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

[Vaughn]

I was thinking, "Why would they bother to marry at all?" when I scrolled back and saw this...
 
 

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.

 
Exactly. And the need for a pre-nup goes away.

[Boethius]

I assume there are some states that recognize common law relationships. 

Personally, I would never ask my potential mate to sign a prenuptial agreement.  If I had to do that, I would know that in my heart, this is not someone I trusted to the very depth of my being.

[Saltheart]

I'm having a hard time swallowing some of these suggestions given to Paul.  I think it's unlikely that anyone who isn't a business owner, or sufficiently wealthy enough to understand cash flow, asset protection, etc., can offer much advice here in terms of the financial arrangement.  This situation has different modifiers introduced and require thoughtful consideration rather than knee-jerk emotion based responses. 


Simply put, if you don't have it, your reality is quite different.  It doesn't mean you won't come to the same conclusion it simply means they have to consider it in ways that your average employee doesn't.


Not having a prenup is a sweet and sentimental idea...until you get run over.


If you have money and/or business success, which they both have respectively to their cultures, then finances matter.  They matter without that too.  It doesn't mean necessarily that this is some loveless, sponsored business deal.


-salty

[JayH]

I assume there are some states that recognize common law relationships. 

Personally, I would never ask my potential mate to sign a prenuptial agreement.  If I had to do that, I would know that in my heart, this is not someone I trusted to the very depth of my being.

Cannot comment on US specifics --but in Australia a common law relationship is near enough the same as a marriage in legal status.

I am surprised as a lawyer that you do not see the need for pre-nups in many cases. It seems that when everyone here reads "pre-nup" that the presumption is made that this is being suggested to disadvantage or take advantage of one party-- that is not necessarily the case. In fact--in most jurisdictions some sense of balance is required for it to hold up.
SALTHEART touches on a few issues. A pre-nup can in fact protect (the lesser party) in the future. Placing assets in a trust can put those assets out of reach of ANY outsiders(and insiders!!) .For those in business it is common to secure assets in this way. With greater liability placed on Directors of companies and business's and with  the potential to be sued for a multitude of reasons it makes a lot of sense to legally secure assets out of reach of that liability. That in fact-- can protect the family.For me personally - a pre-nup will be a must have -basically for the reasons set out above.
In my own case-- I would also prefer to secure the financial future for my next better half.It is ironic that many seem to jump to the conclusion that a pre-nup is about exploitation and that is simply wrong.

[Gator]

Personally, I would never ask my potential mate to sign a prenuptial agreement.  If I had to do that, I would know that in my heart, this is not someone I trusted to the very depth of my being.

If a couple has nothing and just starting out, I understand.    Keep in mind that a good prenup provides protection for both parties. 
 
And divorces without a good prenup but with substantial assets can be very ugly and costly if your wife retains an attorney whose nickname is "Mad Dog."
 
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose,
Nothing don't mean nothing honey if it ain't free....
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose,
Nothing, that's all that Bobby left me......

[Gator]

I was thinking, "Why would they bother to marry at all?" when I scrolled back and saw this...
 
 
Exactly. And the need for a pre-nup goes away.

Gets my vote. 
 
However, legally a RW can not immigrate without marrying.  Also, few RW coming here are on equal footing, and without the protection of marriage she is indeed vulnerable to the man's whims.  Marriage is glue, although some may consider it a yoke (not Swedish for "joke").

[Boethius]

Cannot comment on US specifics --but in Australia a common law relationship is near enough the same as a marriage in legal status.

In Canada, matrimonial property legislation applies to common law couples in all provinces, other than Quebec and Alberta. 

I am surprised as a lawyer that you do not see the need for pre-nups in many cases. It seems that when everyone here reads "pre-nup" that the presumption is made that this is being suggested to disadvantage or take advantage of one party-- that is not necessarily the case. In fact--in most jurisdictions some sense of balance is required for it to hold up.
SALTHEART touches on a few issues. A pre-nup can in fact protect (the lesser party) in the future. Placing assets in a trust can put those assets out of reach of ANY outsiders(and insiders!!) .For those in business it is common to secure assets in this way. With greater liability placed on Directors of companies and business's and with  the potential to be sued for a multitude of reasons it makes a lot of sense to legally secure assets out of reach of that liability. That in fact-- can protect the family.For me personally - a pre-nup will be a must have -basically for the reasons set out above.
In my own case-- I would also prefer to secure the financial future for my next better half.It is ironic that many seem to jump to the conclusion that a pre-nup is about exploitation and that is simply wrong.

I'm fully aware of the legal effects of pre nups, and I did not post that they are "unnecessary".  I don't draft pre nups, but I do review them for tax effectiveness and, even more often, review them when couples split.
 
My point was not with respect to legal efficacy or rights but rather, the relationship.  I've seen these for two decades now, by default, always for high net worth men with business interests, and in all that time, I can think of exactly one couple that had a pre nup that is still together.  They were cheating on their respective spouses, and left them to be together.  Or rather, his wife threw him out when she found out, and she left her husband. They are living common law, but he still wanted a pre nup, though if she stays 15 years, she gets $5 million.  They are at the 11 year mark or so right now.
 
My point was really directed more at the relationship than legality.  I think that, in general terms, if you are concerned about your money/your assets, it is not a great way to start a relationship.  That is why I would never ask for a pre nup.
 

[BillyB]

I assume there are some states that recognize common law relationships. 

Then the only safe thing for Paulie to do is rent a woman instead of buying or leasing one. With the ability to give $100,000 a year allowance to a woman, he can rent  high end prostitutes every day easily each year. With the exception of disease, there's less risk renting instead of buying. So the question men should ask themselves, what is the value of marriage and does the reward outweigh the risks involved if things don't go smooth?

[Muzh]

Okay, now I'm just scratching my shaved head.

Like Paul, I was not rich but was very comfortably financially. Unlike Salty, I was not a business owner and possessed gobs of money and properties. I wish. (Yo Salty, mind sharing?  )

So my comments are directed  mostly to Paul since we can 'surmise' economically.

When I was 'dating' my wife, I knew she wanted some reassurance from my part. She DID trust me, but let's be honest, only a fool would do so blindly.

I explained to her, the best I could, how I was going to make everything possible for her to become a new member of the USA. That meant sharing everything I had. Including my retirement. No prenups.

For me, that was just material things. I told her I was giving her much more than that. I was giving her my soul.

So, after our wedding we sat down and started the paperwork to convert her into Mrs. Muzh according to US law. That was easy and painless.

Was it a big risk? Only if I just cared about money.

I truly believe that convinced her I was serious about the soul thingy.

However, the real factor here was that I chose wisely. And to do that, I had to follow my heart and guts. There is no amount of advice given that will ever guarantee a wise choice.

[Daveman]

...
However, the real factor here was that I chose wisely. And to do that, I had to follow my heart and guts. There is no amount of advice given that will ever guarantee a wise choice.

And there it is...




But see, Paulie's situation is different because it involves a person:


A) Born in a specific geographical region.
B) With a vagina.
C) When material questions arise, see A and B.

[Larry1]

I assume there are some states that recognize common law relationships. 

Personally, I would never ask my potential mate to sign a prenuptial agreement.  If I had to do that, I would know that in my heart, this is not someone I trusted to the very depth of my being.

There are states that recognize common-law marriages.  Or at least there were the last time I paid much attention to this question, which has been quite some time.

Alimony for unmarried partners seems to have been pioneered in the 1970s in a California case involving the actor Lee Marvin.  Mr. Marvin lived for some years with a girl named Michelle Triola.  When they split up she went to Marvin Mitchellson, an excellent divorce lawyer, and he filed the action to get half of Marvin's earnings during the time they lived together.  The case ultimately reached the California Supreme Court, which ruled that an award could be given in a case where the couple was not married.  Her case established the word "palimony" in the lexicon.

I don't know how many states do this, but it's not just California.  This blog post discusses a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that recognizes the principle.  http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2345

But guys, it could get worse.  This guy in the UK who got divorced nearly three decades before and settled with his wife by giving her the house and other property had to pay his ex-wife £202,000 because her investments went South:

A millionaire was ordered to pay his adulterous wife more than £200,000 - nearly 30 years after they were divorced. Builder Dennis North's wife Jean left him and their three children for another man in 1977. They divorced the following year and in 1981 they reached a settlement which saw him give her their house and the income from rents on other properties.  But now Mrs North, who has never worked, has fallen on hard times after losing money in a series of bad investments. Mr North, 70, has been ordered by a court to hand her another £202,000.

The order follows a series of big-money divorce cases which have swung the law against husbands and resulted in huge payments to ex-wives even after short childless marriages. The North case now threatens to make husbands pay large sums even decades after a split.

Three Appeal Court judges had heard Mr North's lawyers call for the payment to be stopped. His barrister, Philip Moor QC, said 61-year-old Mrs North was trying to get "a second bite at the cherry". He added: "The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives. "The changes in financial positions of the parties since 1981 and the differential between them that has arisen over the years cannot be relevant."

The court heard that Mrs North moved to Australia in 1999 and lost much of her money in "unfortunate" investments said to have been based on bad advice. Mr Moor said it had been her decision to sell up and move to one of the most desirable and expensive areas of Sydney and live beyond her means in a country where she was not entitled to benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464722/30-years-divorce-ex-wins-200-000-more.html#ixzz2McUggZP3

[JohnDearGreen]

Also, I am not going to be someone's sugar daddy.  I will be generous, but not to the point where is harms me financially or makes me feel I am being taken. 

P:   Even the wealthy hedge their bets, and maybe you should too.  I'm sure you have good credit.  If you marry her, use it.  Put the trips on credit.  Put the furniture, the cars, the vacations on credit.  Put her 5k/month on credit.   Then if she turns sour and becomes a GCG,  dump half the debt on her as a going away gift. The total debt will legally be 50% hers.

[Larry1]

I'm sure you have good credit.  If you marry her, use it.  Put the trips on credit.  Put the furniture, the cars, the vacations on credit.  Put her 5k/month on credit.   Then if she turns sour and becomes a GCG,  dump half the debt on her as a going away gift. The total debt will legally be 50% hers.

Not necessarily.  That's something I found out the hard way.  Divorce law is a creature of state law.  Much of it varies considerably from state to state.  During my divorce I was presented with some credit card bills in my wife's name, totaling in the five figures.  I told my attorney that these were my soon-to-be-ex-wife's bills.  I didn't apply for the cards; I didn't even know she had them.  He informed me that since the debt was incurred during the marriage I would have to pay them.  He said the only way I could avoid paying them was to prove that the cash advances were used for a purpose that had nothing whatsoever to do with the family, such as gambling.

[Doll]

P:   Even the wealthy hedge their bets, and maybe you should too.  I'm sure you have good credit.  If you marry her, use it.  Put the trips on credit.  Put the furniture, the cars, the vacations on credit.  Put her 5k/month on credit.   Then if she turns sour and becomes a GCG,  dump half the debt on her as a going away gift. The total debt will legally be 50% hers.

One more brilliant idea of AM trust.
Keep posting, guys.

[Vasilisa]

Not siding with the woman, just a question:

How many of you, guys, being  a 40 yo divorce and having a kid who you still support financially would sell your business and move to, for example, Australia to the Australian woman who you met less than 1 year ago because she promised she would support you financially?

[Boethius]

If a man didn't want to move to a foreign country, he likely wouldn't advertise on a site which caters to foreign women - I am assuming that is how Paulie met this woman.

[Vasilisa]

If a man didn't want to move to a foreign country, he likely wouldn't advertise on a site which caters to foreign women - I am assuming that is how Paulie met this woman.

Well, so far it sounds like  the man who started that thread doesn't lose that much, maybe financially, but anyway, if the relationship doesn't work out, he just steps away in a month or two and moves on.

What does she lose?

[Misha]

Not siding with the woman, just a question:

How many of you, guys, being  a 40 yo divorce and having a kid who you still support financially would sell your business and move to, for example, Australia to the Australian woman who you met less than 1 year ago because she promised she would support you financially?

If you date locally or find someone willing to move. Millions of Russians visit Turkey each and every year. I am sure she could have found somebody had she wanted to stay an pursue her business interests there...

[BillyB]

Not siding with the woman, just a question:

How many of you, guys, being  a 40 yo divorcee and having a kid who you still support financially would sell your business and move to, for example, Australia to the Australian woman who you met less than 1 year ago because she promised she would support you financially?

Not many guys would do that and  do not search for a woman in another country. It begs the question why Paulie's woman with a successful business and daughter in college being surrounded by successful Turkish men who will take care of her as she wants is considering Paulie, who lives in another country, for a husband at all?


 A couple of reasons to relocate to someone else's country and give up everything, job, friends, family, is for BIG love or for financial stability or gain but latter reason alone is not a good reason to get married. Until Paulie states with confidence there is BIG love and trust from both sides, proceeding with marriage regardless of how the finances are handled is not smart.

[Vasilisa]

The interesting observation: men here love to test women in all possible ways and want the women that don't pay attention to the financial moments and do everything according to their hearts' call. At the same time themselves count money pretty well and are afraid of losing what they have achieved in life and the guys who spend money on WOMO are called idiots.

How many of the men would pass their own tests they make their women go through?!

[Vasilisa]

If a man didn't want to move to a foreign country, he likely wouldn't advertise on a site which caters to foreign women - I am assuming that is how Paulie met this woman.

Why can't he sell his business and move to Turkey if he loves her then?

[Muzh]

Why can't he sell his business and move to Turkey if he loves her then?

You are kidding, right?
 
 

[Vasilisa]

One of the best qualities of the RW often mentioned by the westerners is that they make better moms and take care of the ones they love.

It's completely stupid to expect that a 40 yo divorcee (who is obviously mature enough to know that men often don't keep their promises) that has her own business and a daughter would leave her life because of the man she met online like a 14 yo girl escaping with her first boy friend.

Come on, folks, be realistic, would you recommend any guy here to sell his business because the woman in Russia promised something?! You don't even recommend to make MO and have plan B instead.

She is making her plan B.

The richer and more successful the woman you are pursuing the higher the level of her demands, that was one of the qualities that made her successful. You either accept it or date less successful ones.

[Vasilisa]

You are kidding, right?

Not at all.
If he LOVES her and TRUSTS her ( that is what you expect from her) he should be entirely happy to be with her no matter what. Money means nothing, love and trust is everything, isn't it?!

[Boethius]

Why can't he sell his business and move to Turkey if he loves her then?

Perhaps if she offers him a prenup, to sell his home and match his proceeds to buy a home together, and gives him US$5000 monthly as "spending money", he'll consider it.

Seriously, Vasilisa, why is she dating an AM if she is insecure about these issues?  I'm not saying she should give everything up, but logic dictates that if she has a successful business and doesn't want to give it up, if she wants to be independent, she should be looking for a man in Turkey or an FSUM man willing to relocate to Turkey.
 

One of the best qualities of the RW often mentioned by the westerners is that
they make better moms and take care of the ones they love.

A myth created by the so called "MOB" industry.