Prenuptials- per California

[William3rd]

Well- it was that time of year again. The Annual State Bar Convention took place in Anaheim where we-those that attended- were able to hear about all of the cases that changed the law in the previous year or just get a general nuts and bolts session in.

I took a very interesting class on prenuptial agreements. According to the speakers, the majority of CA attorneys apparently are refusing to handle prenups these days because of the rapid changes in interpretation that are occuring. This is an area where angels fear to tread.

For those of you outside of California, although the rules may be similar, you need to consult with an attorney in your state of residence. And, by the way, her country of origin is irrelevent-unless you are trying to take advantage of preferable law and can show a nexus to the satisfaction of the Court- because this area of law is controlled by the STATE.  Any attorneys not licensed or present in YOUR state should be avoided at all costs for prenup work.

So I will just touch on a few areas-

WHO needs a prenup?
The instructional staff felt that the average person probably doesnt need one. Here is a list that they gave-

You may need a prenup if-

You had a bitter prior divorce where you lost substantial assets-peace of mind for you
There are a series of trusts in place for children or parents or there is a family business involving other family members- hostile and unwelcome partners
You have a net worth of over 1 million dollars
You own a separate property house
One spouse is paying for the education of another spouse
One spouse has substantial debt from before the marriage
One spouse has a professional practice

You may not want a prenup because-

Prenups destroy intimacy
Prenups destroy trust
Prenups require FULL disclosure of your finances
There are other methods less contentious that you can use.

Prenups are not all-encompassing and can be set aside. Prenups can not control fidelity, waive disclosure, set aside public policy, be illegal in content. Prenups can be set aside if there is duress, inadequate notice, inadequate representation, inadequate disclosure, undue influence

And POST-NUPS are even worse. . . . .

[Admin]

Well- it was that time of year again. The Annual State Bar Convention took place in Anaheim where we-those that attended- were able to hear about all of the cases that changed the law in the previous year or just get a general nuts and bolts session in.

I took a very interesting class on prenuptial agreements. According to the speakers, the majority of CA attorneys apparently are refusing to handle prenups these days because of the rapid changes in interpretation that are occuring. This is an area where angels fear to tread.

For those of you outside of California, although the rules may be similar, you need to consult with an attorney in your state of residence. And, by the way, her country of origin is irrelevent-unless you are trying to take advantage of preferable law and can show a nexus to the satisfaction of the Court- because this area of law is controlled by the STATE.  Any attorneys not licensed or present in YOUR state should be avoided at all costs for prenup work.

So I will just touch on a few areas-

WHO needs a prenup?
The instructional staff felt that the average person probably doesnt need one. Here is a list that they gave-

You may need a prenup if-

You had a bitter prior divorce where you lost substantial assets-peace of mind for you
There are a series of trusts in place for children or parents or there is a family business involving other family members- hostile and unwelcome partners
You have a net worth of over 1 million dollars
You own a separate property house
One spouse is paying for the education of another spouse
One spouse has substantial debt from before the marriage
One spouse has a professional practice

You may not want a prenup because-

Prenups destroy intimacy
Prenups destroy trust
Prenups require FULL disclosure of your finances
There are other methods less contentious that you can use.

Prenups are not all-encompassing and can be set aside. Prenups can not control fidelity, waive disclosure, set aside public policy, be illegal in content. Prenups can be set aside if there is duress, inadequate notice, inadequate representation, inadequate disclosure, undue influence

And POST-NUPS are even worse. . . . .

William,

Thanks for the update. A couple if items caught my eye, as follows:

* There are other methods less contentious that you can use.

What are the other methods?

* And POST-NUPS are even worse.

Why would that be?

- Dan

[William3rd]

Post- nups require "consideration." And the "consideration" has to be real and not imagined.

See Marriage of Burkle for a real fun story in which a post-nup was upheld.
IN a nutshell, Burkle bought a whole bunch of markets. His wife of 20 years, a lawyer, was afraid of his high-risk business decisions failing and damaging her finances and her law practice, so she wanted an agreement.

Husband gave her over 100,000 in separate property cash for her forensic accountant to analyze all of the books and records. The agreement was signed.
Five years and about 300,000,000 later-due to husband's business gamble paying off, wife wanted a divorce and the agreement set aside.

Other methods to avoid a pre-nup-

revokable trusts-
separate property agreements
spotless record keeping throughout marriage
no borrowing against separate property for community
using management services
valuations done at time of marriage

[jb]

Frankly, I'd rather go live in a box under a bridge than that.

Sad, man,,,, really sad.

[BillyB]

Prenups destroy intimacy

Ever hear about those weird Hollywood prenups that penalize their spouse in divorce if they become overweight? I would'nt doubt there are prenups that penalize spouses if there isn't enough intimacy.

[WmGO]

Suppose a man would need a prenup........how about some WM
and FSUW opinions as to *when* would be the best time to
bring up such a subject to an FSUW?

First letter.
Second letter.
During first meeting.
After first meeting.
During second meeting.
After second meeting.

It seems to me that bringing the subject up
AFTER an engagement is a little on the late side.............

Emphasis: we need FSUW input here.............

[Turboguy]

My two cents worth would be when you get to the serious discussion stage which should be before the engagement.   Hopefully the engagement did not occur on their first date.   

[Mike43]

You may not want a prenup because-

Prenups destroy intimacy
Prenups destroy trust
Prenups require FULL disclosure of your finances
There are other methods less contentious that you can use.

Prenups are not all-encompassing and can be set aside. Prenups can not control fidelity, waive disclosure, set aside public policy, be illegal in content. Prenups can be set aside if there is duress, inadequate notice, inadequate representation, inadequate disclosure, undue influence

And POST-NUPS are even worse. . . . .

I disagree

If she really loves you and sees you worry she would say she would recommend prenups and she would sign it!

Good girls would do that if they really love their man!

[William3rd]

Whether you agree or disagree with the statements has little validity over the subject matter-especially in light of your other posts. Besides, they are not my statements. Merely the statements of experts in the field.

The flip side thinking is that a decent man who is in love and serious about a permanent marriage wouldnt think of having one.

[jb]

Mike43,

Prenups are for people who view their marriage as a partnership agreement with an escape clause.  I don't understand how a man can stand in front of a woman and tell her he loves her, and all the while holding one hand behind his back with crossed fingers.  Just how much, or better yet, what part of her do you love?  You love her pretty face, her attractive figure, or her cute accent?   Obviously there are parts of her, and things about her, you don't love if you need a prenup.  What part of the prenup agreement will trigger the escape; how about if she gains a few pounds?  How about if she starts to look her age in 5 years?  How about if she becomes (oh dear~!) *Americanized*?  Some of the things I've read in a few of these prenup threads simply astounds me at the shallow thinking some men will put forth as their valid reasons for needing a prenup, when the only thing you need to do is NOT ask the girl to marry you if you are unsure of the relationship. 

I'm not picking on you for the fun of it, but you need to file an I-129F about the same as you need another hole in your head.  Especially in view of your other posts and your concerns about having to excecute the I-864.  BTW, you can probably have a prenup with the girl, but you sure as hell can't get a prenup with the government.  The most cleverly designed prenup in the world will not negate the sworn statement before a USCIS officer that says you will assume financial responsibility for this woman for the next 10 years.  If you can't get past that issue, I suggest this venture is not for you.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it is what it is.

[catzenmouse]

Ever hear about those weird Hollywood prenups that penalize their spouse in divorce if they become overweight? I would'nt doubt there are prenups that penalize spouses if there isn't enough intimacy.

Not just in Hollywood. Our favorite sea faring captain bragged here awhile back about the weight clause on her in his prenup.

Prenups are for people who view their marriage as a partnership agreement with an escape clause.  I don't understand how a man can stand in front of a woman and tell her he loves her, and all the while holding one hand behind his back with crossed fingers.  Just how much, or better yet, what part of her do you love?  You love her pretty face, her attractive figure, or her cute accent?   Obviously there are parts of her, and things about her, you don't love if you need a prenup.  What part of the prenup agreement will trigger the escape; how about if she gains a few pounds?  How about if she starts to look her age in 5 years?  How about if she becomes (oh dear~!) *Americanized*?  Some of the things I've read in a few of these prenup threads simply astounds me at the shallow thinking some men will put forth as their valid reasons for needing a prenup, when the only thing you need to do is NOT ask the girl to marry you if you are unsure of the relationship.

  Most decidedly well said!

[BillyB]

In defense of prenups, I will say men who are rich or famous are clear magnets for all the wrong people and need to protect themselves unless they feel they are smart enough to sniff out the wrong people 100% of the time.

Also it's not always the woman you need to worry about in a divorce, it's the justice system. I don't mind giving an ex a "fair" share of assest she helped earn during a marriage but the justice system is tilted towards women in this day and age. Because judges are allowed to have lots of discretion on making a ruling, they can make bad rulings and it's not easy to appeal. I had to give up over half my assest in my previous 3 year marriage. Fair? Even the ex wife's attorney told me judges favor women in court and that is why she tells her male clients to settle instead of going to trial. I wish my attorney was more honest with me.

Here's what wikipedia says about it. Regarding divorce settlements, as defined by this survey women obtained a better or considerably better settlement than men in 60% of cases. In 30% of cases the assets were split 50-50, and in only 10% of cases did men achieve better settlements Is it any wonder less and less men want to get married anymore?

Judges are human and they make serious mistakes that can affect your life. Anna Nicole Smith married an 89 year old billionaire. He died the next year. The first judge awarded her around $480 million for her one year marriage. The man's kids appealed and the second judge on a higher court awarded her $88 million, appealed again and the third judge on even a higher court awarded her $0, appealed again and the Supreme court said it's all wrong and was sent back to the lower court to adjust their ruling but Anna died before she could collect a dime of whatever the new ruling was to be.

What was incredibly stupid by the old man is he did not think of the future clearly and prepare properly. He help created a nasty fight that lasted over 12 years between his wife and his kids.

I used to make fun of people who want a prenup but not anymore. Sure their motivations may be greedy and ridiculous or maybe they have an actual need for a prenup that is justifide. I won't be their judge, but they should talk to an attorney.

[Simoni]

Not just in Hollywood. Our favorite sea faring captain bragged here awhile back about the weight clause on her in his prenup.

Speaking of weight clauses, it's a shame that Southwest has dropped theirs for fight attendents.  And they even jump on slender girls who dare to fly wearing sexy clothes.

What's the world coming to?

[BC]

Regarding divorce settlements, as defined by this survey women obtained a better or considerably better settlement than men in 60% of cases. In 30% of cases the assets were split 50-50, and in only 10% of cases did men achieve better settlements Is it any wonder less and less men want to get married anymore?

Judges are human and they make serious mistakes that can affect your life.

I think only a very small percentage, if any members here need to even think much about prenups.  Those that *might* would be advised by their legal staff and not revert to asking questions here.

Do you think those same judges that 'favour' women would not do so with a prenup?  I wonder how or even if prenups figured in to the survey results mentioned.

Most that ask, seem to view prenups as some kind of insurance.. - I don't think even Lloyds would insure a AM/WM marriage unless the premium was higher than net worth.

Any partnership, business or personal will not succeed unless all parties are willing to commit 100% of their effort and resources to keep things going.

My thoughts.. - If you are not in for the proverbial Pound, don't bother with this venture.. with or without prenups you won't get away with the Penny for making bad decisions.

[SANDRO43]

Our favorite sea faring captain bragged here awhile back about the weight clause on her in his prenup.

We haven't HEARD from him for quite a while. Wasn't he supposed to be making a landfall somewhere in the Mediterranean about this time ?

Maybe his wife got a bit cuddlier on the way over, and dumped him overboard into the Atlantic without a lifebelt one moonless night, to simplify legal proceedings .

[BC]

We haven't HEARD from him for quite a while. Wasn't he supposed to be making a landfall somewhere in the Mediterranean about this time ?

Maybe his wife got a bit cuddlier on the way over, and dumped him overboard into the Atlantic without a lifebelt one moonless night, to simplify legal proceedings .

It is interesting that whenever prenups come up I've asked those that have one to post a copy without personal info.. would be nice to see what such agreements contain instead of discussing theory and conjecture.  If I were a Judge and saw anything like BMI requirements I'd throw the whole thing out citing 'obviously signed under duress'.

[BillyB]

  I wonder how or even if prenups figured in to the survey results mentioned.

Don't know but I suspect "most" prenups are honored by the people who sign them. The prenups we hear about in the media are ridiculous and lopsided written by stingy men and prenups signed under duress.

My guess is an attorney, who is trying to do his job right, will give his client the best possible advice for a prenup that will stand up in court if it came to it. That means the prenup will be fair and follow closely to State guidelines for splitting up assets based on time married. This takes the judge out of the equation who may favor women or men and who may have no idea on how the real world operates since he's been sitting on a bench all his life acting like God(I heard that from an attorney).

Most of us men here on the forums can say "If you don't know your woman you shouldn't get married". That is wise words but the problem here is that none of us can guarantee the sincerity of a woman that we marry now or in the future. Life changes and people change. Most of us have been in failed marriages although we initially "knew" the woman at the time when life was great.

[KenC]

Just FYI, Lena offered to sign a prenupt because she knew I was still raw from getting worked over in my past divorce.  I declined the offer.
KenC

[Lily]

Suppose a man would need a prenup........how about some WM
and FSUW opinions as to *when* would be the best time to
bring up such a subject to an FSUW?

First letter.
Second letter.
During first meeting.
After first meeting.
During second meeting.
After second meeting.

It seems to me that bringing the subject up
AFTER an engagement is a little on the late side.............

Emphasis: we need FSUW input here.............

I 'd say any time when you are sure that bringing up this subject will not destroy intimacy between you and the particular woman.

[Lily]

It is interesting that whenever prenups come up I've asked those that have one to post a copy without personal info.. would be nice to see what such agreements contain instead of discussing theory and conjecture.  If I were a Judge and saw anything like BMI requirements I'd throw the whole thing out citing 'obviously signed under duress'.

This text has been posted on one of the FSU women fora as a draft prenup adopted/discussed by an international couple living in Malta:

"Paragraph 1

During the marriage both parties agree that:

a. Property and wealth that is acquired during the marriage shall remain under the ownership of the party who provided the payment or investment, including property and wealth that is acquired by any party because of a certain luck or coincidence;

b. Property brought by each party and property, which is acquired by each party, gifts and/or inheritances, is under the authority of each party so long as the parties don't establish other conditions.

Paragraph 2

About shared use of property, the parties have an agreement for both sides. Property may be shared, without ownership, by both parties as long as both parties remain married.

About property each party brings, each party possesses full rights under prevailing laws.

Paragraph 3

All outgoing expenses for the purpose of the household and the upbringing and education of children born in their marriage become a burden carried and paid for by both parties.

While usual outgoing expenses and daily needs of the household, which are handled by the wife, are to be deemed already done with the agreement of the husband.

Paragraph 4

The second party agrees to revoke all prior last will and testaments. However, there are not as of the signing of this agreement.

Paragraph 5

If the marriage is ended by divorce, shared property will be returned to the rightful ownership, that being the party who made its purchase, or had brought said property into the marriage. If property has been purchased jointly, then that property shall be divided according to each party’s investment/interest.

Paragraph 6

If the marriage is ended because one person dies, then the property that constitutes common property (purchased jointly) falls to the party that lives longer, without exception. Likewise, all other property that constitutes sole ownership shall fall to the party that lives longer, without exception. This is referred to as “Rights to Survivorship”.

Next, although at a later date the party mentioned that lives longer, doesn't have any demand on the property, then such property shall go to lineal heirs of the deceased.

Paragraph 7

The parties in this document along with each party's family (parents, brothers and/or sisters) must respect the basic rights of humanity, along with being obedient to the law and royal legislation in effect in the country of Malta, or the United States of America.

Paragraph 8

a. When differences, opinions or disputes emerge between the parties in this agreement about carrying out the distribution/return of the shared property that is intended in this agreement, then the parties with this choose a lawsuit settlement procedure or pass through other judgement by settlement procedure outside the court, by way of a meeting to reach an agreement, via consultation, negotiation, mediation, conciliation or expert advice, in accordance with the laws and legislations in effect about Alternative Lawsuit Settlement.

b. About Alternative Lawsuit Settlement intended in this agreement, the parties have already chosen a place of settlement (forum) that is special and permanent in my office, Notary Public.

c. About this agreement with all legal results and carrying them out, the parties with this choose a place of legal status that is public and not changeable at the Clerk of the Court's Office of the city of Victoria.

Paragraph 9

The parties in this document agree that they may choose to have children and the surnames of the children shall be “Poneatovscaia-Crim”. As long as the parties remain married, the children shall receive Health Care and Education benefits under the Father’s provision. If this marriage ends in divorce, the custody and care of the children shall be determined by a Maltese Court.

Paragraph 10

The parties in this document agree to maintain a permanent residence in the Country of Malta. If relocation is desired, the details and whereabouts shall be the final decision of the party who is the main financial provider.

Paragraph 11

The parties in this document agree that the Second Party is the main financial provider, and therefore shall retain all rights to final decisions regarding expenditures/purchases.

Paragraph 12

The parties in this document agree that the pursuit of each career/education is important, thereby allowing for freedom of advancement. In the advancement of each party’s career/education, it is agreed that the expenses shall be carried by that party who seeks advancement. In other words; a self-supporting career/education. This may be altered at the discretion of the parties."

[BillyB]

I was still raw from getting worked over in my past divorce. 

I guess I'm not alone in getting worked over. I'm not surprised according to the statistics. Before my divorce went to trial, the mediator told me what the ex wants was ridiculous according to all the facts on the table. The judge ended up giving her more in the end. The mediator told me when he first started law, he believed he could help people and believed the law is just and fair. But after over 20 years of being an attorney, he said it has tilted in favor of women to the point he lost faith in the justice system. The women's activist groups have influenced the justice system and judges are getting more worried about getting thier name in the newspaper/TV due to a bad decision towards a woman hurting their future political ambitions than being fair to men.

I remember going into the family resource center in the courthouse to get some tips. They should've called it the "women's resource center". I read a few pamphlets and it gave tips for women on who to call, where they can obtain help with a list of woman's advocate groups, what to do, how to act, what to say, how to say it with emotion when they're in front of a judge to get the best possible results at trial. There were no advice for men. The info I read was not helpful to me unless I was going to act as a female victim in front of the judge.

Lena offered to sign a prenupt

A good sign she's a good woman and not marrying you for money. Gold diggers will certainly have problems signing a prenup. A Pastor once told me, to my surprise, he recommends prenups. Of course I'm sure he meant fair prenups. He said it's important that both people know what they have when entering into a marriage and know what they're are getting leaving it. With financial issues aside, they can focus on marrying for love.

Unfortunately we know some women use sex as a weapon and I'm sure some women threaten divorce as a weapon too. Women overwhelmingly initiates divorce and according to the statistics, they come out on top with the majority of the assets 60% of the time or at least even 30% of the time. It pays for a woman to divorce her husband. I'd be happy if the equal rights thing feminists created up actually means "equal" someday.

[Lily]

He said it's important that both people know what they have when entering into a marriage and know what they're are getting leaving it. With financial issues aside, they can focus on marrying for love.

That's a good reason for having prenups figured above.

[Phil dAmore]

I understand the need for a prenup, and am well aware of the statistics on marriages that fail and how the courts are slanted in favor of the woman, but ya know....

... Going into a marriage with what amounts to an "Exit Stratagy" just doesn't seem right to me.

But then I have nowhere near as much to lose as some do....

[BC]

Lily,

The document you provided is interesting..

She shares the cost of maintaining the household and children.
She cannot buy anything without his permission.
If she wants education to further her interests she must pay for it.
If they have kids and she wants to be with them she must stay in Malta - at her own expense of course..

In light that she has no financial resources of her own at the outset, has to pay her own education/career expenses this agreement basically acts to chain her to the kitchen sink.

Under careful consideration, I think a court here and possibly in the US would find the agreement invalid.  In the end it is similar to contracts provided to women who work in the adult entertainment industry..

[KenC]

.
A good sign she's a good woman and not marrying you for money. Gold diggers will certainly have problems signing a prenup. A Pastor once told me, to my surprise, he recommends prenups. Of course I'm sure he meant fair prenups. He said it's important that both people know what they have when entering into a marriage and know what they're are getting leaving it. With financial issues aside, they can focus on marrying for love.

That was the whole reason behind Lena offering to sign a prenupt.  She wanted to take any possible financial gain out of the picture.  She was rather insistant about it too.  It was very important to her to never have it even implied that she married me for anything but love.  I have never seen an AW act in such a way.

There are some men that should have a prenupt due to their financial situation IMO, but formulating an exit strategy at the time of marriage does send a mixed signal at best.  Our case was the best scenario I can imagine with Lena insisting on a prenupt and me declining to do so.
KenC