sparkler

We are confused. After searching for information on the net on this subject, some suggest both fiances need to arrange the prenuptial agreement with their own solicitors/attorneys, separately, and then others suggest the couple just do one by themselves.

I would appreciate it if anyone could offer any information/knowledge about this. Thank you. sparkler.

ian-mstm

Sheila and I used her attorney, mostly because I didn't know anyone in the area when we initially set up the prenup. Her lawyer asked me to sign a waiver indicating that he had informed me that I could (or should) have my own attorney, and that was fine by me. We basically agreed that all I brought with me was mine, that all she had before I came was hers, and if the marriage didn't last, then we'd forego any claim on the other's property.

After a couple of years of marriage, we also both drew up a will which, from my understanding, pretty much replaces the prenup if we die. If we divorce, however, then the prenup is still in effect.

As with all things, your mileage may vary!

Ian (and Sheila)
---------------------------------------------------
Timeline:

Mailed I-129F: November 28, 1997
1st NoA: January 13, 1998
K-1 interview in Montreal: March 27, 1998
Married Sheila: May 23, 1998
Filed for AoS: June 15, 1998
AoS interview: February 20, 2001
Received PR status: March 4, 2001
Applied for Citizenship: December 8, 2003
NoA: Priority date - December 11, 2003
Fingerprinted: January 20, 2004

DCMark

This seems confusing. The will should not have anything to do with the prenup. You need to have a will now if you have significant property.

ian-mstm

Just about everything legal confuses me. We had wills drawn up moreso because we're in our 50's and because we wanted to be sure, should one or both of us die, that things like family treasures made their way back to our respective families and not necessarily to the stepchildren for whom they'd have no meaning.

Ian (and Sheila)
---------------------------------------------------
Timeline:

Mailed I-129F: November 28, 1997
1st NoA: January 13, 1998
K-1 interview in Montreal: March 27, 1998
Married Sheila: May 23, 1998
Filed for AoS: June 15, 1998
AoS interview: February 20, 2001
Received PR status: March 4, 2001
Applied for Citizenship: December 8, 2003
NoA: Priority date - December 11, 2003
Fingerprinted: January 20, 2004

Matthew Udall

If only one attorney prepares the prenup, that makes it "perhaps" easier for it to be challenged later by one of the parties (especially by the party who was not the prior client of the attorney). A waiver like someone else mentioned can be helpful, but that is not an ironclad way of preventing a claim of conflict of interest by an aggrieved party (when each party has their own attorney, each separate attorney will have his or her own client's interests in the forefront, and it is probably more difficult for one attorney to represent both parties best interests).

Mrraveltay

sparkler wrote:

    > We are confused. After searching for information on the net on this
    > subject, some suggest both fiances need to arrange the prenuptial
    > agreement with their own solicitors/attorneys, separately, and then
    > others suggest the couple just do one by themselves.
    >

And some would suggest not doing it at all.

sparkler

Thank you ian_mstm and Matthew Udall. Could I arrange one with my own lawyer over here in the UK?
Thanks. sparkler.

Yugo

"ian-mstm" <member2954@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Sheila and I used her attorney, mostly because I didn't know anyone in
    > the area when we initially set up the prenup. Her lawyer asked me to
    > sign a waiver indicating that he had informed me that I could (or
    > should) have my own attorney, and that was fine by me. We basically
    > agreed that all I brought with me was mine, that all she had before I
    > came was hers, and if the marriage didn't last, then we'd forego any
    > claim on the other's property.

So...what you owned before the marriage stays with you, and what she owned
before the marriage stayed with her?
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that the only assets
that were split in a divorce were those that were acquired after marriage?
The assets that were owned before the marriage are not included.

So...I'm confused...why did you need a prenup?

Mrraveltay

Yugo wrote:

    > "ian-mstm" <member2954@british_expats.com> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Sheila and I used her attorney, mostly because I didn't know anyone in
    >>the area when we initially set up the prenup. Her lawyer asked me to
    >>sign a waiver indicating that he had informed me that I could (or
    >>should) have my own attorney, and that was fine by me. We basically
    >>agreed that all I brought with me was mine, that all she had before I
    >>came was hers, and if the marriage didn't last, then we'd forego any
    >>claim on the other's property.
    >
    >
    > So...what you owned before the marriage stays with you, and what she owned
    > before the marriage stayed with her?
    > Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that the only assets
    > that were split in a divorce were those that were acquired after marriage?
    > The assets that were owned before the marriage are not included.

It varies by state law. In some cases, if the asset appreciates, this is
considered income to be divided. Still, I remember a former gf talking
about prenup before and it made me very uneasy about the relationship.
I felt like she didn't trust me, and I was determined to never ask for
one. Of course, at that time, I had a negative net worth, but that
change substantially and I got married, to someone else) in March 2000,
a month before our company stock peaked. I know others feel differently,
but for me no prenup was the option I chose.

Andy Platt

"Yugo" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > So...what you owned before the marriage stays with you, and what she owned
    > before the marriage stayed with her?
    > Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that the only
assets
    > that were split in a divorce were those that were acquired after marriage?
    > The assets that were owned before the marriage are not included.
    > So...I'm confused...why did you need a prenup?

While rules on divorce vary between states, I believe that many states do
have those rules. Usually(?) appreciation in value will be considered to be
joint which could cause a problem if the asset isn't readily liquifiable; in
a messy marriage it's more common for those assets to disappear along the
way anyway! I know that in Virginia, assets aquired after a formal breakup
(before the divorce) are again considered individual; assets squandered can
be recovered (again this assumes they have monetary value only) as part of
the proceedings. As an example my sister-in-law is not only getting more
than 1/2 of the house in her divorce, her ex has also had to fork over for
the car he sold and the insurance policy he cashed in after they separated.

The reason didn't make much sense to me for another reason. The judge isn't
awarding the assets to the step-children but to the spouses.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here, it's just your warped imagination

ian-mstm

You make a good point, but I never indicated that we *needed* a prenup. It did, however, specificy several obligations in the case of a divorce that might not normally be covered. For example, Sheila (who is the major income earner) agreed to help pay my expenses to move back to Canada - something she certainly wouldn't otherwise be obligated to do. This, of course, was because it cost me a specific sum to move my stuff to the US and she's a nice person who wanted to help share the expenses. Stuff like that. Additionally, emotions run high during a divorce, so we believed a prenup would help sort out the major issues. Anyway, we didn't think there was anything wrong with protecting our own interests just in case...


Ian (and Sheila)

---------------------------------------------------
Timeline:

Mailed I-129F: November 28, 1997
1st NoA: January 13, 1998
K-1 interview in Montreal: March 27, 1998
Married Sheila: May 23, 1998
Filed for AoS: June 15, 1998
AoS interview: February 20, 2001
Received PR status: March 4, 2001
Applied for Citizenship: December 8, 2003
NoA: Priority date - December 11, 2003
Fingerprinted: January 20, 2004

AGUILA

I believe that when a couple starts making pre-divorce arrangments such as 'prenups' then there is no much chance that marriage will survive. Because you are already 'programming' yourself for a failure and unfortunately this type of unconcious programming is very effective.

That's just my opinion and my way of seeing things no offense to anyone.

Rete

Of course that is your opinion. However, in today's world where marriages take place later in life, the parties have in all likelihood amassed assets that they worked hard to accumulate and/or have inherited. Younger adults marrying might not have these type of assets and therefore a prenup to t6hem is like buying sod when you live in an apartment. What are you going to do with it?

While this topic is being discussed with one USC and foreign spouse, it is no different with parties of the same nationality. I honestly believe it is NOT programming for failure rather a way of dealing with reality in the event of divorce or death.

Taking it one step further, it is particularly unfair of our USCIS to "make" the USC show that they can not long financially support their spouse but that they have comingled their financial lives with them as well. No where in all of the paper work needed to prove the validity of the marriage is the foreign spouse required to show that they have "shared" their foreign assets with their USC spouse. The onus is solely on the shoulders of the USC. In light of that, one can see where an older, more affluent couple would want to protect some of their assets against any adverse situation in the future.

For example, I have amassed quite a nice IRA over the last 35 years. I had to name my husband as beneficiary of the IRA for USCIS. The moment he became a US Citizen, the beneficiary reverted back to my children. This money is not his. It is mine and mine alone. I worked hard for it and if we both live to retirement age then we will both share this asset. However, if and when I die that money goes to my children. Why? Because say I die at age 67 and my husband is sole beneficiary of the IRA. He can draw against it which is fine. But say he dies 2 years later. He can have placed his son as sole beneficiary of that asset and my children would be deprived of an asset which I believe is strictly theirs if both myself and my husband are deceased. Why should my husband's son from another marriage who was not my stepson during those 35 years of my saving profit from my sacrifice? My husband will not be left with only social security benefits if I die first. There is a second 401K account to which he is beneficiary and will remain beneficiary. This one started when we married.

On the other hand, my husband owns a nice piece of property in his country and a rather nice life insurance policy. His son is the beneficiary of the property and his second wife is beneficiary to the life insurance policy. He has no other assets that I am aware of. I get his Canadian pension which is virtually worthless to me and then only after I fight with his government to prove my eligibility to it because he refuses to place my name as next of kin on any paperwork with the Canadian government.

So I believe that the financial aspects of a marriage for older couples are far different from when a couple is young and newly married for the first time.

Most importantly is the need for each partner to discuss their finances truthfully and openly. Full disclosure and acceptance of what you wish to do with your finances in the future is tanamount to a healthy and stable marriage. If a prenup is required then don't be put off from getting one because someone might think you are showing a propensity towards failure by doing so. Also remember that prenups can be terminated. Any couple, regardless of assets, should have a will in place for no reason other than to take the burden off of grieving survivors.

Rita