honest.
Nothing new though.

[Gylden]

The "man" opened this thread and asked how to protect his money.
We assume the FSU bride come with nothing ( barely possible to get a decent job, no place to live, no money saved.
Ok, I am "canceling" my question because  the "AM" side doesn't want to be honest.
Nothing new though.

In your scenario, what kind of a dura would get involved in any way with such a man?

[Doll]

In your scenario, what kind of a dura would get involved in any way with such a man?

Then what is this thread about? I am confused (not))))))))

[GQBlues]

....
Anyways, its curious how carefully everybody here has avoided a simple question- What is in it for a RW. Let me make a font bigger - WHAT IS IN IT FOR A RW??

DP-
 
That's actually a very easy question to answer, which I believe Gator had already addressed.
 
Pre-nup isn't gender specific, not in this day and age at least. It also isn't constructed for the sole purpose of keeping a woman from having a stake at a man's assets/property he had amass prior to a marriage.
 
 
So short answer to your query, any FSUW should know enough to make sure an entry is made to protect her state and welfare as well in the event the marriage goes bust. Or at the least, consult with an attorney who can best lay whatever terms and conditions that will benefit his/her client's welfare in addition to whatever the divorce court deems is equitable in the event of a divorce. Heck, put a time waiver on the darn thing...5 years, 10 years, etc...
 
 
I agree with the other posts as well about the silliness of knowing your MOB woman, or any woman for that matter, as a measure of avoiding having to do a pre-nup. The MOB are fast-tracked marriages regardless of how many weeks, or months you spent in the FSU. For one, it is extremely difficult to get a full understanding how your gal would react to everything once she crosses POE.

[Doll]

Funny.

[Doll]

MOB are fast-tracked marriages

What is "MOB" in this sentense?

[Patagonie]

I want to add my two cents.

We need to start from the scratch.
Who are the guys who are coming in FSU ? Guys between 4000 and 7000 $ gross in average, of monthly income, for those who are seriously capable to handle such adventure. Half of the guys who are coming are not capable to support the total cost of the adventure (courtship, marriage, two first years expansive... everybody know how it is costly). Below 4000$ gross expect to have some difficulties, Best to have 7000$ gross of monthly income and above.

Who are these guys in the society ? in my country above 4000$ brutto it's the top 10% of singles. In USA 26% of household earn more than 75000$ gross, so for singles it will be probably no more than 15 % wich is connected for what i know about my country.
 I would know, if we start a poll here, what is the average wealthiness of men here ? I will bet around 500 000 $, more will be not a surprise for me.
 
Who are the girls you meet in general ? In Ukraine more than 90_95% earns between 150 and 400 $ a month, few are "comfortable" (above 400) and in this case very often the family is involved (parents helps, rich brother ...), very few has a car. In Russia i don't know but for sure the situation is really better. How rich  they are in AVERAGE ? No more than 10000$.
 
 We have two classes of writers here : the emotionals and the realistics.
 The firsts one say : how would you tell her that you want to sign a prenupt, big turn off for love TRUE
 The seconds say : how will you feel when she will go with 50-60-70 % of your cash and your properties (including family inheritance) ? Devastated, atomized. TRUE
 
 Where is the right balance ? (the right balance for the woman AND for the man
 This is the main question, but we need to add :
 Where is the right balance to 1/ to not be despoiled. 2/ to improve his life
 The main purpose of  a marriage is to improve his life, nothing wrong with this.
 
 I would say just think about how improve her life ? If she stays in USA or Europe laws are generous with women. They are not lazy. There are many helps (In Europe) and for what i know in addition there is in my country also a special amount prorated on time spent during marriage and number of childrens. With an alimony prorated on your salary it provides her not a good life but a decent one in most cases. And she will have additionnaly half of what you have from the beginning of the marriage (in the case of a marriage agreement which save your previous assest  - which is the case in most european countries, but the situation is different, apparently, in USA). 
 
 I want say for the emotionnal guys here that you are starting most of the time with two very differents economical situations, i would say very contrary situations. If you sign an agreement which allows from the beginning to share all, you are giving a 250000$ capital from the first day. For Western man 250000$ is not an amount which will allow you to earn one's keep. Just it will help you to save a rent.
 In FSU, in Ukraine, and it's time to be realistic, you are instantly improving her life by a 5x, 10x or 20x factor. More than an improvment this is a jackpot. This not really the right balance to protect YOU. You overprotect her by halving all from the scratch, for those who have assets (and again i will not be surprised if the average wealthiness is less than 500000$). Not the right service you can give yourself.
 But if you want justice (the right balance) you must protect her from the scratch by buying a property in HER country for example, and of course by at least halving it or fill documents at her name. After, year after year, you will want more justice and perhaps to incorporate part of your "separated assets" in the community. It means perhaps starts with a 65000 $ property bought for the marriage. and a second in  the next two years, same amount. So less than two years after she will be anyway the owner of a flat at least. Really : do you despoil this woman ? NO. Have you protected her, YES, In case of divorce : have you improved her life ? Yes (not speaking about alimony and all shared after the divorce)
 
 
 You cannot think starting from the half basis because we have absolutely two differents amount of assests and also because westerns laws are really more favorable for women.
 
 To resume : i will sign the standard marriage agrement in my country (previous assets acquired protected) and will buy a property before the marriage agrement, which will let her 50% of this property. In the worst of the worst case, she will have a gold insurance from the very beginning. I will do my best to let her protected year after year. I will prepare all documents in case i die to let her have the best life possible after me. But i will do my best to respect myself and, in case of a divorce, to continue my life with good financials conditions and doing my best to be sure that the life of my (ex) wife would have improved also.
 
 
 

 

[Faux Pas]

Age had nothing to do with it.  I wish I had one with my American wife only 4 years younger than me.  Retired or not, premarital  assets and private businesses with partners are items that should be protected from nuisance claims. 
 
 
 
That is the way you felt and you did what you felt best.  Others will have a different opinion considering their situation.   I saw it as an opportunity to discuss some important issues besides divorce and spell them out in a legal agreement.  People die, women want to continue their education or start a business, illnesses occur, economic reversals occur, mothers want their children provided for, people get tired of living together, people meet someone else even though they were not looking, etc.

I've never faulted anyone for seeking or insisting on one. It is however a double edged blade and cuts both ways. I see them as a settlement for an accident that hasn't happened yet. There are not many women willing to enter into such an agreement that probably isn't already anticipating the destruction of the marriage themselves. Nor many men as well. Either by their hand or not. I realize "till death do us part" has little meaning to most but, wedding vows should have a meaning, don't you think?


Anyone who entered into a marriage without protecting a business or prior children isn't making very good decisions. A pre-nupt needn't come into play. Those that "need" asset protection most generally have it. These things "if" that is the concern can be taken care of prior to marriage.