Prenup question -- minimal assets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had $70k to put toward a downpayment but you're helping him pay for grad school? I think if you're going to do a pre-nup, there needs to be come kind of off-set for the financial support you've given him pre-marriage that let him keep his money tied up in a house without taking on additional debt.

Our money already is pooled, so in my mind, I consider that supporting him in grad school, because it's OUR money that's going toward his tuition, save for some stipends from his employer. He makes decent money but I think he would struggle to pay a $4k mortgage + grad school + all other financial obligations on his own. He might disagree because 1) he makes more money and 2) he's much better with money, but that's how I look at it. Am I incorrect?

Why is his saved money "his" money, but your money that you can't save as your own because you're helping finance his grad school "pooled" money? There is a significant disconnect here in how you guys are treating his money and your money, and I'm concerned that this could come back to bite you later if you divorce. I'm not giving you legal advice because you're not my client and I don't know that I'm even licensed in your jurisdiction, but as an attorney, I would not recommend that a client of mine in your shoes go ahead with this plan.

Good points, thank you. I'm starting to think I do need to see a lawyer. Yes, there is some disconnect in how we view money and that's why I didn't automatically say yes even though I don't disagree with the idea on its face. The money that went toward the down payment was liquidated from his 401(k). Some of it he paid back but some he did not. I disagreed with the wisdom in doing that, but his money, and not really related here, in my opinion (money was saved before we combined finances).

I really don't think you need to see a lawyer until and unless he sees one and actually has a draft agreement. It'd be a waste to see a lawyer now, when you don't even know if this will materialize, and the lawyer can't really provide any specific meaningful advice yet anyway, because this is all hypothetical and ill-defined. Wait until your fiancé actually has proposed something specific that a lawyer can advise you about.

[Anonymous]

A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

[Anonymous]

What happens when you sell that home and use the equity to buy a new home. If you divorce then does he still get his $70,000 from the second home? Just something else to think about. Make sure he gets his money back from equity (if any). You don't want to have to pay him if you sell the place at a loss.

[Anonymous]

He will basically get back the $70k. The value of the appreciation is split. Yes, you can find some oddball circumstances where this basic concept gets more complicated -- 7 houses down the line for instance. But these are remote possibilities and you will likely be fighting over all sorts of more immediate financial issues if that does happen. Even if it did, the basic rule would still hold.

[Anonymous]

Wait. So your fiancee wants you to sign a pre-nup over *his* $70k investment but you are comingling the rest of your finances? And he makes 2x more than you?

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

I hate to say this but don't you consider this a red flag? The way he is protecting his money vs the way he sees your money make me think he is selfish, especially with money. And this will intensify so much more when you guys have been married for years and are dealing with children and aging parents. Don't make the mistake of thinking people improve through marriage, they don't. Selfish people become more selfish.

I agree with others that a lawyer isn't worth it. But I would advise you tot read carefully with this guy.

[Anonymous]

I was 14:35. I think the most generous interpretation is that her boyfriend heard or read something about prenups and feels like it is necessary -- again being either unaware or ignorant of the thousands and thousands of legal decisions already issued which address the issue in a relatively fair way. A more troubling interpretation is that he is selfish with money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait. So your fiancee wants you to sign a pre-nup over *his* $70k investment but you are comingling the rest of your finances? And he makes 2x more than you?

Good luck.

He liquidated his 401(k) to put the $70k toward the down payment...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

It's actually not that simple at all, especially once they sell this house and use the proceeds to buy the next one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His parents do not have any assets, he doesn't have his own business, there is no secret hidden wealth. He really seems to just want to protect the down payment money. That's actually why I'm not particularly opposed -- it's not really money I had much of a hand in helping him generate. If he was trying to block me from money he made while we were married it would be really different, since I'm helping him get through grad school, etc., but that's not the case. I think he just has a vague idea of protecting this down payment money and no real legal knowledge of prenuptial agreements.

He had $70k to put toward a downpayment but you're helping him pay for grad school? I think if you're going to do a pre-nup, there needs to be come kind of off-set for the financial support you've given him pre-marriage that let him keep his money tied up in a house without taking on additional debt.

I agree with this. If he wants to split hairs on premarital assets then you get credit for supporting him during his grad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

It's actually not that simple at all, especially once they sell this house and use the proceeds to buy the next one.

The principles are actually fairly straightforward and equitable.

Here is a good primer on how the law would handle it:

https://www.livesaymyers.com/down-payment-marital-home-virginia-divorce/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's that weird, and I would sign it. Does it say something like if you divorce, he gets $70kand then you split the rest? Seems fair

AS long as there is something about her helming him through grad school too. It can't be one way.

[Anonymous]

A prenup to protect 70k? That's a low threshold, and I say this as someone whose prenup cost 10k (I'm also an attorney).

Remember, a prenup should require full financial disclosure, including disclosure of all assets and review of tax returns. Are you comfortable with this process? .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

It's actually not that simple at all, especially once they sell this house and use the proceeds to buy the next one.

The principles are actually fairly straightforward and equitable.

Here is a good primer on how the law would handle it:

https://www.livesaymyers.com/down-payment-marital-home-virginia-divorce/

That doesn't address the scenario where they sell this house and buy another with the proceeds. At that point it's no longer coming from a separate asset because the house is a marital asset, and the originally separate portion can lose its separate asset protections if not handled properly. Further, as that note discusses, there are a variety of ways to value the separate asset portion in the event of divorce. A pre-nup can designate a valuation methodology to avoid fighting about it later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A prenup is definitely not necessary in this circumstance. It's funny -- people talk about prenups as if there are no divorce laws and everything is this state of nature jungle in dividing up assets in case there is a divorce. That's simply not the case. Every state has spent considerable legal resources on well thought out legal decisions which fairly divide assets. In your case -- in most states -- your boyfriend would be entitled to the money he already has in the house. It's really very simple. You would split any appreciation, but that doesn't even seem to be the issue here. I would just direct him to some of the many available free resources out there which explain this and save yourself valuable time and money on attorneys. This isn't worth it.

It's actually not that simple at all, especially once they sell this house and use the proceeds to buy the next one.

The principles are actually fairly straightforward and equitable.

Here is a good primer on how the law would handle it:

https://www.livesaymyers.com/down-payment-marital-home-virginia-divorce/

He would very likely get a credit in the resulting dissolution of assets. That's how it usually works.



That doesn't address the scenario where they sell this house and buy another with the proceeds. At that point it's no longer coming from a separate asset because the house is a marital asset, and the originally separate portion can lose its separate asset protections if not handled properly. Further, as that note discusses, there are a variety of ways to value the separate asset portion in the event of divorce. A pre-nup can designate a valuation methodology to avoid fighting about it later.