Prenuptial - good or bad?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
If the person that you are marrying turns out to be a complete wack job, the a prenup won't make breaking up any easier. My suggestion is that you document all of your assets going into the marriage, with or without your spouses knowledge. After you get married anything you acquire is community property. In the marriage, if you receive a substantial inheritence keep it separate from the community property. Take some time to understand the laws and you will make wise decisions.





As I found out recently, the laws in california are very equitable. However, if one of the separating parties choses to make it difficult, then it will be difficult to break up(prenup or not). In my situation, my ex was a wack job and a simple divorce that should have taken 6 months and cost less than 10,000 took 24 months and cost 80,000. To be absolutely honest, I was amazed at how fair the laws in California are with regard to divorce and finances.
 
<p>It does set a bad tone to have to discuss a pre-nup. However, there will be a large disparity in asset/income (think like 95% to 5%).</p>

<p>I have no problems sharing everything while we're married.... but it would definitely suck if for some reason, like the one-third to one-half of americans who end up in divorce, I have to work my butt off to give someone half of my income while they're sitting at home.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<em>" I have to work my butt off to give someone half of my income while they're sitting at home. "





</em>Are you meaning this <em>after</em> a divorce? If not, you are obviously not cut out for a traditional household.





I do think there is a time limit on how long they can obtain spousal support. My uncle got divorced several years ago from a wife that did not work. He was only required to pay spousal support for three years. That was not in California.
 
There are two methods for calculating spousal support......for short term support there is the "disomaster". This program is used by all courts and lawyers in california. You type in the income of the both spouses and the % custody of each child. The program tells you how much you will have to pay.





Then for long term spousal support. In California the supported spouse must become self supporting in a reasonable period of time and is entitled to the "marital standard of living". The marital standard of living is the amount of income the supported spouse was recieving during the marriage. In a family of 4 that is 25% of spendable income at works and 35% of spendable income at best. In orange county, an income of 35K is considered to be enough to be "indipendent". Most supported spouses are really pissed when they find out that this is all they get. Judges won't tolerate lazy spouses that won't go to work. If there is a question of what a supported spouse can earn,,,,,,,get a vocational evaluation.





The problems usually occur when one spouse make a lot of money(.......millions), and you start tyring to figure out the marital standard of living. Otherwise, the judge tells the supported spouse to get a job. When they resist, the judge will have them work at McDonalds..........when that happens the supported spouse usually gets going and finds a real job.





In my case I had to pay for my wacky ex spouse to get her second masters degree...................that is a small price to pay to not have to ever see her again.
 
Irvine Renter (IR) -- "Just a rhetorical thought: After the first one, if you don't plan on having any more children, why get married at all?"





<em>My thoughts - I know many people think this why marry? But I can tell you marriage is a wonderful thing. It takes a lot of work and effort but anything worthwhile does. It is to be happy and I believe it is part of God's will for us to all be married. 1st Corinthians 11:11 says "11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord". Marriage between a man and a woman is the covenant relationship God allows and blesses where children may come in a loving home.</em>





IR regarding your other comment -- "Are you meaning this <em>after</em> a divorce? If not, you are obviously not cut out for a traditional household. I do think there is a time limit on how long they can obtain spousal support. My uncle got divorced several years ago from a wife that did not work. He was only required to pay spousal support for three years. That was not in California."





<em>I don't hold anything against Laing for being cautious. The divorce rates here are 66%, much higher than the 50% in the US so you have to be careful. Laing definitely has things to think about because sexist family law courts still most of the time award child custody to the mom and in many cases are forced to pay unrealistic amounts of child support. Add some spousal support as icing on the cake and you have a huge burden. And Yes in California you can pay forever if you are married after 10 years. They can take up to 1/2 of your net. Keep in mind this does not count insurance they also force you to pay for, loss of deductions for the kids, and after 401K good luck taking home 30% of your net. But then again if Laing is a woman...


</em>
 
You're right Eeyore I mean mediaboyz, life is completely skewed in favor of women. Personally, I enjoy eating my bon bons while getting my manicures before heading to Fashion Island for a day of shopping on my ex's dime. God bless that biased court system!
 
<p>IrvineRenter -</p>

<p>Yes, I meant after the divorce. I don't mind being the sole provider during the marriage, but just think that it should end if the marriage is dissolved, assuming there are no children involved.</p>

<p>ISM -</p>

<p>I don't think Mediaboyz is attacking women, in general. I think what he says is true regarding laws generally favoring moms when it comes to child custody. And, as far as my question is concerned ... I think most on this blog know that I am male ... thus, they're just giving examples of the prenuptials working for/againt a female. However, it would obviously be the same situation if the female spouse were to make the overwhelming majority of the money (a very good example was given in the chat last night).</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Do you guys know if circumstances which lead to the divorce affects the spousal support judgement?</p>

<p>For example, do people have clauses which state that if the divorce is a result of infidelity, then the spousal support is nulled?</p>
 
<p>Laing Lies said - "Do you guys know if circumstances which lead to the divorce affects the spousal support judgement?"</p>

<p><em>Laing, it depends upon the judge but generally speaking yes.</em>


</p>

<p>Laing Lies said - "For example, do people have clauses which state that if the divorce is a result of infidelity, then the spousal support is nulled?"</p>

<p><em>In the State of California spousal support is only nulled once your ex-spouse gets married again unless unless agreed to in some out of courtroom agreement (stipulation). Thanks to Reagan, we are a no-fault state. That means the </em><em>3 As: Adultery, Abandonment, Abuse can't be reasons for filing divorce. Here are the current filing categories: </em><em>1) irreconcilable differences, 2) insanity, and 3) bigamy. So 99% of these are filed under #1.</em>


</p>




<p></p>
 
Boyz - Not sure when you began practicing law, but your comments on custody are not reflective of current law or policy. See <a href="http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/famlawservices/childcustody/childcustody.html">here</a> for more. Per the link quoting case law:





"Although not reduced to express statutory terms, a significant component of the 'best interest' assessment is the policy goal of protecting a stable custody arrangement. <em>'As we have repeatedly emphasized, the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements--and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker--weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.'</em> [<em>Marriage of Burgess</em> (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32-33, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 449-450 (emphasis added); see Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 538, 229 Cal.Rptr. 800, 804-805]."





The standard is "best interest of the child," with a secondary criterion of "the primary caretaker," not Mom or Dad. If a family chooses a "Beaver Cleaver" arrangement, then yes, a man's likelihood of obtaining primary custody is reduced. Such a decision is not sexist. Now if you say the man makes more money so it makes sense to have Mom stay home, then that is a reflection of society's sexism, not the Court system's.
 
You know, that's the thing the ERA people were trying to get across for years. It not just the wimmen that are disadvantaged for getting $0.73 on the dollar. Good for you for picking up on it so quickly.
 
<p>So Eva ... you're a good example ... professional/working woman who (I'm assuming) earns a good living.</p>

<p>If you were not already married, and think of getting hitched ... would you have any reservations about asking for a pre-nup?</p>
 
EvaLSeraphim -- "Not sure when you began practicing law, but your comments on custody are not reflective of current law or policy."





<em>Have you been down there and watched case after case of divorces getting finished? Its an eye opening experience which again reaffirms what I have been saying:


what happens in the Orange County Family Law Courtrooms is most Dads don't get custody and most Moms do get custody.


Only 15% of custodial parents are men: <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf">www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf</a>


</em>


Laing





<em>You may want to ask around and take some time off in the morning to go to the family law court and see it first hand. My intention was not to rattle cages, but to provide a proper answer to a very important subject.</em>
 
<p>It is a good idea. It does not sound very romantic but it protects both parties. It might be difficult to bring up the subject and sign the papers etc. But once you are married and madly in love, those papers don't mean much. Those papers will mean lots if you two have to divorce each other; by then, you really need them. A rather experienced biz man once said "always begin with an end in mind." I think that is very true. </p>
 
<p class="MsoNormal">Why not make it a law that a prenup be signed along with the marriage license? That'll save a whole lot of trouble!</p>

<p class="MsoNormal">


</p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top