She wants me to guarantee her security in the US before she comes...

[Doll]

Doll, are you reading the same posts the rest of us are reading?

Ткните меня, плиз, еще раз в то, что "мы читаем".
So?

[LiveFromUkraine]

Now listen. You are going to leave everything behind, sell everything you have and go to live in the unknown country with the almost unknown man. You have a kid, you pay for her education.
So my question is- how are you going to be "ready" for this?

You listen, no one is forcing her to do anything.   She can stay right were she is and continue life there with her job.  If she doesn't trust the guy then marriage is the last thing she should be considering.

[Doll]

In the US, you tend to get bigger properties for the same amount of money you would spend in other countries.  You get more property unless we're talking about New York or other major cities.

Apples to apples, dear. Kiev- Chicago.
Rural PA does NOT equal Kiev (or Rostov or Krasnodar).

[LiveFromUkraine]

Apples to apples, dear. Kiev- Chicago.
Rural PA does NOT equal Kiev (or Rostov or Krasnodar).

A 500k house is a 500k house no matter if it is in Kiev or rural PA, lovely Doll.     You still get more house for your money in the states. 


For the record, I don't think she should sell her flat either.

[Doll]

You listen, no one is forcing her to do anything.   She can stay right were she is and continue life there with her job.  If she doesn't trust the guy then marriage is the last thing she should be considering.

Ok.
Amen.
( it is the most stupid thing to trust the person whom you barely know.
No way she should sell her kondo)

[Gylden]

You listen, no one is forcing her to do anything.   She can stay right were she is and continue life there with her job.  If she doesn't trust the guy then marriage is the last thing she should be considering.

Absolutly!
 
From where I sit it seems that Paulie is a very reasonable and intelligent guy, who is also generouse. He will probably be able to figure things out.
 
 

[pitbull]

You listen, no one is forcing her to do anything.   She can stay right were she is and continue life there with her job.  If she doesn't trust the guy then marriage is the last thing she should be considering.

Well Paulie evidently doesn't trust this woman either. He isas preoccupied with financial guarantees and requires an ironclad prenup. If he doesn't trust the woman then marriage to someone from another country is the last thing he should be considering. From what iunderstand she is not exactly in hurry to move to the US with him. Under his conditions that i commented on earlier i think she will be better off staying right there and continuing her life and her job. And he should look for an american woman if he wants equal financial contribution.

[pitbull]

Because he intends to match her proceeds and buy a place which ios twice the value of the flat she owns now.

don't forget that we are talking about the US real estate market here. Don't you remember the recent ra bubble burst and how many people lost their houses and are under water with their mortgages? She may well invest the full price of her Ukraine condo and end up losing all of it and owing the bank, just like many americans are. The only difference is that she would have lost all of her premarital property, her business and income while paulie evidently has a much larger premarital property which will be protected by the prenup.
The point is paulie is trying to protect her assets and get financial guaratees just like she is, she just has more to lose.

[LiveFromUkraine]

don't forget that we are talking about the US real estate market here. Don't you remember the recent ra bubble burst and how many people lost their houses and are under water with their mortgages? She may well invest the full price of her Ukraine condo and end up losing all of it and owing the bank, just like many americans are. The only difference is that she would have lost all of her premarital property, her business and income while paulie evidently has a much larger premarital property which will be protected by the prenup.
The point is paulie is trying to protect her assets and get financial guaratees just like she is, she just has more to lose.

Today's real estate market is nothing comparable to the real estate bubble. 


Besides, paying cash for the property would alleviate any mortgage problems.  He said he would kick in half and the other half would come from the sale of her flat. I didn't see anything about mortgages.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Well Paulie evidently doesn't trust this woman either. He isas preoccupied with financial guarantees and requires an ironclad prenup. If he doesn't trust the woman then marriage to someone from another country is the last thing he should be considering. From what iunderstand she is not exactly in hurry to move to the US with him. Under his conditions that i commented on earlier i think she will be better off staying right there and continuing her life and her job. And he should look for an american woman if he wants equal financial contribution.

Agreed, they are both not ready for marriage, imo.


As for a prenup, I think it is important if you have kids from previous relations.  Same reason she should keep her flat. 


A prenup doesn't mean she would get nothing.  It all depends on what they agree too. 

She is taking a huge leap by moving to another country and starting over.  She either has to accept the risks or not.  It sounds like she has a good thing going on in Turkey and maybe she should stay there until her daughter is done with school.

[BillyB]

if the OP covers his premarital property by prenup

If his state recognizes premarital property and community property, a prenup is not necessary as long as everything is documented.


Every state has dictated what is fair in event of divorce based off various factors. Problem is judges in family court are allowed LOTS of discretion when making their ruling. Judges have biases the same as everyone here and Paulie can read who thinks he's  a good guy who's generous and who thinks he's a bad guy trying to get the better of his potential wife in real estate planning and in prenup.


Most people believe a prenup is to protect one party from another in event of divorce. A prenup should follow state guidelines and display fairness to both sides and more importantly to protect both parties from a judge who has biases that would favor one party over the other. It doesn't matter if Paulie is a cheap scumbag or his future wife doesn't love him and married him only for money. Even if you're an azzhole or an angel, you are entitled only to what is fair in the event of a divorced, nothing more, nothing less.


Paulie should consult an attorney to get his prenup and if he wants it ironclad, it needs to follow state guidelines and he needs to hire an attorney and licensed interpreter for his fiancee to represent her interests before she signs. Anything less, the prenup has holes and can be overturned in divorce court but at least it can be used as toilet paper to wipe your butt with in the event the judge leaves little or nothing to either party.

[ML]

All these pages point out the frustrations of marriage because of legal and financial considerations.

Hard to do for international situations I realize; but far better to just live together.  Yes, the emotional issues will be just as painful when the split up comes, but the financial and legal issues will be much simpler. 

[pitbull]

Today's real estate market is nothing comparable to the real estate bubble. 


Besides, paying cash for the property would alleviate any mortgage problems.  He said he would kick in half and the other half would come from the sale of her flat. I didn't see anything about mortgages.

Well, mortgage or not the value of a jointly purchased home might as well be lower at the time of divorce than what they paid.or much lower. And she will lose all her money.
Again in terms of fairness - when two people have very unequal net worth pre-marriage it is not fair of them to contribute equal amounts of money into marriage from their premarital worth. It should be proportionate. For the sake of exercise, lets assume her only premarital asset is her condo and its value is $100K. And his premarital assets combined (business, 401K, business, investments etc.) are worth $1 mln. Well then either  both of them turn ALL of their premarital assets into joint assets and make them joint assets after mariage ($1.1mln.) OR they contribute the same proportion. Lets say they want to buy a $200K house together. Then she contributes 10% or 20K and he contributes 180k. This way they carry proportionately equal risk.
In any case Paulie is not any less "хитровыделанный" than she is in his effort tosecure a financial leg up !

[Boethius]

Five to seven thousand dollars a month is a lot of money in a country with an average  GDP of less than US$11,000, but I find it not implausible for a world class gymnast if she is a good teacher.  But, she will make that in the U.S. as well, perhaps even more.

This is what I would do in your shoes, Paulie.  I'd let her keep the Ukrainian apartment and not sell it.  Rather than giving her a $5000 monthly allowance, start putting aside $5000 monthly now, invested in something with a little growth.  If you marry, after she is settled, if she wants to work, gift that money to her as the capital to start her new business.   Do you live in an area with a large population?  One where she can make a go as an instructor?  She should also have some capital from selling her Turkish business.  In your prenup, note the cash you are gifting her.  In Canada, good pre nups have an "escalation" clause, based on court rulings.  That means that after five years of marriage, $X is excluded from the pre nup, after ten years, a further $X, and so on.  That may be a concept to consider, as it takes into account your years together and gives her more mental security.

In terms of estate planning, I would probably put some of my assets in a trust for my children before marriage, to keep them out of my estate and potential estate litigation.  I would buy sufficient insurance to ensure my spouse has a good income after I die, and no financial worries.  I'd probably also consider buying excess insurance, with some proceeds going to my children.

I would wait until the daughter is out of school before marrying.  If you marry, set aside all of your pre marital assets and don't touch them.  Anything you earn while together should be your "joint" assets.  I have assumed you are not retired.  Pool everything together, with joint bank accounts for withdrawing cash for everything from food, utilities and clothing, to personal expenses.  If she is a successful businesswoman, she is used to managing cash flow. 

If your marriage is successful, at some point, she will likely want to sell her apartment.  But that may not be for five or ten years down the road.  Or, she may want to give it to her daughter.   Let that be her decision, independent of you, just as you managing your assets is independent of her.

In full disclosure, I will say that I married as a student, with no assets.  I have one separate account, for my corporate earnings, which was established solely for tax purposes.  My husband owns half the non voting shares in that company, he cannot own voting shares because of regulatory restrictions.  Everything we own is held jointly.  All the cash we spend goes into one joint bank account.  All our credit cards are linked, including credit cards we have given our two older children.  I review and pay the bills. 

You posted she has not been separated long - did you mean June of this year, or June of 2011?  If the former, she should probably not be dating at all.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Well, mortgage or not the value of a jointly purchased home might as well be lower at the time of divorce than what they paid.or much lower. And she will lose all her money.
Again in terms of fairness - when two people have very unequal net worth pre-marriage it is not fair of them to contribute equal amounts of money into marriage from their premarital worth. It should be proportionate. For the sake of exercise, lets assume her only premarital asset is her condo and its value is $100K. And his premarital assets combined (business, 401K, business, investments etc.) are worth $1 mln. Well then either  both of them turn ALL of their premarital assets into joint assets and make them joint assets after mariage ($1.1mln.) OR they contribute the same proportion. Lets say they want to buy a $200K house together. Then she contributes 10% or 20K and he contributes 180k. This way they carry proportionately equal risk.
In any case Paulie is not any less "хитровыделанный" than she is in his effort tosecure a financial leg up !

The value of the flat, in Ukraine, could be lower at the time she wants to sell.  I guess I don't understand the difference.  I still don't see how she could lose all her money if she kept up with her taxes/insurance.


The people that lost their homes didn't lose all their money since they borrowed the money to get the house.  Hell, a lot of those people got second and third loans on the properties and spent the cash. 


This isn't even close to the scenario that was talked about in this thread.


As for fairness, I will leave that up to them to figure out. 

[Boethius]

The people that lost their homes didn't lose all their money since they borrowed the money to get the house.

They lost any down payments they made, and the principal paid on their mortgages.  There are many homes that had good equity in them at the time of foreclosure.

[LiveFromUkraine]

They lost any down payments they made, and the principal paid on their mortgages.  There are many homes that had good equity in them at the time of foreclosure.

Most were getting into homes with hardly any money down.  If they had a pulse they got the loan.


People used their houses like credit cards so they screwed themselves.


I disagree that there were a lot of houses with equity lost.  Any equity at the peak never really existed. 


It was based on speculation.

[Doll]

My friends got their home 9 years ago, then 2 years ago they decided to relocate to another state, tried to sell the house. After 15 months of trying they finally gave up- lost both downpayment and some money that they paid to the bank. All in all they lost 65k.

[LiveFromUkraine]

My friends got their home 9 years ago, then 2 years ago they decided to relocate to another state, tried to sell the house. After 15 months of trying they finally gave up- lost both downpayment and some money that they paid to the bank. All in all they lost 65k.

I have dealt with a lot of homeowners in my day.  Lot's of people in foreclosure as well.  The one thing I know is to always take what is said at face value.


They purchased in 2004 and I believe the height of the bubble was 2006.  They survived until last year where they just walked away from 65k. 


It just doesn't add up.

[ML]

The really silly part is where our government and we as taxpayers are subsidizing and making whole many who lost money on the decrease in value of their home.

Meanwhile, what about those of us who in each and every year have lost X number of dollars we invested in new start ups, turn around hopefuls,  real estate developments, etc., etc.

It's called the real world folks.

Has anyone offered to share the increase in value of  their home when the market is up?  But yet asked the rest of us to share in the loss in value of their home when the market is down?

I have a relative who walked away from an 'underwater mortgage' leaving the remaining bank customers and shareholders to absorb his loss.

I will never again share a meal with this person or even engage in a conversation with him.  It is like stealing money.

[wineman]

The really silly part is where our government and we as taxpayers are subsidizing and making whole many who lost money on the decrease in value of their home.

Meanwhile, what about those of us who in each and every year have lost X number of dollars we invested in new start ups, turn around hopefuls,  real estate developments, etc., etc.

It's called the real world folks.

Has anyone offered to share the increase in value of  their home when the market is up?  But yet asked the rest of us to share in the loss in value of their home when the market is down?

I have a relative who walked away from an 'underwater mortgage' leaving the remaining bank customers and shareholders to absorb his loss.

I will never again share a meal with this person or even engage in a conversation with him.  It is like stealing money.

You are right!!  And what is even more disgusting to me is when they have the money to payoff or make payments on the mortgage and they refuse to, and they are allowed to slither out of their responsibilities.  I have seen so many couples make very good money, live high on the hog, and then when the inevitable divorce comes, they both claim poverty and let the house go into foreclosure.  However, both have set aside several hundred thousand dollars in IRAs, 401ks, Keoughs, sepIRAs, simple IRAs, etc. that they get to keep.  That money can't be touched, even in bankruptcy.  The lawmakers who wrote such laws should be made to cover the costs of the foreclosure!!

[Patagonie]

If she plans on visiting home enough, why would she sell the flat?


I think this whole relationship sounds more like a business transaction.  It doesn't sound like she is ready for a serious relationship.

She is only ready for a serious engagement from ... the OP.

[jone]

You guys are a little off topic with your talk of foreclosure buyouts.   However, regardless of what you say, ML, you should not be crying tears for the banks who issued the loans.  They have experienced loss.  But, any time they issue a loan there is a loss percentage figured in there.  Isn't it their responsibility as well, as they have risk involved?  Why should the federal government bail them out?  The answer is simple.  Back in the early 2000 - 2005 timeframe, the government (under and supported by GWB) was promoting home ownership.  Accordingly the government did not monitor the bond issues by the Wall Street investors.  We all know the story.  But there is culpability all around.  Stated income loans, the neg-am loans and the inflating of values that accompanied them all contributed to the temporary demise of the real estate market.

Take heart, Paulie.  In California, there is a mini-boom ongoing.  We are seeing values going up on investment properties (yes, I have a couple of those) to the tune of 1% per month here.   It is my firm belief that if you buy, together, at this time, you will not experience a loss in value.  Particularly if you hold the property for more than five years.  Such surging should be felt across the country over the next year and we will experience a robust increase in property values.  Then the rest of these properties should trickle back to the market and we will be a solvent country (with all properties in play, not being held by the federal government) once again.

[Patagonie]

Five to seven thousand dollars a month is a lot of money in a country with an average  GDP of less than US$11,000, but I find it not implausible for a world class gymnast if she is a good teacher.  But, she will make that in the U.S. as well, perhaps even more.

This is what I would do in your shoes, Paulie.  I'd let her keep the Ukrainian apartment and not sell it.  Rather than giving her a $5000 monthly allowance, start putting aside $5000 monthly now, invested in something with a little growth.  If you marry, after she is settled, if she wants to work, gift that money to her as the capital to start her new business.   Do you live in an area with a large population?  One where she can make a go as an instructor?  She should also have some capital from selling her Turkish business.  In your prenup, note the cash you are gifting her.  In Canada, good pre nups have an "escalation" clause, based on court rulings.  That means that after five years of marriage, $X is excluded from the pre nup, after ten years, a further $X, and so on.  That may be a concept to consider, as it takes into account your years together and gives her more mental security.

In terms of estate planning, I would probably put some of my assets in a trust for my children before marriage, to keep them out of my estate and potential estate litigation.  I would buy sufficient insurance to ensure my spouse has a good income after I die, and no financial worries.  I'd probably also consider buying excess insurance, with some proceeds going to my children.

I would wait until the daughter is out of school before marrying.  If you marry, set aside all of your pre marital assets and don't touch them.  Anything you earn while together should be your "joint" assets.  I have assumed you are not retired.  Pool everything together, with joint bank accounts for withdrawing cash for everything from food, utilities and clothing, to personal expenses.  If she is a successful businesswoman, she is used to managing cash flow. 

If your marriage is successful, at some point, she will likely want to sell her apartment.  But that may not be for five or ten years down the road.  Or, she may want to give it to her daughter.   Let that be her decision, independent of you, just as you managing your assets is independent of her.

In full disclosure, I will say that I married as a student, with no assets.  I have one separate account, for my corporate earnings, which was established solely for tax purposes.  My husband owns half the non voting shares in that company, he cannot own voting shares because of regulatory restrictions.  Everything we own is held jointly.  All the cash we spend goes into one joint bank account.  All our credit cards are linked, including credit cards we have given our two older children.  I review and pay the bills. 

You posted she has not been separated long - did you mean June of this year, or June of 2011?  If the former, she should probably not be dating at all.

I like this post Paulie
But if i were you i would have to check which assets she has, how many money does she earn really. I would check also what about her previous relationship(s). I would go out of my skin of "bon samaritain" because something tell me that she don't tell you all the truth, i am pretty sure that she arranges her own truth. I am going to schock people here, but i would ask to a detective to get the hidden details still not revealed. This is  typically the situation a professional is useful.

Even if you earn 20000 $ what you don't know yet  is that demands of such women are endless and priceless, it is just the beginning ... of the hell. You should know what happened to all previous guys ... i am pretty sure that they have quite different story than her.

[Doll]

Oh! Checking, more checking, then detectives!
I am really smelling a true trust