At least in my state, what she’s currently doing would be fine. The thing is, she has to keep her personal assets entirely separate from marital assets. Different bank accounts, not using or relying on those assets to cover routine household expenses, that sort of thing. Anything she puts into a joint bank account is almost certain to be considered marital property, subject to equitable distribution in a divorce. Likewise, the marital home, regardless of who is listed on the title, is usually subject to equitable division, unless it was owned free and clear prior to the marriage, or was inherited and not used as marital property. It’s very difficult to predict how a Court will handle a particular situation like this in my state, because the cases are all over the place. Sometimes the Courts find comingling, other times they don’t, and lawyers are left trying to guess which way the Court will go on particular facts. Seems like every year, I’ll attend a seminar and see at least one case that came out exactly the opposite way most lawyers in the room would have expected.
Hypothetical even for the delightful Ms. Rosenberg. Oak doesn’t do marriage, or much of anything permanent. Oak is more of a long weekend of wild monkey loving then going our separate ways with fond memories kind of guy.
To me, it smacks of Donald Trump. Let’s trade 'em in after a few years and move on to the next dumb twit who doesn’t realize under the law she’s entitled to a larger amount of community property.
Also, it shows he’s already thinking ‘this won’t last.’
Sorry, fuck off and find another girl.
I’ve dated a rich guy, and I wouldn’t sign a pre-nup for anything. If I put up with someone’s entitled bullshit for several years and was expected to leave with the shirt on my back? Fuck that noise.
I’d sign it. Their money belongs to them, not me. And besides . . . after all that “bedframe-shatteringly fantastic” sex, I’d hardly be in any condition to read a legal document.
“Community property” is a term of art with a specific meaning in this context. Not many states actually use community property–I think Texas, Louisiana, and maybe a couple others, but I’m not sure. My state is not a community property state.
Since the lover is not using the money from the trust, how are you putting up with his entitled bullshit?
So let’s say the person from the rich family and ordinary-everyday-lover wed. For the most part they never ever touch the income the trust; the most the Heir does is, as before the marriage, sign over the income to the Society for Extermination of Vampires and Rehabiliation of their Victims. But one year they both lose their jobs, and their kid happens to be ill and in desperate need of medical career. Not being idiots, they say, “Idealism’s fine and all, but fuck that shit when it comes to my kid’s life,” and they take the money so they can afford to get the kid a new medulla oblongata. By the end of the year they have jobs again and go on as before.
Is the income from the trust now marital property? Not the money the took to pay for the imaginary operation–the subsequent income.
Good question. I think the answer is probably not. Obviously, the trust corpus remains separate property. The income was used in a time of crisis, as a one time good deal (I assume). Anything purchased with that income would be marital property, but I don’t think one time use of the income would convert all future income into a marital asset.
Sorry I didn’t mean to hijack it’s just that that thread struck a chord with me as it reminded me of when my wife left me.
I would sign the pre-nup without a second thought and get married. I see it as a win-win. If we stay together forever then awesome and if not then at least a get a cool million out of it.
I voted to not sign, and in fact I’d probably end the relationship, for 2 reasons - I think springing all this on me at once is unfair and deceptive. And, reflecting on it, I realize that I’m too materialistic to marry a woman who has 50 million but refuses to use any of it. Any time I thought I’d like a bigger TV, or a new car would be nice, my thoughts would be likely to drift to “Bitch could buy that for me without blinking, but she won’t.” I wouldn’t want to live in a marriage like that.
Of course, I may be materialistic enough that I’d sign, get married, and stick it out for the full 5 years, then divorce her and collect my 25 mil.
For what it’s worth, I’m female. I see no reason not to sign the pre-nup. Anything can happen and people can change drastically over the course of a relationship. And I have absolutely no problem with not touching the money. Of course, that’s much, much more money than I could ever lay claim to, but my goal is to never touch my investments until retirement.
As I read it, you would be similarly unwilling to marry her if there were no pre-nup. In other words, she still has access to the trust fund, but because she hates the thought of unearned money (or whatever other reason motivates her), she simply refuses to ever touch it; and thus she works her hump off to live an ordinary middle- or working-class life like the rest of us; and knowing that, you find the thought of being married to her unbearable.
He deliberately concealed some major facts about himself. No, I would not marry someone if they hid from me their family or their financial status. In-laws and money are huge issues in a marriage. I would also have to wonder what other things he was hiding from me.
Moreover, by waiting until the wedding planning is underway, he is deliberately using a tactic to coerce me into signing. I’m an attorney, and I litigated some divorces with prenups. When a man waits until wedding planning is underway to bring up a prenup, he is hoping to pressure the woman to sign something he believes she would not otherwise sign, and is using her reluctance to call off a wedding that has already been announced as leverage. This is sneaky and manipulative.
Bottom line: I would not marry someone who did not deal with me in an honest and forthright way.
I would sign, but it would have to be changed so I was also represented fairly in the document.
It would have to be modified to indicate what happens if we divorce after 5 years, he needs to be added to the infidelity part, it wouldn t be fair to me for him to be fucking around on me with me having no recourse. Something has to be added about our living expenses - am I totally barred from access to his bank accounts, how are the household accounts going to be managed. Will I have an allowance, or what other budgetary considerations will there be. I need some mention of no penalty for not popping out a sprog as I have been sterilized [some families are strange about requirements for popping out at least 1 heir]
A good prenup handles both sides of the equation in a fair manner. I know it sounds unromantic, but there is no romance in a screaming, destroying objects, throwing items at people divorce procedure either.
Since the Heir isn’t using the money, and doesn’t intend to in the future, how is it fair for you to have access to the money?
Not a rhetorical question. I’m wondering if you’re answering in terms of the OP or in generalities. Assuming not accessing the money means signing over the disbursements to charity so as not to be tempted, what access should a spouse be entitled to?
In that situation Id rather just not get married until the other person feels safe enough to do so, whether its a month or 5 years. And not have kids for sure. Concealing for a while I can understand to some extent, but to spring that during the marriage preps is leaving it just a tad late isnt it? Its basically emotional blackmail at that point.
Its hard not to wonder what other huge secrets are going on when a doozy like that gets sprung in this kind of way, and a year isnt that long in the scheme of things to really know someone sometimes, particularly with no family contact. Have their been previous marriages like this where it didnt get to 5 years? Some of these situations read as full time limited contract paid hookers rather than real relationships.
Cant really see the point of a ‘half-in marriage’ in todays world where you can live together beforehand anyhow if you’re still unsure. To me thats the point where you’re committing.
When do all of you think would be a good time to reveal such financial information? It wouldn’t be at the first date, to avoid gold diggers, but during the wedding planning seems to be too late.
When you’re starting to be clear that you’re planning on a long term commitment to each other. You’re both going to need some kind of time to adjust to what it feels like after you’ve been told in my view.
It also depends on what they’re having to change about their own life in order to keep it secret. Eg if they’re avoiding family when they usually visit often, stuff like that.
I’m not trying to criticize her attitudes or anything, though I find it damn strange. As I said, I wouldn’t be able to bear having to keep an old car in repair so we can save up for a vacation to Florida, all the while knowing she could buy us matching Mercedes and take us to the French Riviera for a month if she was so inclined. I don’t think I would be able to handle that.
And how far will she take it? If one of us loses our job, and we can’t make the mortgage payments, will she dip into the trust fund to keep our house? What if one of our kids needs medical treatment beyond what insurance will cover? There are basic issues here far beyond a pre-nup.
I would sign it without a problem. I don’t get how this can be considered a lie;
This is his family’s money - not his (yes, he will aquire a portion of it one day, but this is not the point). He earns more modest money and lives accordingly.
How do you make the leap that his family’s money should be yours because he married you?
I’d sign it as is, though I’d probably push for a “safety net” clause to protect us and any children from ridiculous extensions of the concept of modesty. It would include things like legitimate uses of the trust; such as protecting a mortgage, insuring adequate transportation to maintain the jobs that pay the bills etc.