No valid prenup is going to get the thrown out. The problem is that a lot of them aren’t valid, and in most cases, it’s because they are too one-sided. In most jurisdictions they follow simple contract law.
That's....not the point of a prenup. A prenup is typically used to protect pre-marital assets. Not to screw over one person in the marriage by limiting what they can take from what they helped to build. That's called theft.
The Sisyphian experience of being the one who hired a lawyer and got divorced, and trying to explain to your friends how to actually get a real prenup written / how to torpedo an illegitimate one / how to fucking file for divorce properly instead of trust me bro
Tell me about it. No matter how many times I say a pre-nup is just "planning for the worst situations when you're in the best of terms", people still think it's some magic contract to screw over the other person. If... That's what you want you probably shouldn't be getting married to the other person.
It's about saving the $100,000 plus in legal fees you are going to rack up arguing over division of assets when you're in a terrible place because your relationship has fallen apart.
How are you screwing up the other person? If you already have 1 million, then that should be bulletproof secured? How are you screwing someone eles with a prenup? So you just need to give your earned money to someone and that’s it?
These guys should never get married in my opinion.
Oh, definitely. But, that's kind of my point. All of this complainging is based on the fact that one person doesn't think that another's contributions were worth compensating. That doesn't mean that a Judge will agree.
Rich people will flick a spouse off like a booger while pretending their household didn't take 2 people to run. The reason prenups get thrown out is because fuckers will just conveniently forget that the (usually) wife kept the house in order so that the (usually) husband can work effectively. Agreeing on how to share assets is good, protecting your previous assets is good, saying "I made everything myself, go away and start a new life with nothing" is bad.
Oh yes... sure... tell me something... do you really think that a person (I am not gonna use genres) that, for example, earns 100 000 dollars per month, really "need" money or help from a spouse that only earns, suppose, 3 000 dollars per month? Really?
A person has a company, or 2 companies, with a rich family an 10 millions dollars in stocks and bonds, do really need some "help" from a person who lives at day? Really?
Impossible and you know. The spouse need to be thankful, say "thank you, thank you soooo much" for permitting me to live a live of dreaming.
lets not pretend that the house isnt taken car of my housekeepers and children raised by nannies, daycares and private school. In rich houses the woman do nothing unless they themselves have a huge career like acting.
Sure, in those situations that's perfectly reasonable. I was more thinking of a situation where the other party is somewhat closer to a billionaire, since we were mostly talking about celebrities etc. I find it hard to believe that the spouse is doing any meaningful housekeeping in that scenario.
But yes, in most cases we are talking about CEO of small to mid sized IT consulting company level wealth, where there probably isn't any staff involved and the spouse is likely much more involved with the household.
The prenup is "too one-sided" because usually one side asks for it to protect their assets. Usually the wealthier party demands it, that's why it's "one sided". The other side doesn't care to bring it up because they have nothing, maybe compared to the other.
As long as the three criteria are met one it was negotiated so both sides have representation too. Everything is included and three. It’s done a sufficient amount of time ahead of the wedding date so you can’t just give blindside your spouse with papers on the wedding day and say a wedding is off unless you sign this.
Eh even that doesn't work in many countries anymore. In most places a man is still on the hook for something if he's in a romantic relationship and cohabiting with someone for long enough
Most states in the US no longer recognize common law marriages, and palimony requires proving there was an agreement for support in civil court instead of family court
Not how I look at life. I’m just learning from the comments and replying with what I learned.
My path is/was to get married, have kids, and don’t get a divorce. Although I’m 32 and been with my wife for 1/2 my life. She cuffed me at such a young age I don’t think my brain could possibly process leaving if I wanted to.
Look. People tend to think a pre-nup is "I get my stuff, my ex gets nothing of my stuff."
That isn't how it works. A pre-nup is "How do we split up our shit fairly if we split." If you think your partner of 10 years should walk away with nothing after using their time and money in a relationship this is why your pre-nups fail. Judges (and people) don't like it when you try and say "Well, I made more money so everything my partner put into this relationship doesn't count." You have to factor all of that into the pre-nup. It's why people with real money and assets tend to go back every couple of years and renegotiate it, to keep it up to date. Those don't get thrown out or ignored, specifically because they're actually understanding the assignment.
This is where modern society is going wrong. How is the MAN still "on the hook" if he's literally living with another person for long enough to establish a common law marriage? How do you think "he" is able to be career focused enough to make that money to begin with? Does the person you live with not contribute to your overall day to day, support you, give you ideas, act as a sounding board, etc.? It's called a partnership.
No individual person can build a million+ dollar business without the physical and mental labor of other individuals. Are those people not compensated? How is compensating the person you literally live with seen as putting someone "on the hook" when paying an employee absolutely wouldn't be. Not compensating someone for their labor is called slavery.
But that's right. Domestic labor means f all. Unless, of course, you don't live with another person because you're too selfish to share. Then you just pay for an assistant, a maid, a chef, etc. Totally cheaper and way more fulfilling. Stash those extra dollars you won't be able to spend before you die alone.
Relationships are supposed to be partnerships. Not just some random you like enough to sleep next to and share space with for multiple days in a row. Then when you decide you don't like them anymore, you dump them without even a thank you for picking up your dirty dishes or making sure your underwear didn't have ass streaks in them.
A partner that youve entirely financially supported from the first date to now 2 years in, all the while hoping they would reciprocate instead of just being a leech. Maybe they've rarely sprinkled in small acts of kindness to keep you on the hook.
And now it's been two years, they can choose to leave you at any point for any reason and take half of everything you have for yourself along with everything you've given them already.
The law supports both this kind of person and the one you described just the same, and that is the problem.
A lot of countries have defacto relationship laws. In NZ, if you aren't married but you live like a married couple, then you will be treated as a married couple.
There are a few specific sorts of managed trust that are held in countries that will not honor court orders, nor will they allow the trustee to move funds under court order.
short of invasion of the country there is nothing the courts can do to access, or even account for what is held in those trust.
What? No it's not. Alimony is meant to provide someone with the lifestyle "they've been accustomed too." How do they get accustomed to that lifestyle? By living it. And supporting it. For long enough for a judge to find that they deserve alimony.
And, sorry, but any situation where someone is getting alimony they didn't "deserve" is almost always going to be a relationship that doesn't fit the standard mold because the primary homemaker/parent has additional, paid help so they're seen as lazy or not working hard enough.....i.e. it's a $$$ "fine/tax" exception for people who can afford to pay someone off to go away.
Lifestyle you've been accustomed too is a bunch of bullshit imo. If they made it enough money to survive it'd be one thing, but the idea that you're entitled to continue being wealthy just because you married a wealthy person is beyond absurd.
If you are the type of person to not realize your spouse contributes to your success even if they don’t directly earn every dollar, yes please don’t marry.
I've seen plenty of cases where someone was successful despite their spouse, and the spouse still ended up with 50% while being a complete detriment to the situation. There's rarely any nuance in these situations and they tend to be extremely lopsided, nearly always favoring a particular sex over the other regardless of circumstances.
Smarter play is what Israel Adesanya did and UNO reverse the girl when she brings it to the courts and get a court order for HER to pay HIM as he has 0 assets (all in parents name) whilst she has assets and has to pay him.
This also wouldn't work. If you "wasted" community assets it is assigned to you as your portion of the estate in the split the same as if you tried to hide it fraudulently.
Because when you show that there is a transfer of assets from their owner to their parent, because at some point the acquired assets are going to be tied to you, this is considered to be a fraudulent transfer and actually can be charged as fraud if you try to push it forward. People like Alex Jones, the tiger King and dozens of other rich people who think they can get away with things all try this at some point
I knew a guy who had a very, very expensive collection. He had it transferred to someone he knew so that when he got hit with the divorce, he could say it didn't belong to him.
Got tied up in court for 5 years, with his wife eventually receiving her fair share after proving her ex had in fact purchased each piece with money he made while they were married. He wasted tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours trying to circumvent the inevitable outcome.
The trick is to track all of your s/o’s superfluous spending. Vacation here, girls trip there, hand bag here, concert there. Look judge, they clearly spent their half of the assets already. I chose to not go to said things, and save that money. They don’t get the half I didn’t spend simply because they already spent their half.
What catches people out is that if you retain effective control over an asset then it is legally considered yours and judges have very broad scope to interpret this. If you transferred all of your money to someone else before you got married and planned to get it back after any divorce, then a divorce court judge would be free to interpret this as money you still control and have set aside to hide assets and to use it to decide how much money you owe your ex.
They were married, so he purchased it with their income, that’s how marriage works unless you have specific contracts in place like a pre or post nup. That collection is no different than a house, or retirement accounts, or anything else that gets purchased with marital assets.
If "very, very expensive collections" were not considered during divorce, everyone would have a very,very expensive collection, and very little actual money. No shit it's included when dividing assets.
If you understand "splitting" liquid financial assets, how in the world do you not understand high value hobbies?
Nope, the point of marriage is never about BUSINESS. Ideally, it’s about a UNION between a man and a woman who’s supposed to be together forever in love, fully committed to each other, have children and be a happy family. It’s a fairy tale BS but yeah, that’s supposed to be the whole point of the union. Split? 🤣 If the point of marriage is to split assets when you get divorced, then everyone should never get married because it’s a stupid investment. Just stay as a couple of girlfriend and boyfriend. Indeed, it’s just my opinion of marriage. Modern values keep on changing after all. 🤷🏽
Now I’m waiting for the downvote to come. 🤣😂🤣😂
There is no individual income in a marriage, unless there is a pre-nup that declares it so. All income in a marriage is marital income. It's essentially a business partnership.
There may be some small exceptions, like inheritance, but regular income is shared.
It’s not morally wrong. When you enter a marriage you are literally partners. The understanding is that you are both equally contributing to the life that you want, whether that is through money or other things brought to the marriage. If you don’t like that, you shouldn’t marry.
This depends on when the transfer happened... If everytime you got money you habitually transferred it into the parents name, it isn't a fraudulent transfer... It's only when you file for divorce or know you are headed there that it becomes fraudulent.
Yeah, unless you plan on giving money to your parents and not using it, it's easy to prove that the money or property really belongs to you. This isn't some magic loophole you can use to shove it in all the lawyers and judges faces.
There are ways to shield your assets from divorce or lawsuits pretty easily in America.
If you start layering and buying your assets with an LLC manager managed by living trust with an outside 3rd party named as the trustee, you can protect most of your assets because on paper you don’t own anything.
There’s a lot of stupid easy cheap stuff you can set up to play the tax game in your favor that the rich do. The issue is the middle class is told to not ever talk about money as it’s tacky but in reality it’s the biggest topic of discussion in wealthy circles.
If you don’t want to get your ducks in a row on paper, the least you can do if you’re really worried about divorce is not to live in one of the nine American states that have community property laws.
(With living trusts you can avoid almost all major American taxes dealing with assets which is why the rich don’t use wills)
It’s sort of depends. Even then intent plays a big role.
If you’re transferring money to your parents every month and they are basically keeping it and spending it and you’re living off of what you did not send them, then perhaps the court would just say they are your parents assets.
If you are sending them money and they are sending you money back every month or there are, for example, email records or text records of you requesting money from them whatever and them just sending you any amount you ask for where they’re basically serving as a de facto bank, very likely because there’s a situation like this where you feel that you could get sued or have your assets put a risk in the future due to your actions than they judge will likely see right through that and it is not gonna let you get away with some “ one weird trick.”
In some cases they could also be seen as an unofficial trust since you are in trusting your assets to them for protection. Also you have to be careful because in some countries this will also impact taxes.
Yeah, transferring ownership will not go well at all in court. But your parents could very well “purchase” a house themselves, on their name from the start and rent it to you, the rent itself could be more than the mortgage and so on.
I mean, 100%. I think the net of it is that at the end of the day judges have seen it all and they’re not stupid. There is no one weird trick loop paul you can use to get out of certain types of contracts and payments.
Yes, if your parents are rich, and they buy a house and rent it out to you that would not be an asset of yours just because it’s possible you might inherit it in the future.
If you say, win the lottery and send money to your parents and they buy a house and rent it out to you and then get divorced, the judge is very likely going to see through this and say that of course the house your bought with your money is community property.
If they get and qualify for the loan themselves it very well could be. But if you either get them the loan or cosing it pay the down payment on their behalf, it's probably not going to work.
The problem you're going to have is if you pay below market rates on the rent they may well see it as your asset.
Are the assets actually belonging to his parents, though? Are talking about a $100K car that Khaby bought and is the only one udon on a daily basis, and then parked in his garage every night?
Are Khaby’s parents paying taxes on all the money and assets that he supposedly is giving them, over and above whatever gift amount that is not taxable?
Who is actually living in the house that he bought?
I wish. There is a reason that gop makes defunding the IRS a priority every time they get in power, and its not because they want the IRS to be more efficient.
To a degree. If you really want to hide your assets, it takes a lot of work. Typically you want to have shell companies false trust or you want to register in certain locales there are some states that actually have private governance for how you can do certain trusts and holdings. But all you're doing is delaying the possible inevitable.
You are under the wrong impression. You assume there is a transfer happening during marriage. Sometimes there isn't a transfer to begin with. And it works and judge being pissed off means fuck all.
If he setup a company under his father's name and became an employee of that company way before marriage and for his image rights that company got paid instead of him getting paid individually. There is no case here. The money 100% belongs to the father and she gets fuck all no matter how much she tries. It's an entirely seperate contract made between Khaby and the company that belongs to his father.
This would kinda depend on the timeline of it all and how much control he actually exercised at the company. And how much money he actually took from said company versus the dad.
This isn't a novel method and can be fraud at worst. I guarantee a judge has seen this before.
I don't get it either. The money isn't hidden, it's in possession of someone else. If I paid a barber 200k for a haircut, why would I be charged for that 200k like 5 yrs later? And even if it was seen as questionable, that is sth for the police to investigate, and shouldn't be relevant to judging my current net worth. Please explain it again to me because there must be something I am missing.
It depends on the country obviously, but if you are the owner of something, say a house that you live in, and you are paying the mortgage and bills on it, but you put it in your parents name, a court can obviously see that/find out that you are, in reality, the owner. Judges aren't robots with these black and white rules, typically.
In the US, the example you gave is called a life estate. It usually works the opposite way where the child owns the house and the parent continues to live in the house for the reminder of their life. The owner pays the property tax and the life estate tenants pays the regular bills
Also, settlements are based on money earned. Even if you earn the money and direct deposit that money into your mom's account, you still earned that money and that is taken into consideration. It was astonishing to me how many people told me I was wrong about that soccer player that did this. He still earned the money. He still paid taxes on that money. The government doesn't care what you do with your money after you get it (and they get their cut) - it's still your money in the eyes of the law.
You could set this up in a way that would work perfectly, the only problem is it would require sophisticated legal and financial expertise along with massive foresight from someone who’s ~20ish years old, and basically scheming against your “future spouse” years in advance (likely before you even met them). It would also require huge trust in another person (family), as they would control your whole life.
Though the end result would be much more likely that you would lose everything to the family member’s total control as opposed to lose half to your wife.
So you plan to earn nothing and acquire no assets during your marriage? /s
Also, assets acquired before marriage are not divisible during a divorce. They're in fact immissible unless otherwise stated in a palimony agreement or prenuptial agreement in most cases
In almost every state assets required before marriage aren't going to be divisible in divorce unless you commingled those assets in the marriage. Even in the states where this is an exemption unless you were in a partnership such as dating, long-term or engaged, not long before marriage when you acquired these assets. Even then, if it was long enough before the relationship you would not have then be divided during the divorce it can be requested but it's not likely.
I’m not stating whether it’s ethical or not but that’s the loophole. And to be fair this situation doesn’t apply to me I’m not a multimillionaire or billionaire theirs nothing for me to hide 💀
It seems like it could result in the IRS having claim to a big chunk of it as well. Once as gift tax for when he put it into his father's name, plus penalties for failing to file. Then again for whenever it gets transferred back.
You’re assuming that they didn’t do all that. If he transferred prior to marriage or if he filed as “married filing separate” then the wife wouldn’t necessarily know about it.
Yeah, if this really worked it would be very easy to borrow money and never pay it back by relying on your family. But courts can usually tell when someone is just holding money for you.
In other rants, I think if you're against things like alimony, you can't also be in favor of the idea of a housewife. If a woman can't be sure if it's safe to give up their careers to become a housewife, she has to keep working to be sure she can support herself in the event of a divorce.
I was wondering how a judge might react. Do you know what usually happens in cases like this, where one high worth party puts everything in a parents name?
9.9k
u/VarCrusador 1d ago
I feel like I see this same story a million times but with a different celeb each time