[Chewbacon]

On marriage. Seriously, I'm hearing so many stories about guys getting lawyered after divorces, losing half their money and the kids, paying their ex-wives to fuck someone else. That's some stank ass shit right there.

But the thing is, i DO want to get married, not divorce, and not have her cheat on me. That's the plan. But if that plan falls through... there has to be some legal precaution you can take (aside from the obvious prenup) to ensure that she gets NOTHING (or at least, much less than half). There's gotta be a way. There's gotta be some nice legal voodoo you can use. Seriously, I will get the finest lawyers on this.

[Kickb]

have you tried a google search

[zigmund555]

A series of limited liability companies and trusts owned by holding companies (corporations). A corporation is a separate entity when it comes to legal matters, and it's harder to get to the actual people who own it.

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/200...g-borders/

Read the asset protection section. A lawyer could help you set something like that up.

[oldnemesis]

(12-18-2010 02:20 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

On marriage. Seriously, I'm hearing so many stories about guys getting lawyered after divorces, losing half their money and the kids, paying their ex-wives to fuck someone else. That's some stank ass shit right there.

We recently discussed it - use search. Assuming you marry equal (both asset-wise and income-wise), and your wife works and doesn't stay at home, there is nothing for you to lose in marriage unless you work on a job where you'll be getting pension. So if you know some real story when someone really lost half of _their_ money in a divorce, which wasn't related to pension, I'd like to hear it. So far I'm getting an impression this is an urban myth.

Quote:

But the thing is, i DO want to get married, not divorce, and not have her cheat on me. That's the plan. But if that plan falls through... there has to be some legal precaution you can take (aside from the obvious prenup) to ensure that she gets NOTHING (or at least, much less than half). There's gotta be a way.

There is no such way. At the end it would be up to the court, so there is no 100% guarantee - as with pretty much everything in this life.
There are, however, some precautions which you may take (including prenup), which would greatly increase the chance that you'll keep what you've got. Talk to a lawyer - a real one, licensed to practice in your state as the laws are different. It is not that expensive considering what it might cost later if you don't.

[hydrogonian]

Live in a state that is a non-community property state, as far as marriage law goes. Consult a lawyer on this, but Ive heard that means that anything that was your before the marriage remains yours. Marriage is a state institution, only regulated through the laws of your state of domicile. The state statutes will be stronger than any prenup, theoretically. You have to live there though, as I believe the law apples where you live, not where you marry (if in a different state).

In the eyes of the law, a marriage is like a business partnership as far as assets go. Anything that was worked on or acquired during the marriage is, by definition of the partnership, property of the partnership. Even with a prenup, I don't believe that there is a way around this other than illegally hiding assets that are acquired during the marriage. Watch out for those forensic accountants, though.

Also, watch out for building income streams while married, even if you had started the business before marriage, because the judge might rule that any business growth after the marriage is half hers. You might either owe her half of the after-marriage-income-growth for of the life of the business, or have to sell the business to pay off her half. Like I said before though, consult a professional. This isn't advice.

If your looking to skirt all financial risk in marriage, its not going to happen. Its a huge risk, no matter what. Unless you plan on never making any more money than you started with before the marriage, and you plan on not having kids (which you will pay for, married or not. Some other guy might just to get to enjoy your kids and your former wife on your dime, should you get divorced). The only real hedge against risk is choosing your wife well.

[Aliblahba]

(12-20-2010 09:02 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Live in a state that is a non-community property state, as far as marriage law goes. Consult a lawyer on this, but Ive heard that means that anything that was your before the marriage remains yours. Marriage is a state institution, only regulated through the laws of your state of domicile. The state statutes will be stronger than any prenup, theoretically. You have to live there though, as I believe the law apples where you live, not where you marry (if in a different state).

Your correct about the law Hydro, but it's rarely the case. I've seen a lot of marriages go bad and can't recall one case where post nuptial earnings were the only thing divided. It ends up being 50/50, or worse. A friend recently was forced to pay almost $6K in alimony on top of losing half. Depends on the state as you said, and how much bullshit the judge wants to hear. This is one of the many reasons I have no desire to get married.

[hydrogonian]

(12-20-2010 11:41 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

(12-20-2010 09:02 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Live in a state that is a non-community property state, as far as marriage law goes. Consult a lawyer on this, but Ive heard that means that anything that was your before the marriage remains yours. Marriage is a state institution, only regulated through the laws of your state of domicile. The state statutes will be stronger than any prenup, theoretically. You have to live there though, as I believe the law apples where you live, not where you marry (if in a different state).

Your correct about the law Hydro, but it's rarely the case. I've seen a lot of marriages go bad and can't recall one case where post nuptial earnings were the only thing divided. It ends up being 50/50, or worse. A friend recently was forced to pay almost $6K in alimony on top of losing half. Depends on the state as you said, and how much bullshit the judge wants to hear. This is one of the many reasons I have no desire to get married.

Its a sad state of affairs, for sure. Maybe Kona can comment on Hawaii divorce. I think that Hawaii is a non-community property state.

I guess the risk hedge against alimony is marrying a woman who makes as much or more than you do. Start hanging around hospitals and swooping MDs, Pharmacists and upper level hospital administrators (although they tend to be older). I can't think of another type of high income earning woman that I would date. Attorneys and businesswomen (most) are not viable options, at least not for me.

[Menace]

Want to know something funny? I took Family Law with a feminist female professor. Guess how much time we spent on prenups? About 30 minutes out of the entire year.

[Kona]

(12-20-2010 01:21 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Maybe Kona can comment on Hawaii divorce. I think that Hawaii is a non-community property state.

I don't know anything about divorce laws in Hawaii, and don't ever plan on learning.

I can tell you exactly what to do when HPD stops you so your dui doesn't stick. Oh, and who to call when your Pinay secretary files a sexual harassment claim with the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, but that's about it.

Good luck.

Aloha!

[oldnemesis]

(12-20-2010 09:02 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Live in a state that is a non-community property state, as far as marriage law goes. Consult a lawyer on this, but Ive heard that means that anything that was your before the marriage remains yours.

My understanding is that everything that was yours before marriage remains yours no matter what kind of state you live in. There are still some things to consider, like property appreciation - for example, you owned a 100K house before marriage, and during marriage it appreciated to 500K. A judge may interpret it that you earned 400K during your marriage, and they should be divided. Usually prenups take care of this. But indeed one of the important things prenups are for is they describe the property each party had before marriage, so it is not subject to distribution. That is why I can hardly believe fiction stories about guys who lost half of their assets in divorce.

Personally I do not agree that non-community state makes it better. They use equitable distribution. With community property at least you know how much everyone gonna get; with equitable distribution you do not.

Quote:

In the eyes of the law, a marriage is like a business partnership as far as assets go. Anything that was worked on or acquired during the marriage is, by definition of the partnership, property of the partnership. Even with a prenup, I don't believe that there is a way around this other than illegally hiding assets that are acquired during the marriage.

That's another thing prenups are for, waiving the rights for communal property. And assuming they satisfy all applicable laws, they are typically enforced by courts, even when challenged.

Quote:

Also, watch out for building income streams while married, even if you had started the business before marriage, because the judge might rule that any business growth after the marriage is half hers. You might either owe her half of the after-marriage-income-growth for of the life of the business, or have to sell the business to pay off her half.

Sometime when I read about those things I wonder what really marriage in America means, culture-wise? The way you described it in this sentence, and the way some described it before (like "giving half of your earnings to your wife") makes me wonder whether you consider the marriage something like having a living-in cooker and babysitter who you can fuck whenever you want? Why get married at all then?

[hydrogonian]

(12-20-2010 09:01 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(12-20-2010 09:02 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Live in a state that is a non-community property state, as far as marriage law goes. Consult a lawyer on this, but Ive heard that means that anything that was your before the marriage remains yours.

My understanding is that everything that was yours before marriage remains yours no matter what kind of state you live in. There are still some things to consider, like property appreciation - for example, you owned a 100K house before marriage, and during marriage it appreciated to 500K. A judge may interpret it that you earned 400K during your marriage, and they should be divided. Usually prenups take care of this. But indeed one of the important things prenups are for is they describe the property each party had before marriage, so it is not subject to distribution. That is why I can hardly believe fiction stories about guys who lost half of their assets in divorce.

Personally I do not agree that non-community state makes it better. They use equitable distribution. With community property at least you know how much everyone gonna get; with equitable distribution you do not.

Quote:

In the eyes of the law, a marriage is like a business partnership as far as assets go. Anything that was worked on or acquired during the marriage is, by definition of the partnership, property of the partnership. Even with a prenup, I don't believe that there is a way around this other than illegally hiding assets that are acquired during the marriage.

That's another thing prenups are for, waiving the rights for communal property. And assuming they satisfy all applicable laws, they are typically enforced by courts, even when challenged.

Quote:

Also, watch out for building income streams while married, even if you had started the business before marriage, because the judge might rule that any business growth after the marriage is half hers. You might either owe her half of the after-marriage-income-growth for of the life of the business, or have to sell the business to pay off her half.

Sometime when I read about those things I wonder what really marriage in America means, culture-wise? The way you described it in this sentence, and the way some described it before (like "giving half of your earnings to your wife") makes me wonder whether you consider the marriage something like having a living-in cooker and babysitter who you can fuck whenever you want? Why get married at all then?

Man, I wrote a long couple of paragraphs in response and then erased it by accident. The short version is that you may be right, I was just throwing out topics for consideration.

I know your situation where your wife makes a good living. You feel like equals. There are other situations, that can vary widely in terms for what the wife would legitimately be entitled to in a non-legal sense (whether she supported you, raised you family, or was instrumental in business growth), but in the worst case the wife might be a total low quality whore that marries a successful guy and capitalizes on years of hard work right at the time he becomes profitable. My point is that there are reasons to protect assets, and its better to have the choice to give a good woman her due upon divorce, or be able to keep your hard earned life in the event that the woman you though you married turn into a ruthless bitch after a short time. This modern world is predicated upon self interest, and there's nothing wrong with protecting oneself against people who will only care about themselves in a nasty situation. If you believe that most women wouldn't take it all in a divorce if they could, then I would venture that you would be incorrect.

About your last paragraph, its referencing another topic I just threw out for consideration. And your right, why get married? That is a question every man should ask himself. If he doesn't have a very good reason, then he definitely should not. Conversely, for many men it changes their lives for the better when they choose well. Its all specific to the individual, its about knowing oneself, and being honest about ones limitations. If I'm a complete and unreformable selfish bastard, than I should realize that about myself and probably not get married. For that matter, many women are unfit for marriage in terms of their maturity. I find it takes a special woman to be that self aware though. So, a man needs to protect themselves in the event that his judgment isn't as good as he believes it is.

[oldnemesis]

(12-20-2010 10:21 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I know your situation where your wife makes a good living. You feel like equals.
There are other situations, that can vary widely in terms for what the wife would legitimately be entitled to in a non-legal sense (whether she supported you, raised you family, or was instrumental in business growth), but in the worst case the wife might be a total low quality whore that marries a successful guy and capitalizes on years of hard work right at the time he becomes profitable.

So basically the problem we have with the marriage in general is that some successful guys make stupid decisions to marry low quality whores? Then I don't see it as a problem at all. Every guy knows using penis to think for you is a bad idea.

Quote:

My point is that there are reasons to protect assets, and its better to have the choice to give a good woman her due upon divorce, or be able to keep your hard earned life in the event that the woman you though you married turn into a ruthless bitch after a short time. This modern world is predicated upon self interest, and there's nothing wrong with protecting oneself against people who will only care about themselves in a nasty situation. If you believe that most women wouldn't take it all in a divorce if they could, then I would venture that you would be incorrect.

Indeed this is a good idea if you have something worth protection. It is of course not ideal protection, which may not hold up fully depending on other things. The most important thing is still marrying equal - age-wise, assets-wise, kids-wise. Another important thing is to live together for some time before getting married; I'd consider two years minimum a must.

Quote:

About your last paragraph, its referencing another topic I just threw out for consideration. And your right, why get married? That is a question every man should ask himself. If he doesn't have a very good reason, then he definitely should not.

Indeed. Just wanting to have a free available pussy is the stupidest reason to marry.

[bigbootyluvr]

(12-18-2010 02:20 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

On marriage. Seriously, I'm hearing so many stories about guys getting lawyered after divorces, losing half their money and the kids, paying their ex-wives to fuck someone else. That's some stank ass shit right there.

But the thing is, i DO want to get married, not divorce, and not have her cheat on me. That's the plan. But if that plan falls through... there has to be some legal precaution you can take (aside from the obvious prenup) to ensure that she gets NOTHING (or at least, much less than half). There's gotta be a way. There's gotta be some nice legal voodoo you can use. Seriously, I will get the finest lawyers on this.

Don't be a fool young blood. Marriage is for CHUMPS. don't DO IT. It is an unfair one sided business contract designed by the church and feminists. The truth is American men are valued around the world and women are LUCKY TO HAVE US. Do not get married to a disgusting Ameri-pig. it is a trap!

[Jim Kirk]

Quick notes -

Pre-numps can be voided by a Judge and although I've only handled a few divorces - this is happening more and more - the one thing to remember above all else is what came from Shakespeare -

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

Your obedient and demure housewife will serve a subpoena on a condom manufacturer to find out when the condoms she found in your bag were manufactured - she will hack your cell phone - she will hack your e-mail - she will take every wooden beam off of every joist in the house to see if you are hiding documents - she will have you tailed to see where you go - she will put a GPS in your car etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

A United States State Court has jurisdiction over your body - what I am going to tell you has happened and I've seen it happen - Wife thinks husband has Swiss bank account - husband has been going to Switerzerland a lot over the past 2 years without a concrete business reason. Husband files for divorce and gives his financial disclosure - its unusually small. Wife goes into attic and starts pulling up floor boards and behold - finds his Swiss account paperwork. Brings it to Court and shows Judge - here's what happened:

Judge: Mr. Doe - I see here you have a Swiss account that you didn't inform the Court of?

John Doe: Uh, yeah well that's a business account.

Judge: Mr. Doe - I order all the money in that account to be transferred to your US account to be subject to equitable dissoloution - Mr. Court officer will be accompanying you to your house this afternoon where he will seize your passport.

John Doe: What - that account is not subject to your order -

Judge - that's true - but you are not getting on a flight to Zurich this afternoon and if you dont transfer the money back here where it is subject to my jurisdiction you will do 6 months in jail for contempt of court.


The point is that you can have offshore accounts and whatnot - but you better now plan on staying here! In a lot of divorces that are going toxic - the first thing an attorney does is ask for surrender of a passport - you are not necessarily getting out of here throught he usual channels if you go through a divroce.

John D

[oldnemesis]

(12-23-2010 04:25 AM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

Pre-numps can be voided by a Judge and although I've only handled a few divorces - this is happening more and more

Jim, what are the typical reasons the judge gives when he voids pre-nups? I haven't heard about a case yet where it would be voided without a valid reason (for example, not all assets were listed), and I remember quite a few high-profile prenups which hold despite attempts to invalidate it. Ivana Trump comes to mind.

Also, did any of it happened recently? NY state only got no-fault divorce just like three months ago.

Quote:

Your obedient and demure housewife will serve a subpoena on a condom manufacturer to find out when the condoms she found in your bag were manufactured - she will hack your cell phone - she will hack your e-mail - she will take every wooden beam off of every joist in the house to see if you are hiding documents - she will have you tailed to see where you go - she will put a GPS in your car etc

My opinion so far is that this only makes sense in states which allow at-fault divorce AND equitable distribution. Like NY was (is?). In states with communal property which do not allow at-fault divorces (like CA) this makes no sense to me at all, as both spouses will get half of everything earned during marriage anyway. What do you think?

Quote:

John Doe: What - that account is not subject to your order -

That's kinda a funny way to talk to the judge. I guess he did not have a lawyer?

[playa_with_a_passport]

Quote:

I guess the risk hedge against alimony is marrying a woman who makes as much or more than you do. Start hanging around hospitals and swooping MDs, Pharmacists and upper level hospital administrators (although they tend to be older). I can't think of another type of high income earning woman that I would date. Attorneys and businesswomen (most) are not viable options, at least not for me

Yep, this is very true. The only way you can come up ahead is if she makes more money and has more assets than you do. Nemesis is also correct, if both have similar earnings and assets then the net gain/loss is zero sans child support payments which you'll have to pay anyways. Another alternative is that you can always do what a lot of Brothers and Puerto Ricans do in NY do which is live with a chick, have 2 kids with the white picket fence but never marry her. I have a friend who is a cop(he makes 120K a year and she 30K) who just broke up with his girl of 20 years and have 3 kids together. He's happier than a pig on shit, that the only thing he has to pay is child support.

Quote:

Jim, what are the typical reasons the judge gives when he voids pre-nups? I haven't heard about a case yet where it would be voided without a valid reason (for example, not all assets were listed), and I remember quite a few high-profile prenups which hold despite attempts to invalidate it. Ivana Trump comes to mind.

Jim can correct me here, but I beleive In NY in order for a prenup to be valid both parties must have been represented by their own attorneys at the time the agreement was signed. Even if the pre nup is iron clad it can still be thrown out by the family court judge if she/he deems it not to be "fair." I guess this is the reason why a lot of wealthy guys(Tiger Woods) settle before even the question of whether or not the prenup is valid is raised.

[oldnemesis]

(12-24-2010 05:36 PM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

Another alternative is that you can always do what a lot of Brothers and Puerto Ricans do in NY do which is live with a chick, have 2 kids with the white picket fence but never marry her.

Yes, it is good. The only thing is that it would probably be hard to find a high quality chick which would agree to be stay-at-home mom in such arrangement.

Quote:

Jim can correct me here, but I beleive In NY in order for a prenup to be valid both parties must have been represented by their own attorneys at the time the agreement was signed.

This is the case pretty much everywhere, and it is prenup basics, same as disclosing all assets.

Quote:

Even if the pre nup is iron clad it can still be thrown out by the family court judge if she/he deems it not to be "fair."

Never heard about that, and it doesn't make any sense. Those who want it "fair" do not get a prenup. The whole reason to have a prenup is to make it "not fair" to a poorer party.

Quote:

I guess this is the reason why a lot of wealthy guys(Tiger Woods) settle before even the question of whether or not the prenup is valid is raised.

AFAIK Woods didn't have a prenup, and that's why he is screwed.

[Invictus]

Who the fuck is thinking about the children?

In some distant future when I realize my time on this Earth is limited to a few score years, and my potency is quickly ebbing, I will probably discover a intellectual as well as animal urge to reproduce, and in that instance, if you want to be someone worthy of respect, stop fucking thinking about yourself.

I assume if you want marriage, it's because you want to raise children with one particular person (forget women, girl or fuckwhat). Don't do it unless the other person agrees with you 100% on what that means. Once babies enter the scene, it is no longer about you and what you want or her. They are not their for your convenience, or your ego. The worst, most stressful experiences for children come when their parents can't work it out, because they automatically assume it's their fault. "I didn't help around the house enough, so now Mommy and Daddy hate each other". This is not fucking conjecture, this happens ALL the fucking time, and it is something that will screw with them for most of their adult lives. So please, don't fuck it up because you lack the maturity to select the right partner. Forget fucking legal agreements. That shit should not even be on your radar screen. If you want the best fucking odds, grow the fuck up.

Find a person worth your while with a serious attitude. The real problem with marriage is not legal protection. It's a lack of serious attitudes on both parts. Stupid beta men thinking with their dicks, who watch their wives turn into bossy fat bitches, while he shirks his obligations and doesn't give her the attention, validation and affection she needs to blossom. This is the long-term result. In the short term, being self-centered, selfish and aggressive can get good results, I confess.

If it's too much effort, don't sweat it. A lot of guys here have realized it's not worth the effort, or that they aren't yet prepared to put in the effort, which is the most honest and best thing to do. So we will continue to live like teenagers well into our thirties. That is our prerogative.