Risky Business

[BC]

Shadow, in USA, around 2002, 26 of the states in the Union adopted a " Uniform Code for Pre Nuptial Agreements".  As long as certain requirements of full disclosure are met, the Judge has no discretion to change the agreement unless there is something there which is against the law or pretains to the children.  

I already stated, if your state has not adopted the Uniform Code, get married in Nevada; you can adopt Nevada laws even if you live somewhere else.

The pre nups are at Judge's discretion in other states. Those should be avoided.

Boy, hate to see this thread dwindle to another prenupt marathon.

The Act calls for independent counsel for each of the parties.  Is she going to select her own legal beagle and pay for him/her out of her own pocket? - or will you do that, possibly nullifying the agreement itself?

The Act sets some standards regarding prenupts and that is about it.  As with any contract though, the circumstances leading up to the contract, and stipulations that are outside the basics laid down in the Act can be ruled upon.

Now tell me... what independent counsel can justify telling their client to sign away any and all rights to support should your relationship fail?  That in itself would probably be enough for her to later scream that she had inadequate representation (paid by you remember...).

Something tells me you haven't even talked to a lawyer yet.

Huff and puff.. I ain't buying it yet.

[Shadow]

Shadow, in USA, around 2002, 26 of the states in the Union adopted a " Uniform Code for Pre Nuptial Agreements".  As long as certain requirements of full disclosure are met, the Judge has no discretion to change the agreement unless there is something there which is against the law or pretains to the children. 

I already stated, if your state has not adopted the Uniform Code, get married in Nevada; you can adopt Nevada laws even if you live somewhere else.

The pre nups are at Judge's discretion in other states. Those should be avoided.

However it is not the Code what decides if something is against the law. That will be for the Judge to decide.
In this one should for instance look at the objective of the agreement. If the objective is seen as protection of your assets, there is less problem. However you seem not to deny that a secondary objective is to ensure the 'effort' put in to the relationship because of the otherwise strict financial repercussions. I doubt that a Judge will appreciate the secondary objective, however not being a lawyer or countryman I do not know if this can be seen as against the law. There for it will depend on the exact wording of the agreement, and if the lawyer makes a minor mistake it can have severe consequences.

I would suggest taking a route where the risk of the agreement coming before a Judge is minimal, which includes no emotional blackmail of 'if you leave me you end up with nothing'.

[BC]

However it is not the Code what decides if something is against the law. That will be for the Judge to decide.
In this one should for instance look at the objective of the agreement. If the objective is seen as protection of your assets, there is less problem. However you seem not to deny that a secondary objective is to ensure the 'effort' put in to the relationship because of the otherwise strict financial repercussions. I doubt that a Judge will appreciate the secondary objective, however not being a lawyer or countryman I do not know if this can be seen as against the law. There for it will depend on the exact wording of the agreement, and if the lawyer makes a minor mistake it can have severe consequences.

I would suggest taking a route where the risk of the agreement coming before a Judge is minimal, which includes no emotional blackmail of 'if you leave me you end up with nothing'.

Shadow, I wouldn't worry much..

SECTION 6. ENFORCEMENT.


(a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:


(1) that party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or


(2) the agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party:


(i) was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;


(ii) did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and


(iii) did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.


(b) If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates spousal support and that modification or elimination causes one party to the agreement to be eligible for support under a program of public assistance at the time of separation or marital dissolution, a court, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, may require the other party to provide support to the extent necessary to avoid that eligibility.


(c) An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/fnact99/1980s/upaa83.htm

interesting read btw..

[BC]

Doing a little brainstorming....  I wonder how such an agreement would be useful before she receives a permanent green card..  Certainly the threat of deportation etc would be a factor whether or not the agreement was unconscionable.

I wonder if premarital agreements are a factor with false DV cases..  DV being the path of least resistance.

[ambach123]

First of all prenups are covered by the state laws.

Nevada has a record of upholding them in favor of the husband. I suggest choosing that state.

Secondly it is fundamental that she be represented by a Russian speaking lawyer of her choice.  Boston has more than a dozen.

I will give her the money and the list, she would choose one and pay for it from her own, a copy of the cancelled check from her is a matter of record.

It is also correct that no judge would allow her to become a ward of the state. She should have the ability to get at least a minmum wage job. Almost every girl I would be meeting has a University degree, and can at least communicate in English already.

I repeat, a prenup is not for using it, it is to prevent a situation when it has to be used, the other party should know the consequences.

The advice of no emotional blackmail is a good one, I would just leave it to the written and leave it at that. She can read or talk to her lawyer.

I am unclear why these laws so strongly require me to disclose my complete financial assets. I have plenty, does that make a difference? May be someone can enlighten me.

[Jumper]

ambach-
you prefer to use two cases -
one of a RW that was involved with two psychopaths,,
and one of RW abusing the system as a guideline, verses the success stories.

The reality is different, it has been proven time and time again by guys being used as a mule, that they can't .

Hans was a murderer and a complete flake,  Nina, whatever her motivation,  stayed married to him for years and had his children,how you can twist that story to use it as some excuse to be careful of a GCG is strange.
she certainly was not,a GCG, an oppurtunist maybe? but she could have used and abused Hans YEARS beforehand if that was her sole motivation?
 she was also involved with another man that was a complete flake.

I think  the reality is that  few RW come here as GCG's.(percentage wise)
those that do, the man in them typically behaved a bit  odd himself,ignoring glaring red flags all along.at least the stories posted here.
If you have been reading these forums for 7 years or so,, a pattern is quite plain in great majority  of these cases.
and without any doubt the cases posted over the years  that might have been GCG scenerios,,  the man almost without fail admits his own self delusions and faults for being a patsy and a mule.

it is NOT some  *reality* -
that  on average ,the guys being used to just get a GC, are being completely blindsided? most knew quite well that they ignored any semblence of normal relationship beforehand and brought her over anyway.
So again ,IMHO, you do yourself a disservice by operasting on fundamentally bad information.
 
There were many stories before maxxx's
one quite well known,
the guy even founded a "russian women never again" forum
if you read his story, he certainly wasnt blindsided.
niether was another famous case on these forums with a guy from NYC.
(his wife spent thier wedding night  at her ex boyfriends apartment, (in ukraine) and never had any normal relationship with the AM, yet he still filed and brought her to NY)

i cant think of a single case where the  guy was simply duped  by a great con artist.
although i'm sure it happens.

To set up the groundworks of your relationship , based on avoiding a scarce scenerio..
out of what basically is "fear" and distrust,
 is a kiss of death to what you would like to acheive?

To want or need a prenup is one thing.(and in some cases understandible)
so i'm not saying you dont need one, your lawyer would know this.

To be overly concerned with the possibilty a GCG is another situation though?

Again i will say that in my opinion, your mindset, and actions are taking you towards a direction that increases your risk, rather than reduce it.

by eliminating many sincere women with this attitude toward  marrying someome from another country and culture ,
you increase the odds that a woman ,that is  simply looking for a GC
(and doesnt care about your money or prenup), will be the one to feign true interest.

the prenup if done with your interest and hers in mind,,can be something a sincere RW would understand.

Presented in the fashion here  (motivated primarily by mistrust) it likely eliminates good prospects for you, and increases your chance of getting involved with a true con artist ..

I am not trying to make you any more paranoid,
and you are right, everyone has thier own style and ways of doing things.

but i'll leave you something to reflect on?

just how many men,
(especially successful busines men that "made thier own way"
operating on thier own standards and beat to a different drummer..)

do you think the membership of this forum have seen over the years?

how many of those men had thier minds made up ,before setting foot in the FSU ,on how to operate and what to do?
how many were confident they were right and would not vary from thier mode of operation? and wouldnt listen to any advice?
(since they were the same in so many business ventures ,and it had served them well )

how many with this mindset and outlook were ultimately successful?
I can not think of one case.

if i simply went back and listed the screennames of those who were practically begged by the posters here, to change thier outlook for thier own good..it would be a long list,,
and your current outlook  fits that mold.
and i cant think of one of them , that is happily married.
Despite your best efforts to avoid risk , you ARE  patterning yourself on those who failed to find happiness in the FSU....

you may avoid risk,,to the point of not allowing a good chance of success.

the prenup itself isnt the issue, its the outlook and mentalilty behind it, that may give you problems.

I do type all this with hopes you will alter your outlook just slightly,
 i want you to remain cautious ,
but believe a slightly different outlook would increase your odds drastically of finding a sincere RW.

[BC]

Secondly it is fundamental that she be represented by a Russian speaking lawyer of her choice.  Boston has more than a dozen.

.....

I am unclear why these laws so strongly require me to disclose my complete financial assets. I have plenty, does that make a difference? May be someone can enlighten me.

We've heard often here that it's best to have them somehow prepared before she arrives in the US.. have you discussed this with your lawyer?

The full disclosure of income/assets is probably to establish the financial situation of each side at the outset, and so that her lawyer can properly.. err... advise her.  Not to mention making your next tax return more accurate.  After all the g'ment has to make a few bucks too out of the deal 

[Maxx2]

To bad AJ you are not being listened to.

[Jumper]

it's ok maxx, i'm used to it!

I am married afterall! LOL!

 

[Maxx2]

AJ, I read your posts and am amazed at the depth and heart they have. You see the big picture that goes beyond a checklist of do's and don't's.


Maxx

[Jumper]

Thanks Maxx,
 I think the big picture ultimately comes down to old fundementals of how to treat people ?
normally its best to treat them , how  you would like to be treated?

relationships really need to be founded in trust.
These situations require a great deal of it.... and it DOES open you up to increased risk.
no ones knows this as well as you Maxx.

but if you try and completely eliminate that risk by not trusting anyone,,  you
really decrease your odds of finding a good person.

a catch 22?

If a person can't let go and really trust someone,
then a long distance , or cross cultural relationship is not a good scenerio for them...

trust but verify is fine?
moderation is almost always the best course?
but the trust needs to begin somewhere??

starting this process way over confident and reckless,, is extreemly harzardess to your goals..
and starting this venture overly guarded, with deep reservations and mistrust,, is futile.

[steviej]

Ambach built his own business. He definitely needs a prenup, no matter who or where he marries. There is nothing unique to the FSUW in that regard for him. However, I would not advise a prenup that says if things fall apart "she gets a plane ticket home." That level or extremity can set off a judge, IMHO. There needs to be some kind of cushion, again IMHO. It also needs to be executed before she arrives in US or it can be deemed as signed "under duress."

The other reason for a prenup is related to the increased risk of false DV, which is associated with FSUW. Once there is a "finding of fact" of DV (which the judge alwasy finds if the woman says so), then that becomes mitigating factor in financial settlement. Prenup provides protection from that. For example, if there is a finding of fact of DV, in many states the judge can throw ambach out of his house for a year (requiring him to pay for alternative residence), require him to pay all expenses for his "ex" to stay in his current house, plus alimony, plus job training, plus job search expenses, and it can go on and on. A prenup can obviate all that too, if done properly.

[Jumper]

steviej

A prenup can obviate all that too, if done properly.

it can?

while i recognize the need of men ,and women, to have pre-nuptual agreements..

 I really have a hard time grasping the concept that any type of  pre-negotiated document..regarding nuptuals and thier ending
can control the effects that a  DV charge might have on the divorce proceedings?

I picture a judge seeing a woman being asked to sign a prenup,,
 then after marriage being abused..

The prenup i nquestion is very likely is limiting,(or why have it?)
 and the man was abusive (DV charges stand in many cases? regardless of actual evidence?)

unless the judge determines the womans DV charge a shame
(his decision to make? or some other judges ,and he must act accordingly?)

if her DV charges stand..
i cant think a judge would allow the prenup to stand as it was written,
 in these circumstances?
if someone has one that is that iron clad, i'd be surprised?

 i'd like to hear a divorce attornies take on it?
and anyone contemplating one ,should certainly be asking good legal counsel  about it.

to me a strict limiting prenup..
would seem likely to make an insincere  RW
(you wont likely be in this position if she's sincere)
even more likely to bolster her situation with a DV charge?


Glad i dont have such worries..
 

 

[ambach123]

I assume that by the time K-1 is filed, the parties have developed some measure of trust in each other, otherwise K-1 should not be filed.

These women are quite intelligent, in my case they know that I am relatively well off and I would certainly protect my assets if things did not work out, they would expect that.

My plan was that if and when I am ready, I would inform them in general terms the particulars of a pre nup while they are still there.

After she arrives then she would see her lawyer who would present her the prenup. Most attornies advise about 30 days before marriage.

I would plan to marry in Las Vegas, on the 89th day, utilizing the maximum time together prior to marriage! She can change her mind anytime before that; I will get her home safe and sound.

I have some problems with full disclosure, but that is the law, so I don't have any choices.

As of this writing, I have several good prospects that I am communicating with, who seem to be very much into me, and according to them impatiently waiting; but I don't count my chickens before they are hatched.

[BC]

ambach,

Considering the amount of attention that has been given to premarital agreements in the past, mostly by those (including myself) that cannot speak from a position of authority or direct experience, I am sure if you relate your actual experience (sparing personal details of course) it would be much appreciated by those interested in this subject.

I have asked in the past that a member post a copy of their agreement without personal information just so that we have something to look at, but that never happened.

Would you be willing to start a separate thread with your general experiences regarding your prenuptial agreement?

Is quite ok if you decline, but it could help clear the air of speculation and conjecture (which is all we are effectively doing here) with a swat of fact.

 

[ambach123]

BC, I don't actually have one yet; there are some others here who may already have one.

According to my preliminary research, in USA you should choose a state that has adopted the Uniform Code for Pre nups; avoiding those that have not and leaving the contract to the mercy of the Judge. With a Uniform Code state the agreement would be deemed valid if certain conditions are met, those were described by a poster earlier in this thread.

Main requirements are full disclosure, and legal representation for her, and the agreement done at least 30 days prior to the marriage. She must be given an opportunity to review  with counsel, and decline if she wishes to, well before the marriage.

[Ronnie]

Guys, if you choose a woman who shows no empathy for others, you will have problems.  If you choose one who cares about things beyond what she looks at in the mirror, you will probably not have a train wreck.  Documents do not restrain people as much as character.

AJ mentioned a percentage of FSUW women who may be GCGs.  I think there can be no estimate of the percentage other than 100 percent if you take into account that they all want the Green Card and eventual citizenship in their new country.  It's important to them and it's unfair to say which is more important..the man or his passport.  If his passport didn't matter, they would not be seeking abroad.  We need to accept that fact and get over it. 

Again, if she has no soul, no conscience, no faith or trust in you...your illusion of love based relationship is just that.  I say this because it is difficult if not impossible to avoid coming across such women in the FSU and elsewhere.

[Shadow]

Guys, if you choose a woman who shows no empathy for others, you will have problems.  If you choose one who cares about things beyond what she looks at in the mirror, you will probably not have a train wreck.  Documents do not restrain people as much as character.

AJ mentioned a percentage of FSUW women who may be GCGs.  I think there can be no estimate of the percentage other than 100 percent if you take into account that they all want the Green Card and eventual citizenship in their new country.  It's important to them and it's unfair to say which is more important..the man or his passport.  If his passport didn't matter, they would not be seeking abroad.  We need to accept that fact and get over it. 

Again, if she has no soul, no conscience, no faith or trust in you...your illusion of love based relationship is just that.  I say this because it is difficult if not impossible to avoid coming across such women in the FSU and elsewhere.

I have a different opinion there. I know that my partner does not care about a passport or residence card, other than that it is needed to stay with me. And I know other women who were quite happy to go back to their own country. If a woman posts her ad on a marriage site it does not mean she is targeting a specific country or passport. It means what it means for the men as well. That she is enlarging the pool of available partners. To state that the passport matters is a gross misrepresentation.

[ScottinCrimea]

I agree with Shadow.  My wife did not care about my passport and did not want to leave Ukraine, nor does she wish to stay in the US now that we are here.  Even given the terms that Ronnie sets, it is still not 100% and we need to stop thinking of the blue passport as every FSUW's "gold ring".

[Ronnie]

. To state that the passport matters is a gross misrepresentation.

I would love to be wrong on this.  But I live in the world as it is and not as I would like it to be.  When my wife hangs up the phone from talking with a friend, she always says to me, "Lyuda said to say hello."  I know it's not true but it's a nice thing to say it anyway.

As one Russian woman told me during my first trip, "we don't always say what we mean."  Certainly a woman will say that they would prefer to live in the FSU with their husbands as long as his income was the same.  To me that says nothing about the central question.  Passport means a lot..not for the paper it's printed on but for the paper currency it represents.

[Shadow]

I would love to be wrong on this.  But I live in the world as it is and not as I would like it to be.  When my wife hangs up the phone from talking with a friend, she always says to me, "Lyuda said to say hello."  I know it's not true but it's a nice thing to say it anyway.

As one Russian woman told me during my first trip, "we don't always say what we mean."  Certainly a woman will say that they would prefer to live in the FSU with their husbands as long as his income was the same.  To me that says nothing about the central question.  Passport means a lot..not for the paper it's printed on but for the paper currency it represents.

In that case beware... your passport is becoming less valuable lately.
I can only be sorry for you if you truly feel that is the case.

[BC]

I would love to be wrong on this.  But I live in the world as it is and not as I would like it to be.  When my wife hangs up the phone from talking with a friend, she always says to me, "Lyuda said to say hello."  I know it's not true but it's a nice thing to say it anyway.

As one Russian woman told me during my first trip, "we don't always say what we mean."  Certainly a woman will say that they would prefer to live in the FSU with their husbands as long as his income was the same.  To me that says nothing about the central question.  Passport means a lot..not for the paper it's printed on but for the paper currency it represents.

Then my wife should have headed towards US instead where she can get a passport in a few years instead of waiting 10? I guess the EUR won over USD regardless of the paper.

Really, passports only represent easy travels and that's about it.  I have a couple of them and rarely use the 'blue', only for trips to the US where it is required for USC's.

[msmoby_ru]

I would love to be wrong on this.  But I live in the world as it is and not as I would like it to be.  When my wife hangs up the phone from talking with a friend, she always says to me, "Lyuda said to say hello."  I know it's not true but it's a nice thing to say it anyway.

As one Russian woman told me during my first trip, "we don't always say what we mean."  Certainly a woman will say that they would prefer to live in the FSU with their husbands as long as his income was the same.  To me that says nothing about the central question.  Passport means a lot..not for the paper it's printed on but for the paper currency it represents.

Hello Ronnie

This passport thing *IS* interesting ..  Veta does care  - a lot - about this, but simply because travel within the EU means getting a Visa for each country - Schengen memebers/ UK / IRL / other non Schengen members - to say nothing of travel to say, USa, Oz, NZ ..

She was convinced having an IRL passport would be less beneficial than a UK one - it doesn't matter a jot within the EU ...

Up until recently and before we got married -  pre nups in the UK were "worthless"  and IMHO rightly so ...   IF a guy is worried about "losing his shirt" in a divorce - then should he get married ?

[ScottinCrimea]

Ronnie, in my world my wife backed up her thinking on this when we chose to have me move to Ukraine rather than her moving here.  At that time we had no intent of ever moving to the US and even now it is only my insistence that we stay here long enough for her to get a US passport that keeps us from moving back.  I see it purely from the point of ease of travel and eligibility for benefits such as social security should something happen to me.

[BC]

Hello Ronnie

This passport thing *IS* interesting ..  Veta does care  - a lot - about this, but simply because travel within the EU means getting a Visa for each country - Schengen memebers/ UK / IRL / other non Schengen members - to say nothing of travel to say, USa, Oz, NZ ..

She was convinced having an IRL passport would be less beneficial than a UK one - it doesn't matter a jot within the EU ...

Within EU, we've never had a problem with her residency permit (permanent I might add, granted within one year of her arrival).  We've been a lot of places and it was never asked for.  Once you are 'in', you are in and that's about it.  We even got stopped by customs in Switzerland (not EU).. they were more interested in collecting the toll and never asked for papers.

Unless travelling outside EU (which we have also done), a EU passport for her will only save a few bucks in visa expenses.

Travel to the US was no big deal.. after all she did not plan to immigrate. Just time and money involved getting the visa.