How would you protect your assets transparently going into merriage.

July 7, 2007 10:23 AM

How would one go about protecting their assets in the case of marriage with out a prenuptual agreement. For what ever reason these solutions should be fairly transparent to ones spouse. - Leaving out options of just simply not getting married or just asking for a prenup because some people find that sort of thing offensive. I'm from Canada so any Canadian based advice is welcome, but similar US based advice is also more than welcome as well.

This question is aimed to find non-offensive/discrete solutions to things prenuptual agreements would cover.

Like protecting yourself from the notorious golddigger/free-meal-ticket-chaser.

Something that could be completely left unsaid to the other half.

Please leave out personal opinion about morality to keep the answers candid anyone in their right state of mind will obviously know what feels right and wrong.

posted by Chamunks to work & money (17 comments total)

This needs a lawyer. Perhaps a therapist as well because you must have some concerns.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:33 AM on July 7, 2007

Its more of a hypothetical, im more curious than in need.
posted by Chamunks at 10:34 AM on July 7, 2007

If it's hypothetical, then it's not appropriate for AxMe.

If it's not hypothetical, then you definitely, absolutely, need to talk to a lawyer. The HiveMind is often wrong, which isn't going to do you a lick of good in the case that you actually need the non-prenup prenup to stand in court.
posted by bshort at 10:36 AM on July 7, 2007

true enough i was just curious if anyone knew of anything like this happening or anything like that im trying to avoid the use of a lawyer for just a simple "nice to know"
posted by Chamunks at 10:42 AM on July 7, 2007

I can think of a few ways this *might* be done, but I can't guarantee that any of these might work. In general, it would be much easier to protect pre-marital assets rather than assets gained during marriage.

One option may be to put the pre-marital assets in a trust, with the owning spouse as the beneficiary. Another option might be to create a shell corporation and hide assets within the company. Both of these options may present numerous tax and other issues, and may in fact not be enforceable in court.
posted by thewittyname at 11:07 AM on July 7, 2007

In the US, each state has different laws concerning the assets brought into a marriage. If Canada is similar, general advice on this topic simply will not be possble.
posted by rhizome at 11:09 AM on July 7, 2007

It is somewhat difficult to design a plan that would protect the man from the conniving golddigger, presumably a worthy objective, that could not be abused to deprive a deserving wife, upon divorce, with the means to survive. Thus all of the hedges and qualifiers.

As I understand Canadian law, not being from there myself, there is much less variability from province to province on matters of this nature. So proper advice from a licensed Canadian solicitor may well provide a one-size-fits-all answer.

Good luck.
posted by megatherium at 1:01 PM on July 7, 2007

Get a book on marital property in Canada if you're just curious. (Maybe this one, no idea if its any good or not.) This is too complex a question to really deal with here.

In general, basic community property principles (US: Cal and other states) seem pretty fair in my opinion. Very roughly: If you earn it while married it gets split 50/50 between the two of you at divorce, if you had already, it's your seperate property. The court will have latitude to make adjustments to make sure any divorce settlement is fair.

Prenups are also much more common and seem to be a good way for someone with this level of concern to do something that differs from the jurisdiction's marital property law. Also, they're honest. Once you get past the "'Pre-wha!?" phase it seems like a pretty good way to go into a marriage with a mutual, honest, understanding of where each partner is at - thereby making divorce a lot less likely and in turn making the whole issue moot.

Licensed canadian solicitor is definitely the way to go for someone who actually has this problem. (I mean, they have the money right? And they're trying to...protect it? Daddy Warbucks probably wouldn't rely on the advice of a bunch of procrastinating monkeys positioned at keyboards all around the world ;-)
posted by prettyboyfloyd at 1:58 PM on July 7, 2007

And the critical piece of golddigger-protection in any jurisdiction is the hysterectomy, since all the asset protection in the world does you no good if you're on the hook for child support.

But, yeah, if you want a prenup, get a prenup attorney. Any assets worth protecting are not assets you want to rely on Mefites to protect.
posted by commander_cool at 2:53 PM on July 7, 2007

For what ever reason these solutions should be fairly transparent to ones spouse.

Something that could be completely left unsaid to the other half.

These two requirements pretty much contradict each other.
posted by yohko at 2:54 PM on July 7, 2007

How would I protect my assets? I wouldn't. It's better karma to presume one's marriage is until death does one part.

Besides, anyone who'd marry me deserves at least half of what I've got.
posted by skywhite at 3:45 PM on July 7, 2007

The only concern i would have about putting it into a coropration or INCorporation is would the courts see that and respond with that corp was only holding it for you and it had no business related matters.
posted by Chamunks at 3:53 PM on July 7, 2007

This is what offshore banking is for. During a pre-wedding diving trip to Grand Cayman, he puts his protectable assets into a trust -- and probably allocates those assets in a combination of investments -- everything from a nice safe CD, to stocks/equities, to perhaps rental real estate.

The trust, and the assets it holds, become shielded from the potential gold-digger on several levels: she didn't marry the trust, the trust is earning the money during the marriage (rather than the couple earning it), the community property laws in the US have dubious jurisdiction over offshore assets, and even if she did somehow get a favorable judgement claiming those assets, it'd be next to impossible for her to actually get her hands on anything, as she is not a customer of the bank that is holding them.
posted by toxic at 4:57 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

You know how, in restaurants, they plunk one half-full bottle of ketchup on another to empty it out? This is called "marrying the ketchup." Pretty much by definition, marrying means you can't take back out the exact same ketchup - you are merging your fates and finances.

If you are not going into the marriage with the idea it is permanent, that's what a prenup is for.

That said - IRA and 401k income seems pretty separate here in the US. You may want to check how that's handled in Canada.
posted by selfmedicating at 5:43 PM on July 7, 2007

bshort - Actually, a detailed, practical hypothetical is very appropriate for askme, as it could be useful down the road if searched for someone who's in the situation. Please don't try and traffic cop -- take it to MeFi or leave it to the admins.

I would, in the US, go with a Living Trust arrangement.

Hiding things, even in offshore accounts, doesn't work. If those accounts are later discovered by a private investigator during a divorce, you're not only illegal potentially of tax fraud and perjury (when you pledged that your affidavit of assets was complete and thorough) but you're just plain not honest.

The living trust could name several benefactors before your wife-to-be, and if she did find out you could assure her that she would be well provided for in the case of your death but she wouldn't have direct access to the money. It's also a useful tax fiction if you should be so inclined, and is equivalent to incorporating and moving your personal assets under the helm of the corporation.

IANAL, just have worked as a clerk in a family law firm and know a lot of people with a lot of money.

I think some of the people who posted in this thread have more of an issue -- often times, at a socioeconomic level above upper-middle-class, shit happens with marriages that you couldn't dream of. And fairy tale romance often isn't... people who go into a marriage assuming death will be the only thing that will do them part often end up divorced, in my limited experience watching "Uber Christian Marriage" after "Uber Christian Marraige" self-destruct under false assumptions.
posted by SpecialK at 9:45 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Personally, I've seen more divorce in my lifetime than successful merriage which spawns this question in my head. I'm going to steal a line from The Italian Job and say "I trust people, its the devil inside them I dont trust". That isnt to say that I havent seen some epic merriages that last. Many people in my family have solid merriages even exceeding their 50th anny.

I love studying the social sciences, doing so I have come to realise that trying to put a legal title on something with so many chaotic elements as merriage just worries me. Not to sound perranoid but its not just your spouse your spouse might be amazing but situation surrounding them can change things like you wouldnt believe. Its better to be safe than sorry.

Personally if I were to set something like this up for myself I would have some kind of contract with the bank or something to take some of the money and do a background check on lets say the event of my death or seperation and split things fairly as to how I had set it before I was merried. Basically the non prenup prenup. Just something fair that wouldnt have to be agreed uppon. I would prefer not to offend the one whome I love.

Some will argue that if the prenup is in line of sight of everyone all layed out and clear, that it removes temptation which may help solidify your bond. Also that the other also shares the same beliefs of "till death" which also may be comforting. I would just like for those who want to know to be able to know.

I fully understand some people will use information like this in a negative way but thats the grain of salt you have to take the internet with, every time you log on.
posted by Chamunks at 8:10 AM on July 8, 2007

Divorce law in Canada is federal. AFAIK, the current standard for upholding prenuptial agreements is that both of the parties ought to have had independent legal advice, understood what they were agreeing to, not been under duress or pressure, and that the arrangement dictated by the agreement in the event of divorce correspond to what was foreseen/anticipated in the agreement.

Hopefully all of this would work to prevent a spouse from ending up bound to an arrangement that was invisible to her/him...

Some more commentary, generic info from an Ontario law firm.
posted by Salamandrous at 3:52 PM on July 8, 2007