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.

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/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).