This is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. Please consult an attorney.
I’m also a lawyer in California and the day someone gets me to sign a pre-nup/co-hab agreement is the day I walk out on them forever. It’s just not my culture-has nothing to do with how I feel about them as an attorney.
That said, he’s probably trying to avoid any sort of Marvin doctrine claim out of you. What that says about his personality and view of your relationship is up to you to decide.
(edited for brevity)
So his concerns are of utmost importance “sign or move on” but yours are trivial? Sounds like someone wants the benefits of a spouse but not the responsibilities traditionally attached. He’s getting his in writing but you’re not getting yours? Nice…
I have no problem with prenups & such, they should reflect both party’s interests. As it stands now you’re going to rely on whatever the law gives you by default (is CA a common-law state?) if/when he trades in for a newer model. Given three divorces I’d say there’s a good chance this won’t be true love forever.
Were I in your position I’d tell him to hire someone on an hourly basis & move on. What’s going to happen next time he decides your concerns can be dismissed with an hissy fit?
Not legal advice, but an observation: people who can be perfectly reasonable and accomodating under normal circumstances can turn obstructive and vengeful in the face of a major breakup or divorce. I don’t really have any intention of ever getting married or undergoing long-term cohabitation again but if I did I’d certainly insist upon a prenup or cohab agreement. I don’t see anything wrong with that, particularly in a state like California where, in lack of any prior stipulating agreement, all property is held in common. If he owns his own business, has significant real estate holdings, et cetera, then it’s just good business sense. As he’s willing to pay the fees for a lawyer (presumably of your choice) to review the document, it doesn’t sound as if he’s attempting to cheat you. That said, your lawyer should make recommendations on adjusting the requirements and wording of the agreement to suit your needs.
Regarding the emotional aspect–perhaps I’m too pragmatic or maybe just too jaded, but if you can’t sit and discuss this issue rationally, how can you cope with sharing a household? But then, I’m always in favor of compartmentalizing different aspects of a relationship; “cold and distancing” strikes me as just the right tone for a topic so otherwise disagreeable.
A romantic I am not, I guess. :o
Stranger
So, what exactly do you get out of this?
I mean, even if you’re not the litigious type, or a gold-digger, there should be some expectation that when you contribute (in whatever way) to a relationship, that you get something out of it at the end if it goes sour. Just because he’s a rich bastard doesn’t mean he should get to cut you loose with nothing.
My initial response, based on your OP, is:
a) no
b) no
c) no
But really, you are the only one who can make those decisions. As others have said, though, you should do so with help from your own legal adviser.
Ok, now this kind of attitude bugs me. The fact is, anytime two people say more than two words to each other without taping them, one person could lie and say there was some kind of oral contract that was then violated. Does this mean I need a written, signed contract before I ever talk to anyone?
When two people are dating, there are always expectations that are not met. One person pays for things more than the other. Can one person sue to get their money back when they break up? Do we need contracts before we even date now? Where does it end?
I just bought a new house and am allowing my girlfriend to move in with me without a contract. There are plenty of laws in place already that protect tenants (I can’t kick her out without notice) and landlords (she can’t trash the place or steal my stuff) so there’s no need to specify additional terms. New Jersey, California, and most other states do not recognize “Common law marriages” so there’s no danger of “accidental” marriage here either.
I do think that rental agreements are a great idea, and I had one with my friend at the last place I lived. A pre-nup can be very important as well (especially in terms of copyrights). But a cohabitation agreement just seems really paranoid. Especially if he’s not being flexible on the terms.
(None of that was legal advice. And it’s good he’s encouraging you to get a lawyer and paying for it, at least.)
I don’t know y’all, so I can’t really judge with a clear understanding of your three questions. I do know one thing, though. Go with your gut. Don’t second guess yourself. If there are red flags and sirens, heed them. If it’s all quiet and peaceful inside, enjoy the silence. Just know that if your gut makes rumblings one way or the other, you ought to listen to it.
Best of luck. May your decisions become easier to make:)
I’m thinking there ought to be an infidelity clause in there as well.
If the ol’ boy decides to screw around on you. He should have to pay for that.
A point of clarification, but not disagreement: California is a community property state, which means that absent an agreement to hold property separately, a married couple is a “community” and what is earned by either member of the community is viewed as earned by the community together. So if you’re married, property (i.e., money) is earned in common and property (i.e., real estate) is held in common. For unmarried people, the standard rule is separate property, even when cohabbing. But I’m with you on the bitter and vengeful part; the major benefit of a prenup or cohab agreement is that it prevents arguments after a break up that “he promised he would always take care of me” or “she said I could keep the villa in the south of Spain!”
Well, personally, my tiny little lawyer’s heart believes that community property is one of the most romantic concepts in the law. Therefore, I choose to believe I’m still a romantic, notwithstanding my otherwise mean and shriveled heart. 
Amen, brother. Just 'cause you’re a romantic doesn’t mean you also have to be impractical. But, again, going with Stranger’s suggestion of compartmentalizing, hiring an attorney to navigate these waters for you may be helpful. It would permit you and your man to farm out the disagreement to professionals, so to speak. That may help smooth the waters over. Good luck.
I think a lot of good advice is in this thread, but something occured to me that I didn’t see anyone else bring up. I hope this is not the case but:
Is it possible he’s already decided to dump you and is just trying to preempt a lawsuit?
'Course, there’s always the question of what is separate when it comes to long-term cohabitation. I make no claim to be familiar with the statutes and case law in California, but if (to state a hypothetical example) the woman buys a house, but the man invests in and performs upkeep, can he legally challenge the woman for a legitimate portion of labor and materials that go into common upkeep? What becomes of assets held in common–say, a business venture–when one party wishes to sell out but at a price that the other considers to be grossly unfair? Can a woman who’s devoted a significant portion of time (years) to performing the duties of a hausfrau, even without benefit of ceremony, claim the right of financial assistance commensurate in maintaining her previous standard of living? And why does the wine in this glass keep evaporating away so quickly? Oh, sorry, the last wasn’t a legal question…it sure is a pretty decent rioja, though.
Even without the issue of “common law marriage”, setting out the expectations in contractual form seems to me to be just good sense for both parties. From what I’ve seen, most divorces tend to end up in arguments over comparatively worthless bits of shiny stuff; it hardly makes sense to spend two grand in legal fees to fight over a $500 collection of tableware, and yet people do it all the time. A prenup at least takes money out of the picture, and you can move on to arguing about the real problems. (Then again, given the nature of some relationships, perhaps arguing over living room sets is better than getting to the real issues; after all, you can always cut the sofa in half, and nobody is seriously hurt, plus it makes a great story. Trying doing that with the kids, though…)
Yeah, let them shriveled-hearted lawyers go at each other while you stand back and enjoy the show. Heck, it’s almost worth the price of admission.
Remember, if we “kill all the lawyers”[sup]*[/sup], the merciless and praetorian will reign. At least with them, we limit their nefarious influence to just the court of law. ::d&r::
Stranger
[sup]*[/sup]Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, Scene II
Wow, very perceptive. I wonder how long the op has already been living with the guy?
Oh, you want me to do law right now? I’ve just achieved equilibrium with some pinot grigio. (None for you. )
Yes, he’d have a claim, at least in equity. There’s also palimony, which I believe California pioneered. Although my pickled brain believes that to establish palimony (i.e., alimony between unmarried persons), one must establish that an oral contract existed. In other words, one must claim that there was an agreement that support would be provided.
I can assure you that it’s not just you. I suspect that it’s the Santa Anas. The wind is evaporating my wine, as well.
Yes, but I think we’ve already established that you and I have no romance in our souls.
What about your property and money (present and future), Ink? You might not be on the same level as Mr. CEO, and he may have no interest in your small potatoes, but if he’s protecting his assets, you must also protect yours.
Here’s a question for you; do you think you will look back on your boyfriend’s reaction to you asking for some items in the agreement and think that that was the moment when you should have left?
There is no equilibrium, no “peace in our time” when it comes to wine. In vino evinco.
But does it have to be an explict contract, or is “Baby, I’ll take care of you forever,” said in the heat of passion, sufficent (given a long-term relationship) to establish obligation? What is the standard against which obligation is assessed? (And you thought the Socratic Method was dead.)
Well, it just about blew me off the road this morning, but it seems to have mostly died down. I suspect some other mechanism is at play here, but I’m a little too woozy to puzzle it all out.
Well, at least I’ve seen Casablanca. On the other hand, I spare no corner in pointing out its manifest flaws. Any film with Peter Lorre and Claude Rains can’t be a bad one, though.
Sorry, what were we talking about again? Oh, cohab…a guy that’s been married three times before is likely to be gunshy. Then again, a guy that’s been married three times before…well, not a paragon of emotional stability, perhaps. Quite aside from the legal issues, have you considered going over this whole arrangement with some objective party?
Stranger
A contract doesn’t need to be “explicit,” in the sense that a person doesn’t need to say, “Let’s make a contract.” But a contract requires a meeting of the minds regarding its basic terms. “Baby, I’ll take care of you forever,” said in the heat of passion, could be enough for an oral contract, as long as it’s clear (to be perfectly sexist) what he’s offering and what she’s giving up. If she’s a smart cookie, she’ll argue that he said that, and it was perfectly clear that he meant she needed to give up her career to be available to him at his whim.
Obligation is assessed, in the sense of oral contracts, against the expectations of the parties. Is that vague enough for you? It means, basically, it depends.
I am, of course, ignoring the Statute of Frauds here, because it’s inconvenient to me to address it now.
So much for your claim that you’re not a romantic.
Well, I’ve also seen (and prefer) The Third Man, which is pretty much the anti-Casablanca. But that’s a topic for another thread, another time.
Stranger