RE: Prenups

RE: Prenups (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 11:59:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder I would never want one nor require one. I wouldn't marry someone I can't trust. To me a prenup says "I'm jaded from past relationships and I'm now going to carry that over and put all of it on you". Go through a divorce and find out how quickly that trust disappears.

wandersalone -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:03:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather I wouldn't bother marrying somebody with whom I didn't plan on sharing my life, and that includes any and all assets I may have at the time of marriage and acquired afterward. It isn't a partnership, it is a union, you know, two become one and all that. I would also consider it an insult to the person I was marrying to ask for one, implying that I didn't really think the marriage would last and that I wasn't really serious about it. When I marry, it will be for love, with the intent of remaining married for good. Not as a temporary arrangement for access to a benefits package or tax breaks. That is crass. Heather if I married it would be for love as well and my way of showing this I guess would be by clearly stating that I am not after their money or assets [:)] And I definitely wouldn't make such a committment without totally believing that it will last forever, however I have counseled enough people through their totally out of the blue break ups to be more reality based I guess.

tj444 -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather I wouldn't bother marrying somebody with whom I didn't plan on sharing my life, and that includes any and all assets I may have at the time of marriage and acquired afterward. It isn't a partnership, it is a union, you know, two become one and all that. I would also consider it an insult to the person I was marrying to ask for one, implying that I didn't really think the marriage would last and that I wasn't really serious about it. When I marry, it will be for love, with the intent of remaining married for good. Not as a temporary arrangement for access to a benefits package or tax breaks. That is crass. well,.. you do know that in Canada, if you are gay and living together with your partner, that you are legally required to file your tax returns as equivalent to married (it doesnt matter if you marry formally or not).. In some cases, its more financially beneficial to be "single" and not to formally marry. My mother had a friend who is living with a guy, staying unmarried means she continues to get her dead husbands pension every month, if she remarries that $$$ goes bye-bye..

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:13:37 PM)
quote: well,.. you do know that in Canada, if you are gay and living together with your partner, that you are legally required to file your tax returns as equivalent to married (it doesnt matter if you marry formally or not).. I'm not sure you are correct, but even if you are, how is that related to anything I said? quote: In some cases, its more financially beneficial to be "single" and not to formally marry. My mother had a friend who is living with a guy, staying unmarried means she continues to get her dead husbands pension every month, if she remarries that $$$ goes bye-bye.. You see, that sort of thing wouldn't even enter into my mind when considering marrying. To me it is a union based on love, not a legal partnership for financial gain.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amygdalin If you have trust issues with the person, why get married in the first place? To me, if you don't feel you can completely trust the other person will all you have or own, then you shouldn't be considering a marriage. What if the reason for the prenup isn't related to trust issues? What if an engaged older couple that has assets wants a prenup for protection in case of stroke or alzheimers? The US isn't a country with a single-payer system that covers long term care. A prenup comes in handy when divorce on paper is necessary for medical reasons.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:25:11 PM)
quote: Heather if I married it would be for love as well and my way of showing this I guess would be by clearly stating that I am not after their money or assets And I definitely wouldn't make such a committment without totally believing that it will last forever, however I have counseled enough people through their totally out of the blue break ups to be more reality based I guess. My view of marriage is that when I marry, everything that I own ceases to be mine and becomes ours. And the same with everything she owns. There is no longer a mine and a yours, only an ours. So a prenup that specifies that something I owned before the marriage is in anyway not communal property, would mean that I really wasn't serious about marrying for the right reasons, thus the insult to her. I try not to insult or exploit the people I love.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:30:13 PM)
Marriage is also a legal relationship that includes the state. It comes with legal protections and obligations, including financial ones. I certainly don't intend to derail my own thread, but this is one of the reasons why I think the US needs to start recognizing gay marriage. It is simply unfair for a class of people to be excluded from the legal, financial and social benefits of being married. If marriage was JUST a union based on love, I wouldn't feel so strongly about this. quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: .. You see, that sort of thing wouldn't even enter into my mind when considering marrying. To me it is a union based on love, not a legal partnership for financial gain.

tj444 -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:44:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: well,.. you do know that in Canada, if you are gay and living together with your partner, that you are legally required to file your tax returns as equivalent to married (it doesnt matter if you marry formally or not).. I'm not sure you are correct, but even if you are, how is that related to anything I said? quote: In some cases, its more financially beneficial to be "single" and not to formally marry. My mother had a friend who is living with a guy, staying unmarried means she continues to get her dead husbands pension every month, if she remarries that $$$ goes bye-bye.. You see, that sort of thing wouldn't even enter into my mind when considering marrying. To me it is a union based on love, not a legal partnership for financial gain. That sort of thing might not enter your mind, but that doesnt mean there arent consequences, both good and bad. If i cross the street without looking both ways, i might just get hit by a truck. kwim? I just mean that for tax purposes, your status of married or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is the tax code! lol And yes, it is correct. For a long time hetros living common-law were considered married/equivalent to married. Shortly after gay marriages were made legal in Canada, they changed the tax act to include gays living common-law. My brother is gay and I decided to look it up. If you will see in my first link, there is no reference that your common-law parter be of the opposite sex. It simply says "living with you in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months". I recall reading an information thingie about it a long time ago and that is where they specified that common-law now extended to same sex couples.. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/prsnl-nf/mrtl-eng.html The same holds true of Old Age Pensions in Canada. "As a result of the changes that took effect on July 31, 2000: •same-sex common-law partners have the same benefits and obligations as opposite-sex common-law partners. •the definition of a common-law couple, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, is two people who have been living together in a conjugal relationship for at least one year." http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/common/samecom.shtml Yes, i know it is probably a surprise to many same sex couples in Canada but that is the way it is. For better or worse.. [:D]

Arpig -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:54:09 PM)
quote: They are absolutely enforceable. Care to point out to me how they are not? I already did. In the line you quoted...let me point it out for you and any other intellectually impaired readers. quote: Seeing as how they are not actually enforceable and can be set aside by the judge....what's the point?

tj444 -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 12:55:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather My view of marriage is that when I marry, everything that I own ceases to be mine and becomes ours. And the same with everything she owns. There is no longer a mine and a yours, only an ours. So a prenup that specifies that something I owned before the marriage is in anyway not communal property, would mean that I really wasn't serious about marrying for the right reasons, thus the insult to her. I try not to insult or exploit the people I love. Ok, so then what happens if you and your loved one (married or not) break up? what happens to the communal property? eta- since you and Hanners arent legally married, do you consider everything the two of you have as communal property right now? Or do things only become communal if you officially marry?

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 1:02:40 PM)
quote: If marriage was JUST a union based on love, I wouldn't feel so strongly about this. That's all it is to me, a union based on love, and that is why I do feel so strongly about it <meaning gay marriage>. All the other aspects of marriage you mention are simply irrelevant perks. That they exist is not in question, it's just that they don't matter to me in the least. My being better or worse off financially, legally, or socially are just not factors in the decision to marry or not for me. And I would be hurt if my partner took them into account as well.

oneluckysub -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 1:11:54 PM)
For years, I thought prenups were a horrible way to start a marriage. I thought it meant that there was no faith that the relationship would last. I have changed my mind as I got older. I believe that its not a lack of trust to say that what I have is mine, what you have is yours, what we create together is ours. I think it shows a forthrightness between the parties and it lets all the parties know where things stand. The parties have clear rules as to what happens to their stuff during the marriage as well. It can show how debts are paid off from marriage, what happens to retirement accounts (both earned prior to and during marriage), what happens to business assets should one party start a business, what happens to inheritances received during marriage but spent on stuff for the marriage, etc, etc. There is no confusion at the end, if there is an end to the relationship. It saves money in divorce court, if there is an end to the relationship. I would not enter into a prenup with the thought that the relationship is going to end so let me protect me, I would go into with that thought that should something happen to this love that I feel, I want to make sure that I can get out of it, with the least confusion and cost possible. I would not get married without one. And I sure as heck would not draft it myself (I am a lawyer but do not practice this area). I would pay a good divorce attorney to do it. And have my partner have their own attorney review it. +1 for Prenups!

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 1:38:21 PM)
I still fail to see how that applies to the topic or anything I said about the topic. Besides I have it on very good authority <Cheri's parents' accountant and the tax specialist at her father's firm. Her parents made sure to look into all these aspects when we were considering buying this place> that it only applies to me if I chose to have it apply to me. I am not living common-law as I do not live with A partner. Having three live-in partners puts all of us outside the definitions in the law...we are legally all single because a poly household is not recognized and Hanners and I were not legally living common law at the time we became a poly household. You can argue, quote, link anything you want, but unless you are a licensed accountant with a successful independent practice specializing in Canadian tax law, or a practicing Canadian tax lawyer I'm going with their interpretation.

DesFIP -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 1:53:15 PM)
In New York State, a trust made prior to the marriage would remove those assets from being considered as part of the marital property. However, in New York, pre-nups can get tossed out if there are children from the marriage and the pre-nup does not allow for that possibility. Or if the poorer half of the couple did not have independent counsel. Which means if Mr or Ms Moneybags uses his or her own lawyer to draw it up, then it is assumed that since the lawyer represents Mr M, he will not be able to be fair to the new to be Mrs. And at 18 when you live paycheck to paycheck, it's easy to say you don't need a pre-nup. Things change when you're looking 60 in the face and have children, not to mention family inheritances. However in New York, two people who have a short second marriage will be dealt with fairly by the courts. Usually a tax return from the year prior to the marriage is submitted by both (plus other papers proving pre-existing assets). You split the increase in the total estate minus the pre-existing assets, also minus monies spent to support the other partner. So if Mr M marries Ms Young Thing and his estate was worth one mil, and at the time of divorce it is worth 1.50 mil, then Ms YT is allotted one half of 500,000 or $250,000. If he bought her a condo for $100,000 in her name, that also would be removed and she would be entitled to one half of 500,000 minus 100,000.Unless you add children into the mix at which point it all changes.

tj444 -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 2:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather I still fail to see how that applies to the topic or anything I said about the topic. Besides I have it on very good authority <Cheri's parents' accountant and the tax specialist at her father's firm. Her parents made sure to look into all these aspects when we were considering buying this place> that it only applies to me if I chose to have it apply to me. I am not living common-law as I do not live with A partner. Having three live-in partners puts all of us outside the definitions in the law...we are legally all single because a poly household is not recognized and Hanners and I were not legally living common law at the time we became a poly household. You can argue, quote, link anything you want, but unless you are a licensed accountant with a successful independent practice specializing in Canadian tax law, or a practicing Canadian tax lawyer I'm going with their interpretation. You have said you are with Hanners and are hers, you take direction from her first and foremost, that you are a couple. So in that respect you did choose to have it apply to you. But i do agree that poly isnt recognized as such, that would open a whole can of worms for the govt if it did. But.. you still havent answered this.. how is property viewed in your relationship (poly or common-law or however you view it)? is it all communal (meaning if one of you puts in her inheritance to buy that house or another).. how do the four of you view that? and what happens if the poly relationship ends? what happens to that communal property? Since Cheri's parents looked into this all so deeply, you all must have discussed it prior to moving in together..

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 2:10:35 PM)
In my state and my jurisdiction, the courts do enforce. HOWEVER, they absolutely insist that both parties be represented by independent counsel in the drafting of the agreement. They will not enforce if this isn't the case. I work in a community property state (although "all property is before the court"). There are a number of rules relating to community property, which gives people some certainly, anyway. If you don't want to be subject to community property rules (many people don't, for various reasons) than a prenup is essential. Otherwise, the one size fits all framework applies. Maybe you want to be more generous with your spouse. Maybe you want to be less. The point is, if you haven't made an election through an agreement, than the court decides. One of my most contentious (meaning profitable) cases involved a poly relationship (3 people), where two of them kicked the third one out. What a mess that was. By the time all three of them lawyered up (which they all had to do) and fought about it for a few months there wasn't much left. So, I also think that if you are not married, and you are acquiring property together, it is even more important to have a written agreement. Otherwise, you don't (except in limited circumstances that would never apply to a poly relationship) even get the benefit of the community property framework.

tj444 -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 2:21:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet In my state and my jurisdiction, the courts do enforce. HOWEVER, they absolutely insist that both parties be represented by independent counsel in the drafting of the agreement. They will not enforce if this isn't the case. I work in a community property state (although "all property is before the court"). There are a number of rules relating to community property, which gives people some certainly, anyway. If you don't want to be subject to community property rules (many people don't, for various reasons) than a prenup is essential. Otherwise, the one size fits all framework applies. Maybe you want to be more generous with your spouse. Maybe you want to be less. The point is, if you haven't made an election through an agreement, than the court decides. As I understand it, in some states living together for a certain number of years is the same as married if the couple splits up. This reminds me of a story i heard. A lawyer was living with a girl for some time and then when they split up, she came after him for $$$. But.. the lawyer had another residence and never had his mail sent to the place he shared with the girl so (as the story goes) since he hadnt actually/technically moved in with her it wasnt seen as living together and she wasnt entitled to any money at all. I am curious to hear opinions if this situation could be true or not..

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 2:28:02 PM)
My state doesn't have common law marriage. In other words, you aren't considered married for the sole fact that you have lived together for 7 years, for example. We do have something called a "meretricious relationship" doctrine, wherein if you mingle assets, have common accounts, have a marital like, exclusive relationship (sorry poly people) and hold yourself out as married, then community property laws can be used to analyze the property division. Mostly what the court looks for is commingled assets and liabilities. So, in your scenario, in my state, I would say no, unless there was substantial mingling of assets.

LaTigresse -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 2:38:02 PM)
That sounds rather similar to what Iowa has. It is how my son's ex caused him so much trouble. On one hand she was saying they were common law (or whatever it is called ) to get on his health insurance, with the college she was attending she was representing herself as single and a dependent of her parents, yet with the state as a single mother living on her own with two kids.

oneluckysub -> RE: Prenups (9/23/2011 2:40:32 PM)
In Illinois, it would be true as we do not recognize common law marriages and what is his is his and what is hers is hers. But if he represented that IL was a common law state to her, the court could award assets to her under quasi marriage principals since he is a lawyer.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875