Date: June 7th, 2022 9:45 AM Author: sickened swashbuckling institution pisswyrm
California is a community property state. But if you make $ that can be traced solely to your own, separate funds, you've got a fighting chance of shielding it from community property. He'll prob. be fine in the unlikely event of divorce.
Date: June 7th, 2022 10:00 AM Author: appetizing corner
Yes, I do. And my law firm is 100% mine if we get divorced. The prenup also waives ALL spousal support. We each had our own lawyer when we did the prenup and my wife makes multiple six figures and is a lawyer. So it's not like she would be a housewife getting fucked over if we got divorced. I would of course still provide for my kids for everything they could ever need.
However, I've never once in our relationship ever felt like there was any chance we would break up or get divorced. We love each other more now than at any point in our relationship. We still love spending time together, we still have sex 4-5x/week, we still like each other (which is different than loving each other), and we are on the same page with life goals, financial goals, and family.
Date: June 7th, 2022 10:03 AM Author: fragrant tattoo stead
zero alimony with total exclusion of the most valuable asset seems like it might not hold up after 20 years or so of marriage, though I am admittedly not a CA family law expert.
Date: June 7th, 2022 10:58 AM Author: concupiscible old irish cottage boistinker
She'd still get half the other assets like the stocks, crypto, apartment buildings, sushi restaurant, and ski resort. It's not like she'd walk away with nothing.
Date: June 7th, 2022 11:09 AM Author: fragrant tattoo stead
Yeah I def get that. The biz, if started prior to the marriage, in NJ at least, would have a pretty strong argument for being exempt regardless of the prenup.
But in addition to the statutory procedural requirements like full financial disclosure and an opportunity to receive the advice of counsel, prenups are enforced only insofar as they are fair and are frequently struck as unenforceable if challenged.
That's why I feel the better route is to build in a structure for alimony rather than an all out waiver. A lot of shit can change from when fresh faced, childless 25 year olds tie the knot to when they get divorced such that a judge would think it's unfair to leave the supported spouse completely without alimony. If there's a formula that is based on income and limited in nature, it's harder for a judge to call that into question.
Date: June 7th, 2022 11:12 AM Author: appetizing corner
If my wife gets 8-10 million dollars (let's say we are worth 16-20 million) if we divorce and she makes 300K/year I don't think it seems fundamentally unfair. Especially if I still pay child support. She wouldn't be some uneducated 90IQ high school grad SAHM that is getting kicked out the street into a 1 bedroom apartment.
Date: June 7th, 2022 11:44 AM Author: fragrant tattoo stead
Yeah those are the counterarguments for sure.
First, the math is incomplete, since you left out the value of your law firm which means you'll be taking a disproportionate share of the assets.
$300k is a nice salary but yours isn't a "needs" case. It's a "lifestyle" case. Is it fair that 1 party with a fraction of the income of the other with multiple kids living in the highest COL region in the country should have to deplete her savings just to live a comparable lifestyle while the other can maintain the same lifestyle on just his income? After 20 years? with multiple kids?
I'm not familiar with CA law, but this is a fact sensitive analysis and judges have a wide discretion and can hang their hat on "fairness". That's why I think the better approach is to do 0 alimony unless the marriage is over some period of time and then a formula after that based on number of years and disparity in income.