In a 100 page opinion (and yes, that is a very LONG opinion), the Judge tossed out the prenuptial agreements. The Judge ruled that the evidence showed that Frank & Jamie McCourt never fully agreed on any terms regarding the Dodgers, and that each has a mistaken belief about the alleged differing prenuptial agreements. The result is that the Dodgers will not be divided pursuant to any prenuptial agreements between Frank & Jamie McCourt.
The McCourts could spend close to $35 million in legal fees and costs, based on figures included in filings in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
1. Has anyone been in this situation and did you have a prenup? If so how did that go? Advice is appreciated.
2. Is there a way around getting a prenup in terms of documenting what was in the account prior to marriage or does the fact CA is a community property state wipe that thought process out? (I understand sharing what is earned during the marriage, that makes sense to me, what doesn't make sense is sharing what was accumulated prior to the marriage).
3. Can a prenup include waiving the right to alimony?
zebrafish wrote:If you're going to go to all this trouble, why get married in the first place? Just a question.
Noobvestor wrote:zebrafish wrote:If you're going to go to all this trouble, why get married in the first place? Just a question.
Moving in with someone, throwing a wedding, combining all your belongings, deciding on children ... those are no trouble at all, right?
comptalk wrote: let's say a person, worth 500k - 1 million doesn't do a pre-nup nor a trust and goes with faith that all works out until death do us part. ... Divorce proceedings now start 25 years down the line. That 500k - 1 million has grown to 8.5 million dollars. Since it wasn't protected, the money is part of marital distribution and 50% goes to the former husband and 50% goes to the former wife. Also, since on paper you, the one with the 8.5 million nest egg, looks like multi-millionaire also has to pay alimony based off of that amount.
comptalk wrote:Not sure how it doesn't compute. Why, if the person earned the money himself or herself be forced to share the money with an ex-spouse when they did not do anything to contribute to the earnings of those funds? ...
The term on paper means that the funds or securities or assets have not been exercised yet. In order to get to the 50% distribution of marital assets, this usually has to be broken in order to satisfy the divorce degree. A trust would prevent this from ever happening. There is no reason to have to live on half, if the money is already yours.
comptalk wrote: In addition, the growth of those funds during marriage, however, is marital property.
http://www.maggiolawfirm.com/2009/11/un ... perty-law/On another note relating to separate property: if any money is earned from that property, it is considered separate.
http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/fa ... ision.htmlProperty acquired before marriage is the acquiring spouse's separate property, as is property obtained during marriage that can be traced to a premarital acquisition. [Ca Fam § 770(a)(1) & (3) ("rents, issues and profits" of SP are SP)
comptalk wrote:However, you'd be surprised to learn how funds are co-mingled by mistake. Once done, it cannot be undone.
sscritic wrote:I bet that state isn't CA. If it is, you may need another attorney. Your facts aren't facts.http://www.maggiolawfirm.com/2009/11/un ... perty-law/On another note relating to separate property: if any money is earned from that property, it is considered separate.
Here is a reference to the Code so you can look it up yourself:http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/fa ... ision.htmlProperty acquired before marriage is the acquiring spouse's separate property, as is property obtained during marriage that can be traced to a premarital acquisition. [Ca Fam § 770(a)(1) & (3) ("rents, issues and profits" of SP are SP)
I will be extra kind and give you a link to show your attorney.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... le=770-772
It's really easy to read, so I won't read it for you. You can click and read for yourself.
P.S. Yes, when you claim to know the law, you do have to be able to cite it. Otherwise people will think you are just blowing smoke.
http://www.cadivorce.com/california-div ... -tracings/Comingling occurs when a spouse's separate property is mixed or combined with the other spouse's separate property, or with marital property. For example, when a spouse deposits marital funds into their separate fund account, those funds become comingled. The spouse must be able to "trace" the funds back to their separate property source to prove that some of the funds in the account at the time of divorce are separate.
http://family-law.lawyers.com/divorce/C ... vorce.htmlWhen it comes to dividing the property in your divorce, the only way you can claim the money you put into the bank account as your separate property (so your spouse won't get a share of that money) is to "trace" or follow the funds back to you. You'll need detailed records - deposit and withdrawal slips, bank statements, etc. - to show how much of the money is actually yours.
VictoriaF wrote:comptalk wrote:However, you'd be surprised to learn how funds are co-mingled by mistake. Once done, it cannot be undone.
I am curious. Let's say we have a couple, A and B--we'll keep them gender neutral. A and B enter marriage with approximately equal assets ($Xa ~ $Xb), without a prenup and without irrevocable trusts but with an intention to keep their pre-marital assets separate.
During marriage, A makes a mistake of commingling the funds by a trivial amount. Later A and B get divorced. A has $Ya in personal funds but they are tainted by commingling. B has $Yb in uncommingled funds, and a shrewd lawyer. $Ya ~ $Yb ~ $Y. Will A end up with $0.25Y and B with $0.75Y? (Minus the lawyers' fees, of course.)
comptalk wrote:Now, to what I was writing about was about the growth of said funds. Person A and person B each had a separate account and one joint account. The joint account earns interest or is invested in funds. Person A transferred money from their separate account to the joint account. That amount of money is now commingled and is a marital asset. The interest or growth of that money would only be divided from when the money was transferred from his separate account to the joint account. I am hope I am clear on this. This is case law in my state.
During marriage, A makes a mistake of commingling the funds by a trivial amount.
sscritic wrote:Edit: I am assuming that Victoria is not worried about adding $1 of separate property to a joint account.
Rodc wrote:Income is pretty fungible. Even you keep separate checking accounts and paid mortgage from your account, and she did the same but paid groceries and power bill or vacations, that is basically mental accounting.
General question as I'm sure it changes state to state.
sscritic wrote:Rodc wrote:Income is pretty fungible. Even you keep separate checking accounts and paid mortgage from your account, and she did the same but paid groceries and power bill or vacations, that is basically mental accounting.
General question as I'm sure it changes state to state.
In CA, home of the OP, both of your wages are community property. She earned half of each of her husband's paychecks and he earned half of each of hers.* Where they get deposited is irrelevant, unless you are worried about commingling. If they are, they need two separate checking accounts each, one separate checking account for the separate property and another separate checking account for the community property.
* Ask the IRS. Read the instructions for married filing separately in a community property state.