Prenuptial agreement - yes or no?

[Zoro]

Zoro

I doubt anyone can take anything from Zoro

Anyway the problem is not only if pre-nups are romance-killers but also that they may not be worth much.

That was then; this is now.   Why do you think I became Zoro?  LOL

But your point that Pre-nups may not be worth much is a key one.  Why use the sword if it does no good?  Better to save it for the big things that count....

[witchdoctor]

Absolutely Yes you need a prenup if you want to protect assets acquired after the marriage for the most part.  I have one which in another few years max will run out unless renewed (10 years is usually the time they are good for , After that the court assumes the woman has been with you long enough to deserve 50 percent).  Of course I have two children and you cannot dictate in a prenup what happens to them in the event of divorce, it is up to the court.  If you could be financially ruined by a divorce and the somewhat lopsided community property laws then you need it whether it is a RW or AW (even more so for an AW)
  It is a hard thing to do in either case and you have to do it correctly with a foreign spouse. ie Document it was discussed before she left her country, this should be done legally over there.  Provide her with her own attorney, not one you have control over.  An interpreter, even if she understands English.  Videotape the discussions with your attorney and hers (her attorney will tell her not to sign which is his job so don't get angry)  If she signs the attorney will have her sign a letter, protecting him , that all the "rights" she is giving up by signing have been explained in detail and she dedided to sign the document.  This is important since with foreign wives the best way to overturn it is not understanding (pretending) and the other is you popped it on them after they were already here.
   Don't fall for the if you love her and she loves you, you don't need a prenup that is total BS and every man I know of worth who gave in to that cr2p is now worth half or less of what he was and has to support his wife and her new boyfriend and the kids even if they aren't his!  Marriage is a contract, a legal financial commitment.  Without alteration it will screw the man. (most of the time)  Women who have money insist on prenups more than men with money, so many times it is hypocritical of a woman to emotionally blackmail you for asking for one.
   The main reason for a prenup is to protect you from the short bad marriage ie two years for GCG
In my defense I would not have married ANYONE , from any country, without one.  Have to much to lose to be at the mercy of a Judge.

[Turboguy]

Witchdoctor, I think you have made some good points.   There is one I will question in a minute though.  This seems to be something guys have a strong feeling one way or the other about.   Many would not have one under any circumstances and others would not consider a marriage with out one.   I toyed with the idea of a pool to find out if those who were adamantly against were those with little to loose and those who were stalwartly in favor were those with more to risk which is what I suspect. 

If it were not for my family business it would not be an important issue for me even though my divorce was very dragged out trying to get something resolved financially.   In my marriage I did not care what it cost to get out, I just wanted out but my ex would not accept any offer I made no matter how generous and would not make an offer of any kind for fear she would not ask for enough.   From the time we split up until our divorce was final was 6 years.   As far as VWRW goes I have total confidence that she is not a GCG and am quite comfortable that the Pre-nup will not come into play and that we will be successful.   

For those who do plan to use a pre-nup there is a book which is available on Amazon with the title "Write your own Pre-Nup" that I would recommend highly.   No, I am not suggesting anyone write their own pre-nup but many of the lawyers that you may find yourself working with do very few pre-nups and there is a world of great information that will help you understand how to do a proper prenup and it may help you in making sure your lawyer drafts one that will protect both you and your future wife.

I mentioned one of your comments that I was not sure I agree with.  That is the part about having the pre-nup signed in Russia.   I say that for two reasons.  One is that the Pre-nup would be enforced under the laws of the USA in all likelihood.   A Russian Lawyer would be unfamiliar with the laws of the USA.   The other reason that I would think this would be a mistake (I could be wrong about this and perhaps William will correct me if I am)   My law courses were long ago but as I recall a contract is en forcable in the jurisdiction that it is signed.  For example if you have a lawyer in NY prepare a contract and sign it and mail it to California for the signature of the other party then it would be en forcable in California, where the last signature was signed.  If you do have a Russian Lawyer make sure you have not signed it first or it would need to be enforced in Russia.  Regardless I think the use of a Russian lawyer unfamiliar with our laws and divorce procedures would give the potential to have it thrown out of court.   Just my guess.   All in all you had a great post and brought up some very good points.

[BC]

Marriage is a contract, a legal financial commitment. Without alteration it will screw the man. (most of the time)  Women who have money insist on prenups more than men with money, so many times it is hypocritical of a woman to emotionally blackmail you for asking for one.
   The main reason for a prenup is to protect you from the short bad marriage ie two years for GCG
In my defense I would not have married ANYONE , from any country, without one.  Have to much to lose to be at the mercy of a Judge.

Witchdoctor,

I agree with you that some folks would be best off with a prenup, but also that they would not be asking for unqualified advice here.  Just a guess, but 95% probably don't need one as the laws where the couples reside would normally 'rule' and a quick review of precedent cases would give a good idea how such cases are adjudicated in your area.

The laws where we reside are quite fair and so are judgments for most common folk so all in all my decision was that we didn't need them..  Now if we bought a house in Florida sometime in the future, I might consider postnups, but that would only be to agree on jurisdiction should divorce ever take place.  If I owned multiple residences prior to marriage a prenup may have been more of a concern as it would be easy for lawyers to find ways that quickly establish residence where the law may be more in her favor.

I'm not a lawyer, but certainly believe any judge that reviews prenups that provide for less than the law provides at the place of residence will throw them out without much thought.  If you have considerable wealth prenups may play a part in establishing a reasonable settlement and probably the most important factor in the prenup will not be the conditions but the establishment of jurisdiction.

To sum things up, if you want to provide less for your ex wife than the laws provide where you reside you will likely have little success enforcing them.  For many, a truly enforceable prenup might be as simple as three lines simply stating agreed jurisdiction.

[witchdoctor]

Turboguy,
    I did not say sign a prenup in Russia but verify the subject came up and was discussed before she came over. ie she knew a requirement of marrying you was having a prenup.  If you address it after they have already arrived and left their homeland it could be overturned based on Coercion or blackmail ie. sign this or you have to go back.  You have to dot your eyes and cross your T's because even if your soon to be ex is a PhD ten times over , her lawyer is going to claim you took advantage of her ignorance.
BC,
   I properly executed prenup can save your butt if you have tons of assets, investments and retirement at risk.  However, there is no such thing as a prenup where the woman gets nothing and if they have children, that is a separate matter.  Most of the time, unless the woman is a crack addict (and oddly enough sometimes even if she is)  The wife will get physical custody of the children.  Even if you get joint custody, if you are the main wage earner You pretty much pay for everything, in the style to which they are accustomed.  Even if you live in a one bedroom shack.   I did rundown of what my wife would get up front , with a prenup and not included "my share" of the kids and it came to over 3 million in cash and property.  If I did not have a prenup it would be 3 or 4 times that.  That is not including insurance, child support till age 21(tax free and for me it would be 6K per month per child), 250K per kid educational fund which she would control.  Not bad, if she decides to leave me tomorrow.  So I sleep a little better at night knowing what I lose if something happens and of course nothing gets rid of the emotional baggage a breakup causes.  It is called LIMITING your losses, not no loss.  Hey I can afford it, but what about the guy who loses what he can't and instead of retiring at 55 or 60 never gets to retire.  Happened  to a friend of mine when I was younger and it made up my mind right there.

Turboguy,
  You love her and she loves you,good way to start, but no guarentees.  Look around just about everyone who has gotten a nasty divorce started out the way you stated.

[Jumper]

good to see you're still around Ron

[I/O]

Mmmmmmmmm  is this the 4 or 500 000th Pre Nup discussion on the various boards? Probably doesn't matter because as far as I am concerned based on hard evidence of cases I have seen, they ain't worth the paper they are written on.  They get torn up in the higher jurisdictions time after time.

Do they have a purpose? Yes of course.  The development of one usually facilitates discussions between partners which should have been had anyway and that is often IMHO why the people with Pre Nup's are more likely to succeed in their marriage.

Heres the reality route.  Property Exclusion Agreements will and do work.  Generalised Pre Nups? Sometimes.  A PEA specifically excluding access or rights to any share of particular assett/s or entity/s will and do work, AND are usually fairly simple to establish. 

If the relationship doesn't have enough substance to trust in the more personal areas, then it is probably not going to succeed anyway.  Larger hard assetts are another matter altogether and I smile to myself when I read all this nonsense about protecting her also in the event of a divorce.  Get real...!!!  You ain't gunna be feeling too kindly towards her in that event, so do the reality check right now.  Get a PEA in place if you have enough assetts to justify that and make it bloody one sided.  This boys, is the last chance you'll ever get to be completely selfish.  Do it while you can.

I/O

[Globetrotter]

I/O, a very good post.  You are right in that properly executed pre-nups work very well.  Remember Donald Trump, worth over a $B at the time of his divorce and Ivana got $25 mil, exactly what he had negotiated, and re-negotiated over the years. 

Gee, to read B/C and others, I'm an accident waiting to happen because I have the balls to discuss something "uncomfortable" before contemplating pulling the trigger.  I guess these guys figure that they will never need to discuss anything controversial in their marriage.  I think these guys are the accidents waiting to happen...with over a 50% divorce rate here and much higher in the FSU.  I have taken a horse to work, lived in a tent and a railroad car during my work (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran) when I thought I was bullet proof.  Now I'm not so tough, and don't want to do it again.  Also, I do a lot of charitable work which takes much $ and others depend on me.  Don't want to see that end either.

I said it before and I'll say it again.  Everyone must establish boundaries, what is acceptable and what is not, way before marriage.  If you can't or won't do this, one or both balls are missing, or you are attempting to buy your wife, knowing you are a flawed individual, which is a disaster anyway.

Again, well said.

[BC]

Mmmmmmmmm  is this the 4 or 500 000th Pre Nup discussion on the various boards?

Yeah.... and have never seen a copy of prenups posted..

Your PEA (love the acronym) may be interesting but likely a hard sell.  These women are smart.  Explaining that a prenup goes above and beyond provisions established by law might be more acceptable than your PEA.  A good RW is no dummy.. The proportion of grey to pink matter is much higher than the proportion of big to little brain in men.

If the relationship doesn't have enough substance to trust in the more personal areas, then it is probably not going to succeed anyway.

So true..  a fact that many joining this venture seem to ignore.

Larger hard assetts are another matter altogether and I smile to myself when I read all this nonsense about protecting her also in the event of a divorce.  Get real...!!!  You ain't gunna be feeling too kindly towards her in that event, so do the reality check right now.  Get a PEA in place if you have enough assetts to justify that and make it bloody one sided.  This boys, is the last chance you'll ever get to be completely selfish.  Do it while you can.

In my eyes a marriage is a partnership that includes sharing of financial gains during the partnership. Although many EU countries give the couple the option of shared/separate financial status, most opt for shared.  Those that opt for separate financial status are usually those that want to protect themselves from a failing business so that the partner can restart a similar business on clean ground.  Wonder if a comparable option is available in the US..

It's not about how you feel when you encounter splittsville, but how you live up to your responsibilities to your partner even if the relationship fails.

I've taken lumps before, but as a man and sleep well.  I make decisions but also live up to the responsibilities that come along with them. 

Those thinking of 'easy ways out' should think twice.

 

[BC]

I/O, a very good post.  You are right in that properly executed pre-nups work very well.  Remember Donald Trump, worth over a $B at the time of his divorce and Ivana got $25 mil, exactly what he had negotiated, and re-negotiated over the years. 

Even I would consider this a good settlement.  Where can I apply? LOL

Gee, to read B/C and others, I'm an accident waiting to happen because I have the balls to discuss something "uncomfortable" before contemplating pulling the trigger.  I guess these guys figure that they will never need to discuss anything controversial in their marriage.  I think these guys are the accidents waiting to happen...with over a 50% divorce rate here and much higher in the FSU.  I have taken a horse to work, lived in a tent and a railroad car during my work (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran) when I thought I was bullet proof.  Now I'm not so tough, and don't want to do it again.  Also, I do a lot of charitable work which takes much $ and others depend on me.  Don't want to see that end either.

Oh believe me.. we've discussed very difficult subjects all along.. it comes with the territory as any man married to a RW for a while will attest.

I said it before and I'll say it again.  Everyone must establish boundaries, what is acceptable and what is not, way before marriage.  If you can't or won't do this, one or both balls are missing, or you are attempting to buy your wife, knowing you are a flawed individual, which is a disaster anyway.

Sure one should take the time to discuss all aspects of a budding relationship, but 'real' time is a luxury around these rooms and that is the quagmire most end up facing. One with considerable wealth can or should afford the time to reach mutual agreement. 

Remember that each of us are approaching this subject from an individual point of view, comprised of capabilities and flexibility to develop a true relationship.

I sum it up as follows:

Time and money..

Have little money and no time, you will fail.
Have some money and some time, you might succeed or fail.
Have big money but no time you will likely fail in the long term.
Have big money and big time your chances of success are maybe greater.

That's reality...

but...

Marriage is about dissolving boundaries and not creating them.  I'm not saying that prenups or PEA's have no substance, but that many here fail to see how they can and should be implemented in a positive manner if deemed necessary.  It's not about who has 'the balls' but about need.

Someone driving a Ferarri will surely pay more insurance than the man driving a more humble vehicle, but if you consider the value of the vehicles alone, the Ferrari owner will be paying considerably more as a percentage of vehicle value..  The same principle applies here.. - so why does the Ferarri owner accept high premiums for his car without balking but won't accept a high premium for his RW?

My wife would say 'scrooge'..  LOL!








 

[BillyB]

I/O, a very good post.  You are right in that properly executed pre-nups work very well.  

Actually I/O doesn't believe pre-nups are worth the paper their written on and men who consider having pre-nups are selfish. You mis-read what he wrote Globetrotter.

If the relationship doesn't have enough substance to trust in the more personal areas, then it is probably not going to succeed anyway.

This could very well be said to the ladies about to be married. Big bucks and material possessions shouldn't be her motivation to enter into into marriage.

Anna Nicole Smith was married to a 90 year old man for 1 year before he died. The first court gave her nearly $500 million in a fight with the husband's kids. After appeal, a higher court said she should get $88 million. After appeal, a higher court said she should get nothing. After appeal, the Supreme Court said that's all wrong and sent it back to a lower court to revise it's ruling. They're all probably a bunch of incompetent lower court judges according to the Supreme Court. Anna died recently so this may end now or continue with the father of her recent child. Judges are human and what may seem fair to one judge may be grossly unfair to another judge. What may seem like a selfish pre-nup to one person may seem like a generous one to another.

We always hear from the media about bad pre-nups that lawyers find holes in and judges will not enforce. What you don't hear about is the good ones that stand and work well for both parties. Also, don't rely on getting educated from the media.

It's stupid for a man who earned a lot to not protect himself if he has business with partners or children from another marriage. If he divorces, his children from a previous marriage and business partners may be left out from "what is fair" to them.

Take example of the Doctor up thread. Maybe a guy like him has a business, maybe he has a home he earned when he was single and the State he lives in recognizes it as separate property. But when he marries, community finances will go towards separate property that could be a home and business making it community-like and could muddy things up in court and a judge could award 50% of the assets to the wife although maybe 10% of the community finances was invested on the wife's behalf. Now, would that be fair? Fair to the man's children from a previous marriage? Fair to others who invested in a family business if a judge rules the sale of a business or business asset's to compensate for an ex-wife's community investment? Would that be fair to the owner of a business getting divorced if he built his business with much sweat and hard work over a long time only to get dissolved by a incompetent judge's ruling? Is it fair to the employees who'll have to look for another job?

Guys that have a lot of assets are targets of gold diggers more than the regular guy is used to and need to remember, a fool and his money will soon part. For the men that feel they need a pre-nup, get one and find a woman who understands what it's about and beware of any woman who doesn't want to marry you, just for you.

I read TG getting a pre-nup and I believe he is getting married to an intelligent and beautiful woman who understands what it's about pertaining to a family business.

Witchdoctor got one and I've seen his wife in pics, a beautiful lady most men would envy. And based on her appearance, she looks to be a sincere loving woman.

Both men seem to be blessed in business and with wonderful women.

[I/O]

The single reason I have seen Pre Nups fail when tested in the higher jurisdictions is largely because they have been outdated.  Basically, they need to be regularly updated or provision included for regular up dates which usually doesn't happen.

I reject the notion that a Property Exclusion Agreement is more difficult for a potential partner to swallow.  In fact it is far far simpler.  Let's simply look at an example of a substantial family business which involves several stakeholders.  If the new partner is specifically excluded from rights to any portion of this asset, it is quite simple and this remains the start and finish of the agreement.  It can be a whole of life agreement and can be included in any "Succession Rights" (Will) document.  It is just too simple in that respect.

Houses, cars, personal possesions, family obligations are often very fluid matters.  Who earned what money to pay for the new LCD screen and so it goes.  I looked very carefully into this and concluded these matters would blur so much over time that it is near impossible to cover all the bases.  In my country, the "Family Law Act" is quite clear cut in all of these areas and personally, I think most should read the summary "act" long before marriage.

I acknowledge this is opinion only and slanted towards my country's laws, however they are not dissimilar to USA.  In my situation, there is 3 substantial assets which have been documented and specifically excluded by "Formal Agreement" from any future distribution of assets resulting from separation or divorce, only subject to variation by instruction in my will.  (If in fact I have instructions in my will)

Regarding personal responsabilities, I see nothing that we have done which absolves me of any obligation in that respect.  Bottom line is this, anything we establish together plus a bit here and there would, if necessary, be distributed as per the "Family Law Act" and the protected assets simply don't come into the equation.  Mine is rather happy with this arrangement and thought it was an obvious way to go when it was floated in the first instance. 

I don't suggest that a Pre Nup can't work, but I have seen too many fail once they get to higher jurisdictions, where if there is substantial assets involved, the cases usually end up. 

The trust and relationship strength factors apply to the personal issues and perhaps ultimately simple assets and I do think if there is real fears in this area, the couple shouldn't be thinking about marriage.  But when it comes to major assets, particularly where other people (Family or Business partners) are involved, trust simply doesn't form part of the equation IMHO, business is business.

However, I have no doubt there will be another 400 000 discussions on this subject before we are all dead and gone.

I/O

[vwrw]

From Gator:
-  To be fair, a prenup should cover not only divorce but what she receives at the man's death as well.

Is it possible?

[Turboguy]

Since VWRW asked this I will embellish and explain her question a bit.   She asked it if is possible?   We have been talking about this in our communications.   She asked me about it.

My answer to her was that properly what someones gets upon someone's death should be covered by a will and not a pre-nup.   To me a pre-nup covers what happens with a divorce.   Perhaps a general mention that there will be a will would be appropriate but I can't picture a probate lawyer paying much attention to a pre-nup.   

Just for reference at this point I don't have a will but intend to do so as soon as VWRW and I are married.   Anyway, I think some discussion of if a pre-nup should cover what a wife would get upon death would be interesting.   Any comments on the subject?

[Bruno]

man's death... Perhaps a general mention that there will be a will would be appropriate...

Hmmm more complex subject... maybe good for a new topic... first time that so subject is posted...

A will can be not enough... by example, if the couple buy a new home... the man work and the woman stay home taking care of the 3 children... if the man die, the woman can fall without income... she can inherit the home but wil not be able to pay the monthly bill to the bank... here, some insurance compagny can help in so situation, by paying the monthly  bill for home... same with income since that by law a widow can only receive a widow pension at the date of the man will be 65 year old... if the man die at 60 year, she need to wait 5 year for receive a widow pension... some insurance compagny can cover these periode...

Of course, for very rich people, it is not a problem... but for a simple worker like me, so insurance are needed for support my wife in case of my premature death...

[Turboguy]

You make a good point Bruno that a widow who inherited a home with a big mortgage could end up no better off than not getting anything.  If someone has a mortgage there should be at least enough insurance to pay off the mortgage and leave a little to live on. 

In my own case I have told VWRW she would get a paid for house, furnature, a car if she is driving and enough cash to tide her over.  Cost of living where I am is cheap enough that if the best job she could find was McDonald's she could get by without touching her reserves with even a low paying job.  We do plan to get her an advanced degree in the US and to try to set her on a course where she can get a good job.   I am also sure that over time the will would get updated and improved.   Making sure she has no worries is a high priority with me.

[vwrw]

No Ray, I do not care if a pre-nup SHOULD cover what a wife would get upon death. I believe each couple is free to decide what their pre-nup’s content is.
I am curious if a pre-nup covered what a wife receives at the man's death would this part have a legal power?

So as a will is such a thing that could be changed at any time even without informing the spouse…in case if a pre-nup’s content went in contradiction with a will’s content what of them would have the legal power?

[Turboguy]

I think it is a good point that a Pre-Nup is an agreement between the two involved and a will is a document by one of the partners that can be changed without the knowledge or consent of the other.

My own thoughts are that the prenup could stipulate that there would be certain provisions in a will that could then not be altered.   We will see if some of the others agree or disagree with this.

By the way when you are choosing a career to persue in the USA you might want to think about being a lawyer.  I think you would be a very good one.

[WmGO]

Ok let me help you out here with the question about prenups, wills and death. Pay careful attention: the prenup *should* address the issue. Just having a will is not enough. This is because in most States, if not all of them, a husband cannot completely disinherit his wife. At a minimum she is entitled to what is called an "elective share." This is typically one third of the deceased spouse's estate. This regardless of what is provided for in the will, i.e., she can either accept what the will provides for her or she can take an elective share of the estate.

That is why one of the main features of a prenup is not just to address property division and support in the event of divorce, it is also to address the inheritance issue in the event of death. And yes, the prenup would control on the issue of inheritance over a will in the event one spouse provided for something different in his will than what is provided for in the prenup.

So yes, death and inheritance should be covered by the prenup. This is something to discuss with your legal counsel for your State's particulars. 

[Bruno]

My own thoughts are that the prenup could stipulate that there would be certain provisions in a will that could then not be altered.   We will see if some of the others agree or disagree with this.

A will is valid until you change it or until you die...

For a prenup, some US state use what they call a sunset provision :

A sunset provision may be inserted into a prenuptial agreement, specifying that after a certain amount of time, the agreement will expire. In a few states, such as Maine, the agreement will automatically lapse after the birth of a child, unless the parties renew the agreement. In other states, a certain number of years of marriage will cause a prenuptial agreement to lapse. In states that have adopted the UPAA (Uniform Prenuptial Agreement Act), no sunset provision is provided by statute, but one could be privately contracted for.

So, if i good understand... in the Maine, once a child is born, if the woman don't accept renew the prenup, the asset of the man is not more protected by the prenup... Hmmmm... do we have more gold-digger RW in the Maine ?

I think that prenup is not really a matter for a forum... only a lawer knowing your local laws can really help you...

[William3rd]

That is probably the best prenuptial agreement advice that I have heard so far, Bruno. . . .

[witchdoctor]

Bruno,
   I agree  this subject should not be taken word for word off the forum and yes it will vary from state to state and country to country.  BUT, it is an important subject not only in this forum ,but any website involved with marriage.  For men particularly , but also women who are the primary wage earners or have significant assets as compared to their future spouse or any other issues already mentioned.
    Despite my "Hard A**ed" comments I really feel for the most part the prenup can protect you from a mistake ie a short bad marriage costing you more than you can afford to lose.  After that time it may also still HELP protect your premarital assets, just because you had it on records and did full disclosure of assets at the time of the marriage. (that is a requirement of having one is going on record with what you have to begin with)  My nightmare was to marry someone a la Linda McCartney, be with her 2-4 years and then have her want half or even more than ten percent.  That is the legal nightmare that marriage has become to some degree.  I did not want to be like the guy who told me he had been married six times and divorced.  He said next time instead of getting married he would find some woman he hates and just buy her a house instead.

[DKMM]

WmGO has good advice.  Gotta love the US, can't disinherit your wife.  In Belgium you can completely disinherit your wife but not your kids (am I right Bruno?)

TG, if I know your situation as well as I think I do and you were my client, I would steer you towards a trust making scenario.  You can make sure vwrw is taken care of for life without her necessarily owning the principal (assuming you want want to pass along your legacy to your kids eventually)... blah blah blah.  It is interesting to see some of this prenup-with-a-RW conversation happen before our eyes on this forum.

[Bruno]

WmGO has good advice.  Gotta love the US, can't disinherit your wife.  In Belgium you can completely disinherit your wife but not your kids (am I right Bruno?)

Not really, it is more complex...

Wife have no right to inherit but she have wat we call the "usufruit"...

For example, a couple buy a home together, the husband buy a second residence ( holiday ) for  himself, and the wife buy big camping car for her...

The home is shared asset... second residence and camping car are personal asset...

In case of dead from the husband... without children, the wife receive all... but it become more complex in case of children...

- Camping car will always be propriety of the wife
- propriety of home is shared between child and mother
- propriety of second residence is for children

Now is coming the "usufruit"... the home and second residence can be use by wife until her dead... she can put one of the home in location and receive some income from it who are her own income... she cannot sell the second residence since she have no proprietair right on it... she can sell the home ( in so case, of the child pay the part of the wife and keep the home, of both sell it and share the money received ). Child can never sell the home without the full agrement of the widow.

A will can reduce the "usufruit" part... but never below the "part réservataire"... these "part réservataire" is the main house and furniture with 50% of asset... these "part réservataire" is propriety of children but widow can use it... if widow marry again and have new children, these new children have no right on the "usufruit" or on  the "part réservataire"

In case of divorce, the ex-wife loose her right to "usufruit" or "part réservataire" if at the date of dead :
- they are divorced more of 6 month
- the man have make a will who don't give the "usufruit" to wife
- that man have different address that the ex-wife
- that they have never life in common again after the divorce

Here, in Belgium, we don't really need pre-nups... all is already writen in the law and same in case of pre-nups, you cannot go against the law... in case of dead, children inherit but they are not able to put the widow on the street... widow can use asset until the end of her live, earn money with it but cannot sell it or destroy it...

If Turbo was living in Belgium and married with VWRW... at the dead of Turbo, VWRW will have the Turbo business... she can use it for earn money... but children of Turbo will be the proprietary of the business... VWRW cannot sell the business and need to make a normal gestion... Children can use law for block VWRW is they see that she lead the business to a bankrupt... same system for the familial house... she can use it, she cannot sell it, but she need to make the needed repair for keep it in the same state...

Of course, it is a simple explanation... by example, the number of children change all... see the graph at http://www.notaire.be/info/successions/350_parts_reservataires.htm

one child : widow have a parts reservataire of 50% and child inherit 50%
two child : widow have a parts reservataire of 33% and each child inherit 33%
3 child : widow have a parts reservataire of 25% and each child inherit 25%
more of 3 child : widow have a parts reservataire of 25% and 75% is shared equally between each child

You can make sure vwrw is taken care of for life without her necessarily owning the principal

And it is what Belgium law make... read up...

[Turboguy]

TG, if I know your situation as well as I think I do and you were my client, I would steer you towards a trust making scenario.  You can make sure vwrw is taken care of for life without her necessarily owning the principal (assuming you want want to pass along your legacy to your kids eventually)... blah blah blah.  It is interesting to see some of this prenup-with-a-RW conversation happen before our eyes on this forum.

Thanks for the suggestion DKMM.  I am sure for a lot of people with scenarios similar to mine that might be the best option but in my case I think you would find yourself banging your head against a brick wall.   There are enough variables for me down the road that I want to keep my options open which a trust does not allow you to do.   I do appreciate the suggestion though.   I am guessing you are a financial adviser, am I correct?  Second guess would be lawyer.