Does not look good

[rebeccajo 14]

and springing it on her after she has left her 'life' behind with a child in tow doesn't give her much option than to sign does it?

I don't believe the OP suggested that she should sign, "or else", and yes she'd have options such as making sure that her separate property not become part of the marital estate. The OP did say that she had some assets of her own, if I remember correctly. Other than separately held property, most pre-nups don't impact the jointly acquired assets or appreciation of the marital assets (naturally, we don't know where they are to live, and each state does handle distribution of marital assets differently, so that should be a consideration). So, in essence were the marriage to go asunder, she'd be protected to the degree that she could preserve that which she had before she agreed to marry.

Could it be that she was just a gold-digger

I'd have to say that if I were to present my beloved with a prenup and he faltered in his decision to marry, it sure would raise some hairs on the back of my neck. I'd hope I'd be the prize and not my possessions.

Diaddie, in my opinion this kind of thing falls under the category of 'stuff we talk about before we talk about commitment'. If the OP is as business savvy as he would have us believe, he should have found a way to bring up this topic before he went down the immigration trail.

I'm sensing he's annoyed with some behaviors she has exhibited since her arrival, and is looking for a way to kebosh the deal.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Agreed.... he want her out and has not got the balls to just tell her he has changed his mind and pay for her and her childs expenses and flights home.....

Kezzie

[Barry2005 0]

If you do not plan on being together forever don't get married because when you say "hey just incase your not the person i think you are, I do not want you to get any of my stuff" is just a start down the path of divorce. If your spouse is worth dedicating your life to they should be good enough to take the chance of losing 1/2.

I plan on being married forever, however it only takes one(person) to file for divorce.

[rebeccajo 14]

If you do not plan on being together forever don't get married because when you say "hey just incase your not the person i think you are, I do not want you to get any of my stuff" is just a start down the path of divorce. If your spouse is worth dedicating your life to they should be good enough to take the chance of losing 1/2.

I plan on being married forever, however it only takes one(person) to file for divorce.

Oh so true.

I'm too old and mean to subscribe to a lot of the sentimental avows of eternal devotion and trust I've seen etched out here.

On the other hand, I'm a dreamer and a lover and I'll take the ####### shoot of putting my heart, as well as my possessions, on the line.

Because my wrath, if provoked, will be just as eternal as my commitment was.

[Barry2005 0]

I can see many good points being made here. It wounld be hard to decide on a prenupt or no prenupt its very unromantic and a red flag. Thank God I don't own so much that I need one. Instead of asking us sea lawyers.....what did your attorney say? Doesn't she need her own attorney?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

and springing it on her after she has left her 'life' behind with a child in tow doesn't give her much option than to sign does it?

I don't believe the OP suggested that she should sign, "or else", and yes she'd have options such as making sure that her separate property not become part of the marital estate. The OP did say that she had some assets of her own, if I remember correctly. Other than separately held property, most pre-nups don't impact the jointly acquired assets or appreciation of the marital assets (naturally, we don't know where they are to live, and each state does handle distribution of marital assets differently, so that should be a consideration). So, in essence were the marriage to go asunder, she'd be protected to the degree that she could preserve that which she had before she agreed to marry.

Could it be that she was just a gold-digger

I'd have to say that if I were to present my beloved with a prenup and he faltered in his decision to marry, it sure would raise some hairs on the back of my neck. I'd hope I'd be the prize and not my possessions.

Diaddie, in my opinion this kind of thing falls under the category of 'stuff we talk about before we talk about commitment'. If the OP is as business savvy as he would have us believe, he should have found a way to bring up this topic before he went down the immigration trail.

I'm sensing he's annoyed with some behaviors she has exhibited since her arrival, and is looking for a way to kebosh the deal.

rebeccajo,

I don't believe the topic just came up. From his posts it sounded like they discussed it a month or so ago. From his other thread it appears that his fiancée arrived some time in late August. It could very well be that she didn't wish to speak of such issues before in great detail. That does happen, you know. Also there appears to be some static from his fiancée's ex-husband, which was also introduced by his fiancé at a late hour.

Thanks to a lot of you, and with your good advice, my fiancee, her daughter, and I will be coming to the U.S. in a couple of weeks.

Everything OK, right? Well, I spoke to my fiancee tonight, and it seems her "ex and his new wife" are making some "demands". My fiancee, who has worked hard to provide a decent living for herself and her daughter, has happened to have paid for two apartments in Bishkek-one for her daughter in case she may want to move back to her home country, and the other for simply an investment--all of these properties are in her name.

Now, this ex-clown is telling her that he has some "contacts" in the legal/secrurity system that may make it "difficult" for her to leave her country if she does not give in to his and her demands.

My fiancee and her daughter both have all of their legal documents and everything--ready to fly to America.

I am so damn angry about the whole thing. I told my fiancee that if I have too, I will go the the American embassy in Bishkek, or, for the matter of that, to Almaty, and fix all of this.

God, to go this far----------

Thanks for your reply,

Twostar

Nonetheless, if the woman does not wish to sign a pre-nup, perhaps it has to do with some left over issues with her ex-husband, and in that regard her financial security could be of more interest to her now than it was in the past when the couple was planning the K1. As we have often said, we don't know all the details.

[SirLancelot 1]

Agreed.... he want her out and has not got the balls to just tell her he has changed his mind and pay for her and her childs expenses and flights home.....

Kezzie

Can you say GOLD DIGGER!?!

Once she was confronted and told that she couldn't dig gold, she became livid.

Thank god he found out before the marriage huh? Otherwise once they got married, he'd be liable for her support until she became a citizen or had accumulate 40 units of SS credit.

Good for him for not capitulating.

Honestly, all the people crying foul must have no assests. People of true means that have assest to protect will always be concerned about protecting their wealth. People who spout love is the only thing that matters have no money to protect. If they did, they would know better.

Sorry if this is too much cold reality, but that's how the world works.

Don't try to judge him and his values. It's his life. So long as he's not physically abused this woman and child, he's perfectly within his right to NOT marry her, especially if he's recently found out she's a blatant gold digger.

My only comment to him: have you become the new "ex-clown"? Hahaha.. I can't help it. You called her ex an "ex-clown" in all your posts that I find it so ironic. Now you've become the "ex-clown". Hahah.

[Kirsten L 0]

No, I have never been in this situation, and I pray I never am. I want to tell you that I think prenups are a bad idea all the way around. They plant a seed of doubt in a marriage before it's even begun and make it about something that it shouldn't be. If I were her, I would be deeply offended as well...and I'm no money digger. Not even close. She thought you loved and trusted her. You just communicated something very, very different...and not at all positive from her perspective, mine, and I suspect a whole lot of other people. Never mind what you're communicating to her impressionable child.

If you were going to do this--and I really don't think you or ANYone should--then, you ABSOLUTELY should have mentioned it LONG before this woman and her daughter got to the U.S. You should have given her a reasonable opportunity to make a decision about your request and the kind of person you are while she could still change her mind about coming. Instead you've left her with no way to escape a really awful shock, a tremendous amount of hurt, upset, and inconvenience. She risked everything for you, but you're willing to risk nothing for her. Think about that fact. She left EVERYTHING--family, connections, language, culture, and a host of other things that made her life more understandable. That you now expect her to dance to your tune in what should be a mutual relationship and decision-making process is simply wrong. The bottom line is this: If you didn't feel you can trust her WITHOUT a prenup, then you shouldn't have chosen to marry her and put her through the visa process in the first place. Wow, really, if you don't see what's wrong with this picture, I don't think you're honestly ready for marriage.

How sad...I'm praying for you that you will wake up. I'm praying for her that God will grant her comfort, protection, and the best resolution posssible--which at this point may well be a lot of distance from you. I guess we'll see.

[desert_fox 32]

For all your info...

The courts will not a pre-nupt unless both parties are advised by independent attorneys. The courts will also throw it out if there is not full disclosure up-front of all assets and debts of both parties. It cannot violate public policy laws of the state. It has to allow for fair treatment. For instance, you cannot write a pre-nupt that states that "in case of diorce I get everything and you get nothing'. Its basically for documenting what you own before marriage and your intent to keep it as seperate property in the event of a divorce. Of course its not very romantic but its one of the necessary things that you should address if you have separate property.

Supposing you have kids...you can use it for agreeing on education, religion, access etc to your children. There are many things that you can agree on without leaving it up to the courts one day. It can take the bitterness out of a future divorce as everything has been pre-agreed.

For all you hopeless romantics out there that feel that it is unnecessary as our relationship is different and is going to last forever, etc., just go ahead and think that. I think many many of us have been divorced before from marriages that we entered thinking that it would last forever....this is horse ####### in our Western socieities of today. So take the bitterness out of it today while you are starry-eyed and it can save you a lot of hate in the future, especially if you have kids if you should happen t fall on the wrong side of that 50-50 line.

BTW....I hope that Anna Nicole losses her a$$ trying to overturn that pre-nupt she signed with the old gezzer.

[Kirsten L 0]

For all your info...

The courts will not a pre-nupt unless both parties are advised by independent attorneys. The courts will also throw it out if there is not full disclosure up-front of all assets and debts of both parties. It cannot violate public policy laws of the state. It has to allow for fair treatment. For instance, you cannot write a pre-nupt that states that "in case of diorce I get everything and you get nothing'. Its basically for documenting what you own before marriage and your intent to keep it as seperate property in the event of a divorce. Of course its not very romantic but its one of the necessary things that you should address if you have separate property.

Supposing you have kids...you can use it for agreeing on education, religion, access etc to your children. There are many things that you can agree on without leaving it up to the courts one day. It can take the bitterness out of a future divorce as everything has been pre-agreed.

For all you hopeless romantics out there that feel that it is unnecessary as our relationship is different and is going to last forever, etc., just go ahead and think that. I think many many of us have been divorced before from marriages that we entered thinking that it would last forever....this is horse ####### in our Western socieities of today. So take the bitterness out of it today while you are starry-eyed and it can save you a lot of hate in the future, especially if you have kids if you should happen t fall on the wrong side of that 50-50 line.

BTW....I hope that Anna Nicole losses her a$$ trying to overturn that pre-nupt she signed with the old gezzer.

I am, actually, well aware of the fairness factor in pre-nups. And I'm not a "hopeless" romantic. I simply believe that marriage should be based on trust rather than legal agreements. If that makes me a kook, so be it. I do understand all the arguments for them...I simply don't agree with them. As for Anna Nicole Smith, I think she is a stellar example of what you get when you marry a trophy instead of someone you can actually trust. That old man didn't build trust with her...He fixated on her. If he'd taken the time to learn what she really was (and it's completely evident now), he'd have steered clear. That was all ego and foolishness. Solid relationships have to be BASED on something solid: trust, mutual respect, friendship, and honest love...not infatuation and the desire to have a pretty, young thing doting on you.

[CarolineM 0]

[

Diaddie, in my opinion this kind of thing falls under the category of 'stuff we talk about before we talk about commitment'. If the OP is as business savvy as he would have us believe, he should have found a way to bring up this topic before he went down the immigration trail.

I'm sensing he's annoyed with some behaviors she has exhibited since her arrival, and is looking for a way to kebosh the deal.

I would have gladly signed one...but we talked about that BEFORE he came over here....but...neither of us own anything or have any money so it was a moot point....but that is one of those REALLY serious issues you should discuss...like religion, kids, stuff like that...

Edited October 20, 2006 by CarolineM

[diadromous mermaid 36]

For all your info...

The courts will not a pre-nupt unless both parties are advised by independent attorneys. The courts will also throw it out if there is not full disclosure up-front of all assets and debts of both parties. It cannot violate public policy laws of the state. It has to allow for fair treatment. For instance, you cannot write a pre-nupt that states that "in case of diorce I get everything and you get nothing'. Its basically for documenting what you own before marriage and your intent to keep it as seperate property in the event of a divorce. Of course its not very romantic but its one of the necessary things that you should address if you have separate property.

Supposing you have kids...you can use it for agreeing on education, religion, access etc to your children. There are many things that you can agree on without leaving it up to the courts one day. It can take the bitterness out of a future divorce as everything has been pre-agreed.

For all you hopeless romantics out there that feel that it is unnecessary as our relationship is different and is going to last forever, etc., just go ahead and think that. I think many many of us have been divorced before from marriages that we entered thinking that it would last forever....this is horse ####### in our Western socieities of today. So take the bitterness out of it today while you are starry-eyed and it can save you a lot of hate in the future, especially if you have kids if you should happen t fall on the wrong side of that 50-50 line.

BTW....I hope that Anna Nicole losses her a$$ trying to overturn that pre-nupt she signed with the old gezzer.

I am, actually, well aware of the fairness factor in pre-nups. And I'm not a "hopeless" romantic. I simply believe that marriage should be based on trust rather than legal agreements. If that makes me a kook, so be it. I do understand all the arguments for them...I simply don't agree with them. As for Anna Nicole Smith, I think she is a stellar example of what you get when you marry a trophy instead of someone you can actually trust. That old man didn't build trust with her...He fixated on her. If he'd taken the time to learn what she really was (and it's completely evident now), he'd have steered clear. That was all ego and foolishness. Solid relationships have to be BASED on something solid: trust, mutual respect, friendship, and honest love...not infatuation and the desire to have a pretty, young thing doting on you.

I am with desert_fox on this matter. A pre-nup cannot strip a party of that which the state mandates by law that he/she is naturally entitled to..it can simply preserve something more, and that works both ways and for each of the parties. So neither party ends up with less than what they began with.

And as far as trust is concerned, then if a relationship is based on trust, then if presented with a pre-nup why wouldn't a person still trust? It is simply an economic consideration made in the "event" that the relationship fails. Anyone that wishes to defy the odds (nearly 50% at last reckoning) is welcome to do so, but that doesn't mean that the odds don't exist.

I simply believe that marriage should be based on trust rather than legal agreements

Actually marriage is a contract, a legal agreement...but I think what you mean is that the choice to marry should be based upon trust. Once again, I'm sounding like a broken record, but if presented a pre-nup, why does trust fly out of the window? All it is defining is "in the unlikely event that we don't make it, this is what we'll do with what we each owned before we met".

It's not placing odds in favour of one outcome over the next. And likewise even with a prenup in place, the choice can still be based upon trust. Either you trust your partner, implicitly, or you don't. If you trust your patner, then there would be no reason to question his or her choice to recommend a prenup.

Edited October 20, 2006 by diadromous mermaid

[Together4ever 1]

Some people place a higher value on trust in a marriage then business. Now I realize this will not necessarily agree with what many call "good sense" but I can see why she reacted the way she did. If you consider your business arrangement more important then your emotional bond and marriage then I guess you definitely need to re-evaluate.

[Yodrak 7]

john_and_marlene,

I fear that you are the one who is wrong. My impression is that the family courts have tended to be rather strict about protecting both party's interests as defined in family law, and prenutial agreements that effectively void state family law to the possible detriment of one party or the other are scrutinized very carefully. If there is any indication that a person was pressured or not fully advised of and understanding of their rights with regard to a prenuptial agreement the agreement may be thrown out.

Yodrak

If she doesn't read it, and signs it, without having her own independent counsel represent HER best interests, it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

So all I have to do the next time I don't want to be bound by an agreement I signed, I just have to say I signed it without reading it and my obligation is removed????? I think you are wrong.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Yodrak,

You make a good arguement for why the agreement would be voided, but even you do not indicate that the reasoning is because the signer did not read the agreement before signing. If you'll read my later post you'll see I do agree they can be voided for the same reasons you have stated here, but not simply because it wasn't read before signing. I stand by my post which does not disagree with your reasoning here.

john_and_marlene,

I fear that you are the one who is wrong. My impression is that the family courts have tended to be rather strict about protecting both party's interests as defined in family law, and prenutial agreements that effectively void state family law to the possible detriment of one party or the other are scrutinized very carefully. If there is any indication that a person was pressured or not fully advised of and understanding of their rights with regard to a prenuptial agreement the agreement may be thrown out.

Yodrak

If she doesn't read it, and signs it, without having her own independent counsel represent HER best interests, it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

So all I have to do the next time I don't want to be bound by an agreement I signed, I just have to say I signed it without reading it and my obligation is removed????? I think you are wrong.