Does not look good

[SirLancelot 1]

It would probably be useful to at least discuss the pre-nup and how it may or may not relate to the Aff of Support? Because this is an immigration forum and both documents could potentially "run into" each other.

--Z

The Affidavit of Support is a contract between the sponsor and the government, not between the sponsor and his/her spouse. How would a prenup "run into" it?

Start with these links:

http://www.povertylaw.org/poverty-law-libr...ase/54000/54046

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0110-wheeler.shtm

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0608-mehta.shtm

It's not like I posted these links on page 11.

Must be invisible.

Hahah... I didn't read the articles until Aussiewench posted the links. Sorry.

May have to closely scrutinize what you post in the future.

[Fandango 1,439]

You come across as if you're talking in absolutes....and you have no idea how much it grates on me how you classify your ex-wife's selfish and conniving actions as 'becoming Americanized'

The truth hurts, eh?

*yawn*

[dxt7339 1]

I have just been through the Pre-nup thing. We did not discuss this in any real detail before she cam to America. We were on a plane together from Moscow to Prague and there was a Russian magizine that had an article in it about pre-nups in Russia. she askled me what I thought and I heisitated, but said based on wht I wnet throught with my divorce, I would like to have one. but that was the end, until about 10 days before our wedding. I was at a financial advisors office trying to hedge off the Pre-nup thing byt placing all my assets into a Trust. The SC State Law says what you bring into a marriage you get to keep if the marriage ends. Of course there is case law caviot to this that says after some length of time (not specifically defined) each person must be provided the same standard of living they have become accustomed to. So, while I might not have to specificall divide my assets, I may have to compensate in cash, to achieve the standard of living. So I was strongly advised to have a Pre-nup.

So, I went home and told her that I would like to have a pre-nup. She did get upset and would not talk about it. After a day, I toldher that I did not want this to be complicated. I toldher that the law already provides that we keep what we bring in. (The Trust) makes it clear what I had prior to marriage and that these assets will not be "co-mingled" and nor will the friutes of these assets. I thought long an hard about what I wanted in the pre-nup and my experience in SC is that the divorce laws are so vageu, and when lawyers are involved, they only try to take all your money and the judges favor the women. So, I instructed the attorney to make the pre-nup as simple as possible with the instructions that in the event we want to end the marriage, WE will decided together how to divide the maritial assets, WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT of LAWYERS. If necessary, we could employe an Professional, non-lawyer, mediator to help us on things that are difficult. (By the way, NEVER agree to a mediator that is a lawyer. Big mistake in my privious divorce)

I had the Pre-nup translated into her native Russian language byt a Professional firm. My TRUST has provisions in it on how my assets are to be divided in the event of my death. SHE will get lifetime use of my house as long as she does not get married or co-habitate. If the marriage lasted 10 years or more, she will own 1/3 with my two children owning the rest. She also may buy out my children.

State law governs how a Pre-nup must be written. There is language, I am sure in all states that says that you understand and agree to this and that you had the "opportunity" to consult legal consul. Theattorney, told me in SC that does not mean that she has to have consulted legal consul. Only that she had the opportunity. I my case it was one day before the marriage. She can not claim that she did not read it if she has signed it. Will not work.

Also, the apartments that you fiance' owns in her country, is not an asset that is available to you in the event of divorce. She can just say she has nothing. And the state is not willing to go to some other state much less another country to try to determine if thisis real or not.

By the way, My fiance' signed the agreement in both languages in front of a notary. I think she really understands that she is not morally entitled to things that I have aquired, prior to our meeting. It still upset her, and I felt like ####### bring this up. But now I am glad and I believe even more that she loves me regardless of my assets.

Devereux

[SirLancelot 1]

So, I instructed the attorney to make the pre-nup as simple as possible with the instructions that in the event we want to end the marriage, WE will decided together how to divide the maritial assets, WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT of LAWYERS. If necessary, we could employe an Professional, non-lawyer, mediator to help us on things that are difficult. (By the way, NEVER agree to a mediator that is a lawyer. Big mistake in my privious divorce)

dxt7339, that's great you have done a pre-nup. But I don't think the above will stand in divorce court. You can't just privately contract out the law. I am sure SC law provides for the settlement of the dissolution of marriage in family court. Thus, I'm sure she will be able to use retain a lawyer in the event of a divorce--not matter what you've written in the pre-nup. A pre-nup does NOT supercede state or federal laws.

Also, the apartments that you fiance' owns in her country, is not an asset that is available to you in the event of divorce. She can just say she has nothing. And the state is not willing to go to some other state much less another country to try to determine if thisis real or not.

This may be true for a foreign country, but I don't believe it's true for the 50 US states. It's not the job of the family court to find or determine where either parties are hiding assets, it's the job of your attorney to find the hidden assets. In your specific case, if somehow your current wife hides assets in another state (e.g. buys a house on her own in GA for example) then it's up to your divorce attorney to find that asset and prove to your SC court that indeed she purchased this house during your marriage. Then the judge in your state court indeed has the authority to divide up that asset.

It's not the job of the court, but it is the job of your divorce attorney.

[dxt7339 1]

So, I instructed the attorney to make the pre-nup as simple as possible with the instructions that in the event we want to end the marriage, WE will decided together how to divide the maritial assets, WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT of LAWYERS. If necessary, we could employe an Professional, non-lawyer, mediator to help us on things that are difficult. (By the way, NEVER agree to a mediator that is a lawyer. Big mistake in my privious divorce)

dxt7339, that's great you have done a pre-nup. But I don't think the above will stand in divorce court. You can't just privately contract out the law. I am sure SC law provides for the settlement of the dissolution of marriage in family court. Thus, I'm sure she will be able to use retain a lawyer in the event of a divorce--not matter what you've written in the pre-nup. A pre-nup does NOT supercede state or federal laws.

Also, the apartments that you fiance' owns in her country, is not an asset that is available to you in the event of divorce. She can just say she has nothing. And the state is not willing to go to some other state much less another country to try to determine if thisis real or not.

I agree basically with what you say, any contract can be contested. But my agreement does not supercede the law, it is withing the law. As I have said before, SC law is very vague. Yes they have an equitable distribution provision in the law, but this is not specifically defined. The Judge can decide what this means in each case based on many factors and his own whim. And the law does allow the two parties develop an agreement. The agreement should not be outrageously unreasonable for one party, and it does not have to be 50/50. We can, under the law, reach our own agreement on what is an equitable distribution. I have made crystal clear, what assets I have brought into the marriage and they will not be co-mingled into maritial assets. This is a BIG one! ! She will not be entitled to any of my retirement up to the point of marriage, and any gains after the marriage. Only what has been contributed to since the marriage. And the amount is subject to negotiation.

This may be true for a foreign country, but I don't believe it's true for the 50 US states. It's not the job of the family court to find or determine where either parties are hiding assets, it's the job of your attorney to find the hidden assets. In your specific case, if somehow your current wife hides assets in another state (e.g. buys a house on her own in GA for example) then it's up to your divorce attorney to find that asset and prove to your SC court that indeed she purchased this house during your marriage. Then the judge in your state court indeed has the authority to divide up that asset.

It's not the job of the court, but it is the job of your divorce attorney.

Again I agree with you, but even if your attorney finds the assets, if they are out of state, the court will not provide for any force to go after them. The court does not care about anything that can not be very tangibly secured. Certainly an apartment in Russia, it would be almost impossible to get ownership documents, true value, where the courts may make a decision. Also, in SC this would be non marital property that would clearly not be co-mingled. So, I think for all praticle purposes, this kind of asset is a non-asset in a marriage in the USA. Even if it were, there is nothing to prevent the spouse from changing ownership or bribing officials to make it not an asset.

[KevinH 0]

I'd have a pre-nup signed by her. She may be offended by it, and maybe she should have been told about it before she came here, but you can't 100% rely on the fact the marriage will last forever.

My experience was everything in the world was great until one day my soon-to-be-ex just up and said she found someone else on the internet and she's leaving me for him. No ... this is a problem and we have to fix it, no ... I'm going to leave if you don't do this and that. Had nothing to do with me, said I was just fine, she just loved this other man better. She's Christian, reads her bible, by all appearances we had a wonderful marriage. Made no sense whatsoever to me, still doesn't.

I wasn't going to have a pre-nup signed with her, fortunately I didn't have to (she left before I filed the I-864 ... after only 4 months of being married). She was naive and entirely propelled by selfishness, what if she was a little more cunning and pulled that after she had her greencard? Two more years of life wasted and many more years being responsible to support her.

My advice ... apologize to her, say you should have told her about this sooner before she made the decision to come to this country, however it is necessary and if she decides that it is not acceptable, you'll pay for her expenses to go home.

[rebelheart 0]

Every posts in here are well said in each persons opinions and experiences. You and your fiancee needs to discuss this seriously if you really keen into this matter to push through if you gonna still marry her. Since you never discuss it before you asked her to marry you, this is the time for you to have a long talk about it and give each other opinions with this. Be open, make a 2-way streets of accepting and giving each other views about it.

I guess more couples talked about it before they get into their marriage plans. Because in my experience I'm the one willingly for it, but my husband trusted me enough and believe so in honesty between us and also we have 2 little sons will gonna be involve someday... In time you & her will face it smoothly when the problems may come someday, if it's been clearly discuss it now before marriage with the help of trust & honesty for each other.

Goodluck into this....

-rebelheart-

Edited October 26, 2006 by rebelheart

[garya505 2]

In my case a pre-nup is probably not feasible. My fiance worries now that I might leave her if I met another woman, and asking her to sign a pre-nup would signal to her that this is a possibility. I think she honestly believes that she would never leave me, though I know people change and it could happen. I live in a Community Property state so all I can do is document my existing Separate Property and avoid comingling or recharacterization. Yes, I know it's risky but in my case there is probably no other option.

[lawrencetoland 3]

I have to say my husband and I signed a pre nup because I hold all the shares in a family business. So I have more than just myself to worry about here. At the time I signed the pre nup, I had my mother and father to worry about supporting for the rest of their lives not to mention the children we may have from the marriage.

The pre nup stated in advance different things that we both needed to have happen in the event our marriage should fall apart. Such as he would wish to return home to the UK and I would give him a cash settlement to enable him to do so. And other various things. But we discussed this when we got engaged and ironed it out before he even made it over on his fiance visa. So I can understand both sides a bit but you really needed to have this ironed out a long time ago.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

However, if circumstances are such that a prenup *could* provide some protection to one's situation, it is a personal choice whether or not to consider one viable, that is, unless one has children. Then personal choice should not be the focus...

Well made point. It's bad enough to quarrel with your soon-to-be ex over property without having the assets you intended for your children to be drawn into the mix. In the case of minor children especially, I personally believe that placing 'trust' in a new spouse over the well being of those children would be nothing short of irresponsible.

Having said that, here's another illustration of how sometimes you just can't win. A client just left our office with similar concerns but in her case we are writing wills. It is a second marriage for both of them, with three children apiece. They are trying to make provisions in their wills that the jointly held real estate be divided evenly amongst the 6 children after the demise of both of them.

My boss was swift to add that these provisions could easily be stricken after the death of the first spouse simply by the second spouse re-writing their own will.Thus illustrating that sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't provide for every eventuality.

Wow...Rebeccajo, I was just curious. Could they not put some sort of provision in saying something like "even upon the death of my spouse" or whatever? Obviously, it would have fancier wording, but you get my drift... I guess they can't or your boss would know about it, but why not?

I can see both sides of this. I loved Becca's earlier post about the two most imp. things in a relationship, and I enjoyed many of Kirsten's (and others) viewpoints as well.

I think this is the one and only time I've ever been glad that neither Craig nor I own anything of any worth!!! Maybe one day... M.

E:typo

Edited October 29, 2006 by MichelleandCraig

[rebeccajo 14]

However, if circumstances are such that a prenup *could* provide some protection to one's situation, it is a personal choice whether or not to consider one viable, that is, unless one has children. Then personal choice should not be the focus...

Well made point. It's bad enough to quarrel with your soon-to-be ex over property without having the assets you intended for your children to be drawn into the mix. In the case of minor children especially, I personally believe that placing 'trust' in a new spouse over the well being of those children would be nothing short of irresponsible.

Having said that, here's another illustration of how sometimes you just can't win. A client just left our office with similar concerns but in her case we are writing wills. It is a second marriage for both of them, with three children apiece. They are trying to make provisions in their wills that the jointly held real estate be divided evenly amongst the 6 children after the demise of both of them.

My boss was swift to add that these provisions could easily be stricken after the death of the first spouse simply by the second spouse re-writing their own will.Thus illustrating that sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't provide for every eventuality.

Wow...Rebeccajo, I was just curious. Could they not put some sort of provision in saying something like "even upon the death of my spouse" or whatever? Obviously, it would have fancier wording, but you get my drift... I guess they can't or your boss would know about it, but why not?

Michelle...the answer is no, at least not handling things by virtue of Wills alone.

If real estate is jointly held with survivorship provisions, then the property becomes fully vested in the survivor. And the survivor can do what they want with that property.

Likewise, couples can write reciprocal wills and then after the first death, the surviving spouse can write a new will.

My understanding is the only way to control what your spouse does 'beyond the grave' with jointly held property is to place it in a trust. And since I know nothing about the way trusts work, I'm not going to speculate whether or not they create a rock-solid agreement.

[MichelleandCraig 1]

Hmmm,interesting. Didn't know that. Has no application to us, but I was curious..

I would hope if you had a good marriage with someone, with this reciprocal agreement, etc. that they would honor it after your death anyway, but who knows with some people. Thanks for answering tho! M.

ETA: I have seen some relationships where the spouses have a good relationship, but the adult children don't get along with the spouse, however. I suppose that would be an instance the surviving spouse could 'take advantage.' Sad, but I guess it probably happens. M.

Edited October 29, 2006 by MichelleandCraig

[lak&ajm 0]

I have just been through the Pre-nup thing.......

I had the Pre-nup translated into her native Russian language byt a Professional firm. My TRUST has provisions in it on how my assets are to be divided in the event of my death. SHE will get lifetime use of my house as long as she does not get married or co-habitate. If the marriage lasted 10 years or more, she will own 1/3 with my two children owning the rest. She also may buy out my children.

Devereux

I just have one question here. Why do people (and it seem to be more men than women) put this stipulation about their house? If something happens to you, do you not want your spouse to move on with their life? She has made this house her HOME. Why should she have to move because she has found a new love?

For example, my step-father died two years ago and he and my mom were married 14 days shy of 25 years. His will stated his daughter will take over ownership, but my mother retains physical possesion of his house as long as she lives or as long as she wants to continue living there regardless if she remarries, or co-habitates.

That is exactly the same thing I am going to do with my fiance. Yes, he may want to move to a different house if he finds love with another, but I am not going to MAKE him.

Sorry if this has been discussed before and I really do not want to cause any heated arguments, but it just does not make sense to me.

Lori

[rebeccajo 14]

Hmmm,interesting. Didn't know that. Has no application to us, but I was curious..

I would hope if you had a good marriage with someone, with this reciprocal agreement, etc. that they would honor it after your death anyway, but who knows with some people. Thanks for answering tho! M.

ETA: I have seen some relationships where the spouses have a good relationship, but the adult children don't get along with the spouse, however. I suppose that would be an instance the surviving spouse could 'take advantage.' Sad, but I guess it probably happens. M.

Well, most couples write wills that provide for the survivor. That's part of being a good spouse. But another part of being a good spouse is the realization that life will go on for the survivor. They may wish to sell the family home and buy something smaller. Or the survivor may not want to own property at all - they may want to take the cash from the family home and rent instead. And of course, after a time they may wish to remarry.

I think the real stickiness is with second marriages wherein the partners try to protect their assets for their separate biological children. Assets they may have accrued before they even met their current spouse - assets they want their children to benefit from. It doesn't just happen in the movies that dad remarries and after he dies, his new wife runs off with all dad's assets, leaving his children with no inheritance. It's my understand that setting up assets in trust can prevent this, but as I said I'm not certain how those vehicles operate.

Actually, it's my opinion that there are times it's better to bequeath to your children before you die. In the case of second marriages amongst well-off individuals I especially think this is wise. If one is all that concerned about providing for children and one can afford to do it before death, why not go ahead and do so?

I have just been through the Pre-nup thing.......

I had the Pre-nup translated into her native Russian language byt a Professional firm. My TRUST has provisions in it on how my assets are to be divided in the event of my death. SHE will get lifetime use of my house as long as she does not get married or co-habitate. If the marriage lasted 10 years or more, she will own 1/3 with my two children owning the rest. She also may buy out my children.

Devereux

I just have one question here. Why do people (and it seem to be more men than women) put this stipulation about their house? If something happens to you, do you not want your spouse to move on with their life? She has made this house her HOME. Why should she have to move because she has found a new love?

For example, my step-father died two years ago and he and my mom were married 14 days shy of 25 years. His will stated his daughter will take over ownership, but my mother retains physical possesion of his house as long as she lives or as long as she wants to continue living there regardless if she remarries, or co-habitates.

That is exactly the same thing I am going to do with my fiance. Yes, he may want to move to a different house if he finds love with another, but I am not going to MAKE him.

Sorry if this has been discussed before and I really do not want to cause any heated arguments, but it just does not make sense to me.

Lori

I agree.

Except for the part where you say it's just men that often put in this provision. I've seen women do the same. I think it goes to mindset more than gender.

[SirLancelot 1]

Actually, it's my opinion that there are times it's better to bequeath to your children before you die. In the case of second marriages amongst well-off individuals I especially think this is wise. If one is all that concerned about providing for children and one can afford to do it before death, why not go ahead and do so?

Yes, I believe they are called Living Trusts. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/seniors/living_trust.html

It's not a bad idea to have a living trust if one has significant assets and can trust the trustee. It'll save on probate!