When *she* wants a prenup

[Misha]

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.

Realistically, how could she use this contract given the American system of K1s? Let's say she arrives in the USA. Doesn't she have 90 days to get married and if she doesn't get married she have to leave? Let's say he is short a couple hundred dollars on his allowance. Will she sue him? If she sues him, it is unlikely that he will marry her and she will have to leave.

Then, let's say that she marries him, he is short one month, and she sues him while she is still in her 2-year conditional green card thingy. If after being sued, he decides to divorce her before the two years are up, wouldn't this jeopardize her chances of getting the 10-year green card or whatever it is? This just doesn't make any sense to me.

I can understand the logic of a prenup for both the man and the woman, but can't see the logic in this case of having a contract to enforce a set payment (allowance) before and during marriage.

[Aloe]

prenup is a sign of mistrust

[tfcrew]

Prenuptial agreements are the invention of lawyers for the benefit of attorneys.
 

The Federal Government requires an affidavit of support from the sponsor of the immigrate.  The [prenuptial] document can not be in conflict with the I-864 affidavit of support.

Civil court judges tend to toss these type agreements into the trash.
This is usually their option.
I have expressed this many times to what avail?

[Wienerin]

Realistically, how could she use this contract given the American system of K1s? Let's say she arrives in the USA. Doesn't she have 90 days to get married and if she doesn't get married she have to leave? Let's say he is short a couple hundred dollars on his allowance. Will she sue him? If she sues him, it is unlikely that he will marry her and she will have to leave.

Then, let's say that she marries him, he is short one month, and she sues him while she is still in her 2-year conditional green card thingy. If after being sued, he decides to divorce her before the two years are up, wouldn't this jeopardize her chances of getting the 10-year green card or whatever it is? This just doesn't make any sense to me.

I can understand the logic of a prenup for both the man and the woman, but can't see the logic in this case of having a contract to enforce a set payment (allowance) before and during marriage.

Why talk about K1 - prenups are done much more often without any K1. I very much doubt that you "understand the logic of a prenup" - given what you're writing here. And one shouldn't be scared to protect one's rights (and one's children's too) just by the prospect that the spouse will apply for divorce and there'd be hardship in getting the conditions removed. It rather says to me, that she were right in getting a prenup with such a scumbag - who'll divorce her just to default on a signed contract

[Misha]

Why talk about K1 - prenups are done much more often without any K1. I very much doubt that you "understand the logic of a prenup" - given what you're writing here. And one shouldn't be scared to protect one's rights (and one's children's too) just by the prospect that the spouse will apply for divorce and there'd be hardship in getting the conditions removed. It rather says to me, that she were right in getting a prenup with such a scumbag - who'll divorce her just to default on a signed contract

Again, I understand the logic of a prenup in the eventuality of a divorce, but still don't get the logic of a contract saying that husband X will pay Y dollars to wife Z before and while they are married. I would not really understand the logic of a man either who would have his fiancee sign a contract specifying what she will do or not do during the marriage. If they don't trust each other enough and need such a contract or don't have enough of a relationship to settle such matters while married, they should not be getting married in the first place IMHO.   

[Wienerin]

prenup is a sign of mistrust

respectfully beg to disagree. Not any more than all the contracts, agreements and laws in general.

And... excuse me, trust is built over the time of living together, not a given - especially when there isn't a long and intimate knowledge of each other, of your characters and circumstances... also, things happen. And yes, people change sometimes (often enough - if you look at the divorce or probate court hearings ).

Also there are in many and many cases the obligations of each partner to consider - children from previous marriages, parents, siblings sometimes, etc. It may be that there's not lack of trust but understanding that in case of something happening your children could be disadvantaged as compared too his children, for example.

When people from different countries and different cultures marry - there could be also other considerations. All having nothing to do with trust or lack thereof.

[UTRO]

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

Everyone please relax. I apologize to Oooooops    Things obviously can and do get lost in Translation. I never meant to offend her or anyone else here. I was using this Term it in the same context as when two Girlfriends are talking and one of them says something over the top to the other and she says, "Shut It"!!! Said in this context the Term is never taken personally. I am pretty careful with what I say on this Discussion Board and I try hard not to offend anyone. I'll keep to the Language I know. It was said in jest and I'm disappointed that as an Admin you couldn't see through this Dan.

[Aloe]

Everyone please relax. I apologize to Oooooops    Things obviously can and do get lost in Translation. I never meant to offend her or anyone else here. I was using this Term it in the same context as when two Girlfriends are talking and one of them says something over the top to the other and she says, "Shut It"!!! Said in this context the Term is never taken personally. I am pretty careful with what I say on this Discussion Board and I try hard not to offend anyone. I'll keep to the Language I know. It was said in jest and I'm disappointed that as an Admin you couldn't see through this Dan.

that wasn't "shut it". that was  "shut your trap"

[Admin]

Everyone please relax. I apologize to Oooooops    Things obviously can and do get lost in Translation. I never meant to offend her or anyone else here. I was using this Term it in the same context as when two Girlfriends are talking and one of them says something over the top to the other and she says, "Shut It"!!! Said in this context the Term is never taken personally. I am pretty careful with what I say on this Discussion Board and I try hard not to offend anyone. I'll keep to the Language I know. It was said in jest and I'm disappointed that as an Admin you couldn't see through this Dan.

Utrobina,

Just as you say, you have been (and are) an excellent and valued contributor. In fact, that was why I tried to keep my comment to you formed as a suggestion - and to let you know (in case you did not) that the recipient of such a message would undoubtedly take it as a VERY serious affront (and she did BTW).

The sterility of written communication makes it difficult to impart intonation and inflection that might have served to 'soften' my message.

I very much appreciate you extending an apology to Ooooops - and in the same vein, I apologize to you for coming across too strongly.

- Dan

[UTRO]

that wasn't "shut it". that was  "shut your trap"

I think I get it now Aloe. Thanks.

[UTRO]

Utrobina,

Just as you say, you have been (and are) an excellent and valued contributor. In fact, that was why I tried to keep my comment to you formed as a suggestion - and to let you know (in case you did not) that the recipient of such a message would undoubtedly take it as a VERY serious affront (and she did BTW).

The sterility of written communication makes it difficult to impart intonation and inflection that might have served to 'soften' my message.

I very much appreciate you extending an apology to Ooooops - and in the same vein, I apologize to you for coming across too strongly.

- Dan

 Thank-you Dan. To be unbiased is to present both arguments.   

[WmGO]

Virtually everything that has been said in this thread
about prenuptial agreements is completely 100% incorrect.
But no surprise - noone expressing their *legal* opinions in
this thread are lawyers.   

Legal Fact: Prenuptial agreements are recognized as valid and enforceable
in the majority of American States. They do NOT have to be "equal" or
"fair". They only have to be freely and voluntarily entered into with full
and fair disclosure. That's it. Like any other contract they are enforceable.
Again, in most States.

People should consult a family law attorney FROM THEIR STATE for
details.

Practical Fact: Most people do not need a prenuptial agreement. They simply
do not have sufficient assets to worry about it.

*****

Let me add one more thing: the need or desire of an American Man for
a prenup does not and should not have anything to do with the nationality
of the women. It has to do with the nature and realities of the American legal system and the debauched moral climate we live in. If a man needs a prenup he would have that need/desire with an AW just as much as an
FSUW.

[kievstar]

Just remember a good lawyer can coach any smart woman in how to make any prenup void.   

[Ooooops]

I apologize to Oooooops    Things obviously can and do get lost in Translation.

Peace!