When *she* wants a prenup

[UTRO]

Russia does have good Child Support Legislation in place called The Family Code. The Family Code says that the Ex-husband is to pay 25% of his net monthly income for one child, 33% of his net monthly income for two children and 50% of net monthly income for three or more children. Really not all that different from the West.
It's the Enforcement of The Family Code that fails the Woman, plus the fact that many Russians falsify their Wages. Therefore Ex-wives generally never get what the The Family Code requires their Ex-husbands to pay.

[Ooooops]

Russia does have good Child Support Legislation in place called The Family Code. The Family Code says that the Ex-husband is to pay 25% of his net monthly income for one child, 33% of his net monthly income for two children and 50% of net monthly income for three or more children. Really not all that different from the West.

Oh yeah?   And what if those ex-husbands do not report their real income to the government  (get paid under the table)?   Happens quite often in Russia....

[Gator]

Oh yeah?   And what if those ex-husbands do not report their real income to the government  (get paid under the table)?   Happens quite often in Russia....

I dated many divorced RW with children.  None stated that the father was providing significant support.  Some of these men simply had lost their job/business and could do "little" to help.  And most did less than "little."  Instead I guess that they spent their limited money on a new woman (who probably had a child with a deadbeat father - the world goes round, round, round).

One father was a Prosecutor.  25% of a Prosecutor's salary was small a few years ago.   Nevertheless, think about the unreported income he earned collected (I refuse to use the word "earn" with the word "bribe"). 

[Ooooops]

I dated many divorced RW with children.  None stated that the father was providing significant support.  Some of these men simply had lost their job/business and could do "little" to help.  And most did less than "little." 

Exactly my point.   And there is nothing the "Law" can do about it...   

[UTRO]

Oh yeah?   And what if those ex-husbands do not report their real income to the government  (get paid under the table)?   Happens quite often in Russia....

Jesus Ooooops, Past' zakroi! Don't jump the Gun Gurl!! You ignored the rest of what I wrote.............  Exactly what you just stated!!! 

[Doll]

Past' zakroi

Ай- ай- ай! Хрубить изволите! 

[AnastassiaAsh]

Couple of thoughts:

1.As I understand we are talking about only 90 days of financially supporting her before they get married. K1 covers that, so I am glad that the argument dropped off by itself.

2. One can compose any document, no matter how it is called, and put in there what ever provisions they want, financial or not, there can be couple of signatures or stamps, you can compose several of them - BUT the reality of it is that - when the worst comes to worst - even with this paper(s) in her hand it will be very hard actually to enforce what is written there and make them actually valid as we think they should. There will always be a counter argument, counter document, counter proof.....So we can try to look ahead and protect ourselves but at the end most likely there will be something less or worse than we expected. So it is all counter effective. Usually people who have literally millions or more fuss about a prenup.

3. The factor of trust and other motives that has been mentioned. I would worry and work on this one more than anything. Many people would say I am a smart, independent and pretty successful business woman too, but it didn't even occur to me, not even close, to even talk about a prenup with my two husbands. I also had everything to loose, and really God knows who had(s) more: me or him, but you know I have never been so materialistic as to mix it all with a romantic relationship with a man of my dreams! If she is like that now, how bad will it all get in about several years of her living here in the capitalist world!? 

[GoodOlBoy]

....Bottom line is if she doesn't trust you enough to support her while married you need to rethink your timetable and build some more foundation to your relati.onship. It doesn't sound like she knows you very well yet.

After staying away from this topic for the last week and not posting, I have reread everything and I would have to strongly agree with ECOCKS.

The last thing on my wife's mind, weeks before arrival to the GoodOl' USA was a "prenup" or any other kind of "money support".

Marina KNEW from being with me (for month's) in Russia and our other travels (Thailand, Greece, CZ Republic, etc.), that I would take care of her....no worries.


GOB

[Daveman]

What strikes me as a little odd, is that this lady is a successful business woman who has traveled the world on her own dime for years.  Meaning, she already has dimes. Why in the world would she be concerned about some piddly allowance income?  I don't really understand why she's want a document that will guarantee an allowance. 

I can understand her having some reservations and fears, etc., but this strikes me as a really odd.   

[Tamara]

If she is like that now, how bad will it all get in about several years of her living here in the capitalist world!? 

Great question, Anastassia. 

For me an important aspect of marriage is trust. I fully trust my husband and got married to share everything with him for better or for worse. In this case when the woman is thinking about prenup, I have serious concerns about her motives in the marriage and her character in general.

[Ooooops]

Jesus Ooooops, Past' zakroi!

Do you know what that means? 

[UTRO]

Do you know what that means? 

It means "Shut It", no?!?   

[Ooooops]

It means "Shut It", no?!?   

Oh, so you did want to insult me.   Ok...

[Admin]

It means "Shut It", no?!?   

As I understand it, it is an especially rough/harsh way to tell someone to Shut Their Mouth - and considered quite rude and insulting. Very probably over-the-top for a respectful exchange. You might want to reconsider its use.

- Dan

[AnastassiaAsh]

Utrobina, who did you get that phrase from?  It is pretty harsh, started probably from people from prison...

[Wienerin]

As I understand it, it is an especially rough/harsh way to tell someone to Shut Their Mouth - and considered quite rude and insulting. Very probably over-the-top for a respectful exchange. You might want to reconsider its use.

- Dan

Utterly impossible in ANY exchange except as a prelude to a full blown barroom fight 

As to a prenup - I'm in two minds about it, but defifnitely do not consider it a sign of no trust, etc. A fiance will have 3 mos to sit down together with an attorney (if they come to doing prenup - two attorneys, for each one's own) and think it over with somebody explaining the law and procudure and fairness considerations (a prenup which is glaringly unfair to one of the parties won't stand up in court, also there's a lot of things which cannot be entered in a prenup, like pension funds, child support, etc.)

French have been doing prenups since I don't know when - it's quite a normal procedure there even if there's not much property on the table. Prenup is not all about money only.

[Bored1]

There is many posts on the forum about prenups and all from American Mens....advice other American Mens to get one........now a RW talk about one and something worng?  ???

If your RW not mention prenup - how many mans here wood say to the AM you must get prenup?

You tell each other get prenup all the time looking at forum history this is not equal standards to my brain.    I see no reason for this be a problem because history on forum shows if your marriage failed and you not prenup then you are stupid according the AM.

How is this a problem - just as she says about it and not AM?

[Misha]

Normally prenups are contracts for what happens if you decide to separate, Not what happens while you are married.

That is the confusing part. Let's say, hypothetically, that you were not to live up to the prenup. What would she do? She could in theory sue you, but why would you want to stay married to a woman who is suing you? In other words, what it really means is that if you do not guarantee to pay  her X dollars per month, then you will get divorced.

[Aloe]

That is the confusing part. Let's say, hypothetically, that you were not to live up to the prenup. What would she do? She could in theory sue you, but why would you want to stay married to a woman who is suing you? In other words, what it really means is that if you do not guarantee to pay  her X dollars per month, then you will get divorced.

my future mother in law sued my future brother in law, doesn't mean she doesn't love him

[Misha]

There is many posts on the forum about prenups and all from American Mens....advice other American Mens to get one........now a RW talk about one and something worng? 

Usually the advice centers about a prenup as a way of protecting one's assets during a divorce from what I gathered, not protecting assets while married.  

[Misha]

my future mother in law sued my future brother in law, doesn't mean she doesn't love him

I am sure it made for some pretty awkward family gatherings after that

[HiTech]

There is many posts on the forum about prenups and all from American Mens....advice other American Mens to get one........now a RW talk about one and something worng?  ???

If your RW not mention prenup - how many mans here wood say to the AM you must get prenup?

You tell each other get prenup all the time looking at forum history this is not equal standards to my brain.    I see no reason for this be a problem because history on forum shows if your marriage failed and you not prenup then you are stupid according the AM.

How is this a problem - just as she says about it and not AM?

Bored1: It appears you do not understand normal prenups. When writing a prenup, for them to be valid and upheld they need to protect both parties. Valid prenups are ways of creating things equal in rules for both parties. As a very simple example you could state interest income for both parties on private assets are to remain private not communal property.

These are normal parts of a prenup that are the same for both parties, but different than normal state default prenuptial law. The purpose of a prenup is to have an agreement of how to divide assets in the event the worst happens. There purpose is to be able to agree when both parties are not pissed at each other and looking for revenge.

What this woman WAS asking for is not a prenup, but a written contract that a man will support her during the marriage and pre marriage. Every one should go into marriage with the assumption both parties will do there best to make it work. This is very different then the knowledge that even if both parties do every thing they are capable of to make a marriage work, they can still fail.

HiTech

[ambach123]

Hi Tech wrote the best post on the subject matter.

[Bored1]

It is strange to start a marriage by planning it failure but I understand what you write.  My friends married to European mens do not have prenups so this is a mainly USA thing?

[Wienerin]

Usually the advice centers about a prenup as a way of protecting one's assets during a divorce from what I gathered, not protecting assets while married.  

The latter is very relevant to the former, i.e. regulations during marriage bear direct results on the division of stuff in case of divorce or death of one of the partners.Prenup can also include some non-material provisions.
Here's some of the umpteenth examples of what and how a prenup can do, is intende4d to do, and what it cannot