Risky Business

[steviej]

...   IF a guy is worried about "losing his shirt" in a divorce - then should he get married ?

If one spouse entering a marriage has significantly more assets and future earning potential than the other, then a prenup is advisable. 50% of marriages end in divorce. 100% of marriages begin with love, devotion, optimism and the belief they will stay together "until death do us part." But, half the time it doesn't work out that way. The problem is in making a link between the validity of romantic love, and the prenup. There should be no linkage between them. The prenup is a separate issue required for separate reasons, having nothing to do with the sincerity of the feelings of the two people entering the marriage. And if they do love "until death part", then the prenup is the same as having never existed, so no harm done.

[Shadow]

If one spouse entering a marriage has significantly more assets and future earning potential than the other, then a prenup is advisable. 50% of marriages end in divorce. 100% of marriages begin with love, devotion, optimism and the belief they will stay together "until death do us part." But, half the time it doesn't work out that way. The problem is in making a link between the validity of romantic love, and the prenup. There should be no linkage between them. The prenup is a separate issue required for separate reasons, having nothing to do with the sincerity of the feelings of the two people entering the marriage. And if they do love "until death part", then the prenup is the same as having never existed, so no harm done.

I can see reasons to protect significant assets. The problem is that as a prenup becomes part of the marriage there is a linkage between them and that should not be discarded fully. A prenup should not only protect but also provide.

[groovlstk]

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. 

My wife was not seeking abroad and has said emphatically several times that if the worst happened, she'd return to Moscow, where she owns a big, comfortable apartment and had an excellent career. I believe her 100%.

There was another thread awhile back by a guy who had been married for some time but had experienced many ups and downs, something about all FSU women being "artists" of deception to varying degrees and how we all had to accept it.

Most times I see guys here saying negative things about marriage to RW I have to wonder why they are so intent on urging everyone else to admit the same caveats. 

[BC]

If one spouse entering a marriage has significantly more assets and future earning potential than the other, then a prenup is advisable. 50% of marriages end in divorce. 100% of marriages begin with love, devotion, optimism and the belief they will stay together "until death do us part." But, half the time it doesn't work out that way. The problem is in making a link between the validity of romantic love, and the prenup. There should be no linkage between them. The prenup is a separate issue required for separate reasons, having nothing to do with the sincerity of the feelings of the two people entering the marriage. And if they do love "until death part", then the prenup is the same as having never existed, so no harm done.

Stevie, so you have prenupts? care to share?

Don't expect prenupts to CYA for bad choices.  That's the last thing in the world they are useful for.

[steviej]

A prenup should not only protect but also provide.

I agree. It  should not be a "scorched earth" policy for either party. In my opinion, a good prenup should provide a "soft" landing for the other party. It is not punitive. What it does is protect, rightly IMO, against the default of 50/50 community property, plus vulnerability to open-ended alimony, transitional living costs, re-training, I mean the list, when unprotected, can go on and on when animosity enters a breakup.

[steviej]

Stevie, so you have prenupts? care to share?

Don't expect prenupts to CYA for bad choices.  That's the last thing in the world they are useful for.

I have a prenup. One condition of the prenup is neither party can reveal the terms to any other parties. (for some reason my lawyer said that was standard. I don't know. It didn't bother either of us.) My wife was surprisingly supportive of it. I was, as you can imagine, extremely nervous about broaching this subject. I was deeply in love with this woman, and wanted to marry her. What if this created a roadblock? However, she was very understanding of the issues because I had been divorced before and lost 60% of my net worth and ongoing alimony. So a financially unprotected second divorce would be financial ruin. She didn't even blink. My situation was, if there was no woman in the world that would marry me with a prenup, then I would never get married again. Further, she loved me and her goal and intention was to create happy life-long marriage, so she didn't even worry about it. Cool, yes? And after 5+ years, we are more close and in love than ever. So, a woman needs to be understanding of her man's position, and supportive, I think. I think if she lovess him, and the prenup is not gratuitous, then she will be on your side.

[steviej]

Most times I see guys here saying negative things about marriage to RW I have to wonder why they are so intent on urging everyone else to admit the same caveats. 

Actually, all the married guys, engaged guys, and 'in love" guys say wonderful things. This thread is slanted toward the "not wonderful" things. So just this thread could give an over negative impression, I think. Also, the stories that go bad, seem to go WAY bad.

[BC]

I have a prenup. One condition of the prenup is neither party can reveal the terms to any other parties. (for some reason my lawyer said that was standard. I don't know. It didn't bother either of us.) My wife was surprisingly supportive of it. I was, as you can imagine, extremely nervous about broaching this subject. I was deeply in love with this woman, and wanted to marry her. What if this created a roadblock? However, she was very understanding of the issues because I had been divorced before and lost 60% of my net worth and ongoing alimony. So a financially unprotected second divorce would be financial ruin. She didn't even blink. My situation was, if there was no woman in the world that would marry me with a prenup, then I would never get married again. Further, she loved me and her goal and intention was to create happy life-long marriage, so she didn't even worry about it. Cool, yes? And after 5+ years, we are more close and in love than ever. So, a woman needs to be understanding of her man's position, and supportive, I think. I think if she lovess him, and the prenup is not gratuitous, then she will be on your side.

So I assume she will be treated fairly (as she should be) in case the relationship fails, maybe even above the minimum required by common law.

If so, even I can agree that such might be helpful with regards to your specific environment,  but that such simply cannot be applied 'across the board' to others like myself living in a quite different legal environment.

The basic fallacy I see with others contemplating prenupts is that they feel that they provide some kind of protection that has a lower risk than common law already provides.

Big difference..

Thanks for sharing what you could.


 

[Misha]

I agree. It  should not be a "scorched earth" policy for either party. In my opinion, a good prenup should provide a "soft" landing for the other party. It is not punitive. What it does is protect, rightly IMO, against the default of 50/50 community property, plus vulnerability to open-ended alimony, transitional living costs, re-training, I mean the list, when unprotected, can go on and on when animosity enters a breakup.

Don't the spouses in the United States have to provide some kind of financial guarantee? In Canada we have to sign a sponsorship agreement with the federal government good for three years. You have to provide a soft landing one way or the other.

[steviej]

Don't the spouses in the United States have to provide some kind of financial guarantee? In Canada we have to sign a sponsorship agreement with the federal government good for three years. You have to provide a soft landing one way or the other.

Yes, there is something to the effect that if the woman you sponsored on a fiance visa becomes dependent on the state for certain benefits, the sponsor must reimburse the state for those costs. In that minimal sense, there is a mandatory "floor", but I think those levels are basically poverty. Also, I'm not sure the government would be much good at figuring that out, making the connections, and trying to collect. Maybe they do know how to do it.

[BillyB]

IF a guy is worried about "losing his shirt" in a divorce - then should he get married ?

As laws change, so does people's behavior. A few years ago for the first time in America, more women were singe than married. There's risk getting married, too much risk for many and it's become cheaper in some men's minds to rent women occasionally as marriage becomes less appealing. I even heard a few men say "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

[HiTech]

To people who do not wish to have a prenup. In reality you do have a prenup, It is called your state law. The only real difference in creating an addition to the law , is you get to choose what best suits your case.

I also believe business people who deal in contracts all the time, and have dealt with failed contracts, understand prenups/ contracts are not for when times are good and things go as planed. Then the contract is meaning less. The contract is for when the deification strikes the rotary oscillator.

In my case, there is only one item that the state law and I disagree. It is that the state law includes dividends in common property. My company happens to be structured in a way that it took 10 years to build to start putting out cash, and then it is putting out large amounts.  If i would leave the cash in the company it would be personal property. If I pay dividends it is common property. So all that is mostly needed in the prenup is that interest and dividends are considered personal property to both parties.

[Shadow]

I also believe business people who deal in contracts all the time, and have dealt with failed contracts, understand prenups/ contracts are not for when times are good and things go as planed. Then the contract is meaning less. The contract is for when the deification strikes the rotary oscillator.

Actually the point is a little different. Businessmen will recognize that contracts which were containing a lot of 'small print' and not fully understood and agreed upon by both parties have a higher failure rate as those who are clear and understood.

[ScottinCrimea]

It appears to me that ambach's purpose in having a prenup is as much, if not more, about discouraging a woman from leaving him than protecting his assets.  He has stated clearly that he wants to give her a "better life" if she stays and leave her with nothing if she leaves and, given what she will give up to move to the US with him, it would serve as a punitive measure rather than one that would allow her to rebuild her life should things go sour.  He always seems to mention providing her a better life, which he views in financial terms, but says nothing about a happier life.  They are not necessarily synonomous.

[steviej]

It appears to me that ambach's purpose in having a prenup is as much, if not more, about discouraging a woman from leaving him than protecting his assets.  He has stated clearly that he wants to give her a "better life" if she stays and leave her with nothing if she leaves and, given what she will give up to move to the US with him, it would serve as a punitive measure rather than one that would allow her to rebuild her life should things go sour.  He always seems to mention providing her a better life, which he views in financial terms, but says nothing about a happier life.  They are not necessarily synonomous.

Scott, that'a a very astute observation. I've been wondering to myself why some of Ambach's attitudes seemed, how to say it, off axis? That is, the words seemed OK, but somehow the net affect didn't seem right. I think you've put your finger on it. A prenup is not an instrument of control (well, is shouldn't be anyway), nor should it be punitive.

[Ronnie]

Yes, there is something to the effect that if the woman you sponsored on a fiance visa becomes dependent on the state for certain benefits, the sponsor must reimburse the state for those costs. In that minimal sense, there is a mandatory "floor", but I think those levels are basically poverty. Also, I'm not sure the government would be much good at figuring that out, making the connections, and trying to collect. Maybe they do know how to do it.

Once again, the I-864 is mentioned.  It was the I-864 and the little understood provisions therein that prompted my first posting 5 years ago on RWG.  So let's review the salient provisions:

A sponsor of an immigrant..(not just k-1 turned spouse) signs the I-864 Affidavit of Support.  It requires that each sponsored immigrant be provided a minimum of 125% of the poverty level which adjusts each year with the CPI.  If there are children who have moved out on their own, they too are covered at the same level.

If divorce or separation occurs, the sponsored immigrant(s) may sue in court for "specific performance.  IOW, it is not just the government or an NGO - who can seek reimbursement for support provided.

Divorce settlements do not affect this agreement, however this agreement might affect a divorce settlement.

Where the duration of alimony is based on the the duration of the marriage, the I-864 is for life unless the immigrant leaves the US, becomes a citizen; or contributes to Social Security for 40 quarters.
None of these events can be controlled by the sponsor and can be totally controlled by the immigrant.  It should not be ignored that immigrants can often find employers willing to pay off the books.

I agree with HiTech on prenups. State laws, particularly California's, cover about every aspect of marriage and divorce.  If your prenup only restates what the law says, the why bring one in?  If it contradicts law, it probably won't be upheld anyway.
     

[pitbull]

It appears to me that ambach's purpose in having a prenup is as much, if not more, about discouraging a woman from leaving him than protecting his assets.  He has stated clearly that he wants to give her a "better life" if she stays and leave her with nothing if she leaves and, given what she will give up to move to the US with him, it would serve as a punitive measure rather than one that would allow her to rebuild her life should things go sour.  He always seems to mention providing her a better life, which he views in financial terms, but says nothing about a happier life.  They are not necessarily synonomous.

I wonder, what happens in case HE wants out of the marriage after a while (e.g. She gains 20 pounds, he decides to get a "younger model of RW when this one gets older" or such)...Does she get anything or will she still have to "leave with exactly what she brought from Ukraine in those two bags"?

[ambach123]

The matter of prenup is fairly standard now.

You can buy templates specially for Nevada.  www.legalzoom.com.  Do a Google search on "Pre Nuptial Agreements ". You will find dozens of tmplates for every state, all you need is to fill in the specifics.

The only requirements are a. It should be voluntary. b. In most states a lawyer should represent the spouse with lesser assets c. there should be full discolosure.

Other than that you can fill in, your names, address, what the assets are and how you want to divide them in case of a divorce. It does not matter who files for divorce.

I plan to have one of the authorized translating agencies translate it in Russian before any signature and a Russian speaking lawyer would represent her.

Unless one of the spouses becomes ward of the state upon divorce, the agreement shall stand as a matter law.

She should have the ability to get at least a minimum wage job.

In practical terms, she would have to be extremely unhappy in marriage to leave a cushy life with me for a minimum wage job.  Most of the GCG leave their sponsors for a " better " life. If she is that unhappy she should be allowed to leave, and I should help her in getting out.

[Shadow]

In practical terms, she would have to be extremely unhappy in marriage to leave a cushy life with me for a minimum wage job.  Most of the GCG leave their sponsors for a " better " life. If she is that unhappy she should be allowed to leave, and I should help her in getting out.

\
Once again, it will not save you from a GCG. They can be patient and use your resources while married until they have found a way to 'step up'.

[Jumper]

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. 

Ronnie my wife does not want US citizenship, ,has not applied and doesnt plan to.

her life is not *significantly* better than it was in ukraine,
 other than she has an honest and  loving husband.
(which shes considers significant )

while she has gradually come to appreciate the USA, people and culture here,
if we dicvorced, she would return to Ukraine to be with her family and build  a life again there.

i know many RW in similar situations,  with similar mindset.


"they" don't all want a USA green card.
my wife had no concern about it what ever.


my post was in regards to the women who marry with the sole intent of immigration.
and no regards fo rthe man or system that supplies it.
abusers of the system.

i think the percentage of RW abusing the immigratio nstystem  by marriage, is very small.
(there are other waty sof abusing trhe immigratio nsystem, that are more common? over staying a student or work visa etc etc)


Relocating to improve thier life may be a big part of WHY they look to marry abroad.
They do so by marrying a man they do care for, or plan to..
and they go thru the process properly.
this is not an abuse of the system, and not what was being discussed..??


Since my wife has made no atempt even at my urging, to get a blue pasport, i'd asay the man is slightly more impiortant, and it scompletely fair to say so.


one of our best frioends has been her ten years..
and does no thave her passport , or plan to apply fo rit.
her man is certainly more importan tthan th ecolor of her own passport,.

equally "fair " to say so..

i cant think of any cases i know of where the GC or passport was the fundamental object..

lifestyle perhaps, and th eman himself..

but simply marriage to immigrate?
i know it happens, but it is certainly NOT 100% of the RW who marry a US citizen..

and its entirely *fair* to say so..
no mere speculation needed.
 
ask the RW members here, they have no reason to fib..

[catzenmouse]

My wife feels the same way as Scott's, Shadow's, BC's and AJ's wives. I will encourage her to get a Blue passport just for the sake of easier travel to many places but she is not in any hurry to get one or care about it much. If she had her choice she would prefer to live in Russia. Sure, she's gotten used to the US and does enjoy the life we have made together but if I was gone she would not hesitate for a minute to "go home".

AJ,

 Gawd knows I luv ya man but "damn"  sometimes you're killing me trying to read your posts...

(there are other waty sof abusing trhe immigratio nsystem,

Hope you know I'm just teasing you. I always look forward to your posts and firmly believe that you are one of the most on target and fairest people I've ever seen.

You've shown way more patience with this recent poster than I would have (and did) as I still don't believe that the intentions being presented are honest and he has just learned to be more careful in presenting (or hiding) his true agenda.

Ken

[Ronnie]

Catz
As to AJ's posts..hey yuo gott a git yuzed tuit.

I got an email one time..one of those weird ones, can't remember how it went so much but the gist was that if you wrote a sentence and it didn't matter how you arranged the letters in each word, as long as the first and last letter weren't moved, your brain could sort it out and read it almost as well and fast as if the words were spleled  rhgit.

The point was trying to make about RW being a GCG to some degree or another we can't put it into simple terms like it's the man or it's the passport. It's far more complex than that.  The man is his passport and vice versa to a large degree.  Why do we have this RWD?  Why is it not just WD?  The women are who they are to a large degree because of where they are from.  It's no less so when the gender and passport are reversed.

The other thing I wanted to emphasize is that women are less than frank when dealing with certain issue.  Anything that might put them in an unfavorable light (as they perceive it) they will not be totally truthful about.  Ask a woman how many sexual partners she has had and you will always get a number that is roughly half of the true number.  Their reason for fudging the truth is obvious.  Likewise, an RW will always underplay the role of the man's passport, her affection for her new country but overplay her affection for her husband and her former homeland. 

I wish we had statistics on how many RW who get divorce or are widowed actually do return to the FSU versus those who stay.  When it comes to people, especially women, it's best to watch their actions rather than listen to their words.

[catzenmouse]

Catz
As to AJ's posts..hey yuo gott a git yuzed tuit.

LOL! I have, really I have...

I got an email one time..one of those weird ones, can't remember how it went so much but the gist was that if you wrote a sentence and it didn't matter how you arranged the letters in each word, as long as the first and last letter weren't moved, your brain could sort it out and read it almost as well and fast as if the words were spleled  rhgit.

Seen it as well and yes, it does make you think how the brain is a remarkable tool (that we often don't use very effectively).

The point was trying to make about RW being a GCG to some degree or another we can't put it into simple terms like it's the man or it's the passport. It's far more complex than that.  The man is his passport and vice versa to a large degree.  Why do we have this RWD?  Why is it not just WD?  The women are who they are to a large degree because of where they are from.  It's no less so when the gender and passport are reversed.

While the gist of this has merit I think it is RW and WM since if it did not matter we could, and would, be talking about Latin, Middle Eastern, Asian, Eskimo, or any other variety of woman. Fact is, that we are focused on women from the FSU so RWD is appropriate. As for the passport, well, it is complex and it is also simple. For those who are looking for the right partner (both man and woman) the passport is not the prime motivating factor. If it is the prime motivating factor then I feel that the relationship is already on shaky ground and there are a lot of unsolved issues to come.

The other thing I wanted to emphasize is that women are less than frank when dealing with certain issue.  Anything that might put them in an unfavorable light (as they perceive it) they will not be totally truthful about.  Ask a woman how many sexual partners she has had and you will always get a number that is roughly half of the true number.  Their reason for fudging the truth is obvious.  Likewise, an RW will always underplay the role of the man's passport, her affection for her new country but overplay her affection for her husband and her former homeland.

Are men any less frank when dealing with these same issues? I don't think so as we do just as much of that "put yourself in the best light" as any of the women do.

FWIW,
 Ken

[myrddin]

Catz
As to AJ's posts..hey yuo gott a git yuzed tuit.

I got an email one time..one of those weird ones, can't remember how it went so much but the gist was that if you wrote a sentence and it didn't matter how you arranged the letters in each word, as long as the first and last letter weren't moved, your brain could sort it out and read it almost as well and fast as if the words were spleled  rhgit.

 

You mean like htis?:

"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

Apparently it doesn't work in some languages, such as Hebrew, but there are examples in several languages here. 

Maybe not quite as off topic, here's a Russian version:




The RW will have to tell us if that one works!

[TwoBitBandit]

The RW will have to tell us if that one works!

I had no problem reading it even though Russian is my third language... a testament to my Russian teacher's ability I guess...