For Pete E and others, why no Prenupt?

[senge]

It seems that since the allure of marrying women too quickly is omnipresent in this method of attaining spouses, more men would choose to use a prenuptial agreement.  I am surprised it is not mentioned much here.  I don't mind talking about it with my Peruvian friend, and now I'm researching how effective it would be out here in California.  

Pete, or others, any ideas as to why no prenuptial agreement was used?  And please don't tell me it would 'ruin the relationship'.

[Jeff S]

... in response to For Pete E and others, why no Prenupt?, posted by senge on Oct 6, 2003

Pete's right, Since, you, he and I all live in a community property state (California,) a prenup buys you nothing, unless you own a business. It really doesn't matter what it says in a pre-nup, marital assets are split 50/50, spousal support and child support are calculated based on a formula. It doesn't matter if she slept all over town, turned into a crack whore,  or signed a statement promising she'd deport herself, take nothing and pay YOU money - it all gets tossed out, and marital assets are divided by formula. She cannot voluntarily give up her rights. Now, separate property, such as assets obtained before you were married, inheritances, pensions earned (like in Pete's case) ae a different matter. If you're thinking of getting married, you should document your separate property well, before you take the walk down the aisle. As Pete said, consult a competent lawyer, but in most cases, in a state like ours, there's no need for a pre-nup. Patrick (also a California resident) and I also found out the very same thing. Your financial status amy be different, but if you're a regular working stiff, like the three of us, you're kidding yourself that a pre-nup is anything more than expensive bird cage lining.

- Jeff

[valuedcustomer]

... in response to Re: For Pete E and others, why no Prenup..., posted by Jeff S on Oct 7, 2003

I am a little rusty on CP law, but I seem to remember that the “Lee Marvin” case went up to appeal to the California Supreme Court and established the precedent for pre-marital agreements.

[Pete E]

... in response to For Pete E and others, why no Prenupt?, posted by senge on Oct 6, 2003

In my case there was no beneft.I had 2 assets,my house and my pension.The house becomes community property in California,she gets half of the appreciation from the time you marry.The pension cannot be touched.
Check with a lawyer,I did,didn't need one.
If you have assets or an income stream other than the house you would probably want to do a prenup to state that she gets no interests in these assets.

Pete

[denvermike]

... in response to For Pete E and others, why no Prenupt?, posted by senge on Oct 6, 2003

Prenups with a foreign wife, are they that useful?  Just wondering, since you do have to sign all kinds of support agreements and such, aren't you taken to the cleaners anyway especially if she has children. Just asking the question?

We all know the tension that a prenup can create with the women in the States but here in Chile it is different.  I was surprised to find out that prenups are more the rule than the exception. Except for the really poor, most everybody has some form of prenup.  It is clearly defined what belongs to whom prior to the wedding bliss, in case of split up, all in a country where divorce is against the law, go figure!

mike

[Richard]

... in response to For Pete E and others, why no Prenupt?, posted by senge on Oct 6, 2003

I am under the impression that in certain circumstances, one can adequately protect oneself without a prenup.  As you as you do *not* live a community property you may be able to protect your assets by documenting them before the marriage.

I found this to be true in Pennsylvania when I looked into one before my first marriage.  Pennsylvania is an equitable distribution state in which you spouse is entitled to part of the appreciation in you assets since the marriage, but not anything from what you had before the marriage.

On the other hand, if you have special circumstances, such as wanting to guarantee you children's inheritance, that's another story...

[luvslife]

... in response to For Pete E and others, why no Prenupt?, posted by senge on Oct 6, 2003

Prenupt or not, when you bring someone here on a visa or sponser someone to get their papers don't you have to agree to be financially responsible for them with the immigration service? Can you get around that?  Does anyone know wheather or not this is the case?

[Ralph]

... in response to Re: For Pete E and others, why no Prenup..., posted by luvslife on Oct 6, 2003

The AOS basically just says that you will reimburse uncle sam should the lady ever require public assistance etc. If she never collects public assistance, you pay nothing.

[DallasSteve2]

... in response to Re: Re: For Pete E and others, why no Pr..., posted by Ralph on Oct 6, 2003

The I-864 Affidavit of Support, which I hold in my hand, says in part:

"I agree to provide the sponsored immigrant(s) whatever support is necessary to maintain the sponsored immigrant(s) at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines."

"I acknowledge that section 213A(a)(1)(b) of the Act grants the sponsored immigrant(s)...standing to sue me"

It's boring reading, but you may want to know what it says before you sign it.  Don't feel bad if you didn't know that wording was in there.  I sat in an immigration lawyer's office one time and he told me it didn't say that, either.

We are in the "land of the free" aren't we?

Steve

[Karl]

... in response to I wish that were true, posted by DallasSteve2 on Oct 6, 2003

Steve, the government can't sue you if she has no standing to sue you.  So they grant her standing and you acknowledge this.  That's what it looks like to me.  I looked at 213A and all of the provisions are for the government to sue, not her.

[DallasSteve2]

... in response to Re: I wish that were true, posted by Karl on Oct 7, 2003

[This message has been edited by DallasSteve2]

Kar

Did you see this wording at the top of page 6:

"I acknowledge that section 213A(a)(1)(b) of the Act grants the sponsored immigrant(s)...standing to sue me"

It seems obvious to me that she has standing to sue.  Your inference that she is just a conduit for the government to sue is not supported by any other wording in the document.

Steve

[DallasSteve2]

... in response to For Pete E and others, why no Prenupt?, posted by senge on Oct 6, 2003

I had one last time.  I haven't gotten one yet this time because so far she's costing me more than I make.  If I start to make more than I'm spending then I'll get a postnup, which is a valid option in Texas.

Steve