marriage/divorce

[chevy]

After reading all these stories about the latinas walking out I am getting worried. I think a prenuptual stating that they can't get half the house or pension makes sense.

[Jeff S]

... in response to marriage/divorce, posted by chevy on Dec 9, 2003

If it's a community property state, like California, all you really need to do is document your assets when you get married. There's no denying her half of the community property while you are married no matter how ironclad your prenup - and unless you co-mingle assets (i.e. put her name on your house or pension) there's no way she can get her hands on any separate property.

Don't be fooled by morons who come up with the brilliant idea of writing a prenup so that you only give her a fixed amount of dollars or ones that require her to return home or any other silly schemes that get posted on these boards every so often - these are foolish and get laughed out of court if the inventors are dumb enough to spend the time and money writing them.

Face it - if you marry her - you two are co-joined legally, and anything she does, reflects on you, and anything you do reflects on her. No amount of silly paperwork can ever negate that basic principle. Now if you have a business, or separate assets that you wish to leave to your children from a previous marriage in the event of your death or something other unusual circumstances - a prenup may or may not be the best way to handle it - probably not. Remember if it's unfair, if her attorney didn't get a chance to review it completely, or if it wasn't translated precisely into Spanish correctly, a judge will simply toss it out, and leave you with nothing but your wang in your hand.

In a community property state (and I believe this to be the most fair of any of them) she is entitled to half of all assets acquired during your marriage. If your house was worth $300,000 when you got married and $400,000 when you get divorced, she is entitled to 1/2 of the increase or $50,000 - no more, no less - and if you believe a marriage is a team, that is only fair - no matter who makes more money, who spent wisely or foolishly, who screwed around on who or boinked the neighbor. A marriage is a 50/50 partnership in the eyes of the law.

My 2 cents worth.

- Jeff

[Locii]

... in response to Depends on where you live.., posted by Jeff S on Dec 10, 2003

Jeff,

While I agree with the majority of what you wrote, (I think) you lost me at the end.  Marriage is similar to, but not really a 50/50 (I assume you mean limited?) partnership under the law.  Current marital law in the US (which considering is determined by state is very universal) is far more interested in assigning liability than a partnership conveys; thus its very high failure rate.

As you said, in a (general) partnership, each partner assumes liability for the other partner, including new liabilites which were not  previously apparent.  However, at the closure of a marriage contract, the dispersal of assets and liabilites among parties is done is a more broad way than a partnership (and far-far more broadly than a limited partnership).

I am not trying to nit-pik at all.  This is as much a question as an attempt to answer anything.  Jeff, I think your points about pre-nuptial nonsense is right on.  What most people seem to fail to comprehend is that the law tends to frown upon any contract where a person signs away indeterminate rights or assets in the future, and judges love nothing more than ignoring such devices.

Ciao,

Locii

[Jeff S]

... in response to Re: Depends on where you live.., posted by Locii on Dec 11, 2003

It sounds like you're a lawyer and I assume that you're correct. I was talking about attitude as much as legalities. I read a lot of posts on these three boards, where the AM has a controlling attitude. I was just pointing out that a marriage should be approached as permanent union of two people. Being overly paranoid about protecting your "stuff" leads you away from acheiving that ideal.

I've had some friends spend hundreds of thousands to "bring that b!tch (or bastard) to their knees," and not end up with one penny more or less in the final judgemnet than they would have, had they gone down to We The People, and done the whole thing without lawyers for $300. The laws here in California are pretty clear. Of course, they did finance their lawyer's kids through graduate school, so I guess the money wasn't totally wasted.

I guess this is all a round about way of saying that you're better off putting the time, effort, money and worry into determining if your prospective MOB is of good character than you are creatively writing a prenuptual agreement.

- Jeff