Everything posted by WonderingFiance
Haha I stand corrected. I should have said "we have no assets worthy of of a prenup." Thank you adjusterjack! My divorce lawyer is in NY, and I live in Louisiana now...and yes I've heard how weird the law is down here! I don't anticipate getting divorced, but I'm not young and naive enough to think it can't happen...again. Thank you all for your answers! Based on your responses, I've decided I'll deposit the money into a separate account, and I'll also have him sign something acknowledging (1) the account is my separate property and is not part of the community property, and (2) if I pay more than him on the downpayment of a house, any excess that I paid is to be repaid to me before any equity split in the event of a divorce. How does that sound?
Per our divorce agreement, my ex-husband has to give me $150,000 over the next few years. It's not alimony - he is buying me out of the properties we bought while we were married. In about a month, I will be getting married for the second time. I'm wondering if I need a prenup to protect my $150,000 in case this second marriage ends in divorce too. Here are some questions running through my head: Is the $150,000 still considered mine alone if I physically receive it after I get married? If I take the $150,000 and buy a house that we both live in, is that house half his if we get divorced, or am I entitled to get back my $150,000 investment before we have to spilt it 50/50? I live in Louisiana, which is a community property state. I was googling it and I read this: "Property one spouse owned alone before the marriage, or acquired by gift or inheritance during the marriage, is that spouse’s separate property, as long as the spouse can prove the claim with financial records or other documents." Does "property" include cash? Are divorce settlements protected? This is the only thing we would need covered by a prenup - our income is about the same, and neither of us has any other assets. I'm just wondering if this money is already protected since it was technically acquired before the new marriage. If it is, it would save me the trouble of having to get a prenup - which is not something I really want to do. Thanks in advance for your help!
My fiance has a three-year-old son with his ex-girlfriend. They've been broken up since the child was six months old. They never went to court but mutually came to an agreement, which they notarized, that he would pay her $500 a month for child support, and they will split all the schooling expenses and extra medical bills. They have since verbally modified the agreement - he had to put his son on his insurance, so they lowered the amount to $400 a month. The reason I am questioning their arrangement is because they share custody 50-50. I was under the impression that you don't pay child support if you have joint custody. I asked him about it and he said he knows a few guys at work (he's a firefighter) in similar situations, and they all have to pay much more than $400 a month. He says it's based on the mother's income and the courts always side with the mother. It just doesn't seem fair to me that he works full-time, pays her $400 a month, AND has his son half the time, while she just has her son half the time and works an odd job here and there - under the table because she is trying to avoid having to pay back her massive student loan debt and therefore can't/won't get an on-the-books job. However, since my fiance is a firefighter, his work schedule is such that it could be difficult for her to get a regular job - he works for a 24-hour shift and then is off for 48 hours, and his workdays are always rotating. It could be hard to get a regular job if the days you are able to work are always changing. I get that. But once the child is in school (preschool in September), there is no reason why she can't get a job, at least part time. So I guess my questions are: 1 - Should he really be paying child support when he has the child half the time (sometimes even more)? 2 - Does the fact that there is a notarized agreement mean that he is "stuck" in this arrangement? Does it mean that she is stuck as well? 3 - Does her working under the table mean that if we went to court it would look like she has ZERO income? Any insight into this situation would be greatly appreciated. We live in Louisiana. Thanks!