Prenups and postnups

[Richard]

Will you require your soon-to-be spouse to sign one?

How will you react if our spouse requires you to sign one?


I will never get married, except before I die (tax reasons), so prenups and postnups are not required; however, I have forced many of my friends into seriously considering it.

Courts are against men these days, and having all your assets in hidden companies is for the best.  And by hidden I don't mean tax shelters, but just personal holding companies (LLCs), registered in the United States legally, that do not conduct business (and as such do not pay tax), and exist solely so you can't get robbed.

Your house, if you own it, should always be moved into a LLC.  If you have a mortgage, your own LLC should put a lien against your house so it has second rights to the property after the mortgage; when the mortgage is paid off it will be first in line.  You'll be lawsuit proof.

Same with your cars and your investments.  LLCs keep the asset in another name, but is taxed in your personal tax return.  For legal tax shelters, things are a bit more sketch but if you're not rich, you don't have to worry about that.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Tangling my finances with someone else, in these days of divorce rates being extremely high, is not in my best interest. The fact is you can never be sure what will happen in the future. So if I ever did get married, there would have to be some kind agreement beforehand. Otherwise, no deal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see how an LLC could serve to shield one's assets in a divorce or other court procedure unless one lies to the court about one's ownership of it.  The net effect should simply be that instead of the wife getting 50% of the house, she gets 50% of the LLC, which the divorce court then orders liquidated via the sale of its assets and the distribution thereof.

Of course, people will lie when it is to their advantage, which is why all corporations should have their ownership be a matter a public record which is easily accessible to all and sundry.

Corrupt practices are best eradicated via the application of lots and lots of sunshine.  (Which is why I am also opposed to tort settlements that involve sealed records.)

There's also the little matter of property tax.  In most jurisdictions in the United States, the property tax levied on owner-occupied housing is less than non owner-occupied housing, often considerably less.  In South Carolina, owner-occupied housing has the millage assessed on four percent of the appraised value, otherwise housing is assessed at six percent.  While your LLC gimmick could be set up to take advantage of provisions to pay at the owner-occupied rate, you'd have to establish as a matter of public record that you own the LLC to qualify, so the asset would no longer be hidden from your spouse, or any other person who wishes to file a tort against you, which negates the purpose of the LLC charade in the first place.

So Richius, at least for South Carolina, it seems that you are advocating people pay 50% more property tax so that if they get sued, they can lie to the court about owning the property and hope they don't get caught.

[opebo]

I will never get married, except before I die

That just sounds funny, as your whole life is 'before you die', Richous.  But I know you mean shortly before death.  Why would you care what happens after you die?

[John Dibble]

I don't know yet. It will depend on my circumstances when I'm ready to get married.

[Richard]

I don't see how an LLC could serve to shield one's assets in a divorce or other court procedure unless one lies to the court about one's ownership of it.  The net effect should simply be that instead of the wife getting 50% of the house, she gets 50% of the LLC, which the divorce court then orders liquidated via the sale of its assets and the distribution thereof.

You can't lie if they don't know or ask about it.  "Do you own the house?" No.  "Do you rent?"  Yes.  "Who owns the house?"  Save the Children Foundation, LLC  "Who are they?"  I'm not exactly sure.  "Do you own the Foundation?" I have an interest.  "How much?"  It can't be established due to unexercised options.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And in such a case, we take it to a different jurisdiction.  No sir.  You do not have a right to my private affairs.  If there is a public interest, such a charity, fine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why you own a second LLC with a lien against the house.  OR, own the house in your own name, and have a lien against the house.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

You just don't understand it.  If property tax is an issue, then own it in your own name, or in states where joint ownership is mandatory, in a LLC but disclose you own it and live in the house.

Always register a lien from another LLC you own against the property.

And you never have to lie in court.

[Richard]

Oh and, if the spouse is awarded 50% of the shares, guess what?  I hold options that allow me to issue another million shares to myself for 1 penny.  Poison pill in the shareholders' agreement and by-laws of the company.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course, people will lie when it is to their advantage, which is why all corporations should have their ownership be a matter a public record which is easily accessible to all and sundry.

And in such a case, we take it to a different jurisdiction.  No sir.  You do not have a right to my private affairs.  If there is a public interest, such a charity, fine.

A corporation is by its nature a public entity.  They were not established for the purpose of committing fraud as you advocate. Property rights require governments to secure them, and therefore whatever public records is deemed necessary to have in order to properly secure those rights for the benefit of all.

And you never have to lie in court.

Assuming that you aren't asked, as any competent attorney representing your ex-wife should do in a divorce case, to give a complete and honest list of your assets.

Oh and, if the spouse is awarded 50% of the shares, guess what?  I hold options that allow me to issue another million shares to myself for 1 penny.  Poison pill in the shareholders' agreement and by-laws of the company.

Assuming that the divorce court doesn't give the wife 50% or more of the options.  Lies of omission are still lies Richius.  If I were ever a divorce court judge and discovered such a shenanigan in one spouse's financial dealings, I'd assign the options to the other spouse's share of the property at that 1¢ valuation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So Richius, at least for South Carolina, it seems that you are advocating people pay 50% more property tax so that if they get sued, they can lie to the court about owning the property and hope they don't get caught.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

You just don't understand it.  If property tax is an issue, then own it in your own name, or in states where joint ownership is mandatory, in a LLC but disclose you own it and live in the house.

Always register a lien from another LLC you own against the property.

You're the one that isn't getting it.  Assuming you do not lie about your ownership of the LLC with the lien, then all you have accomplished is having the spouse in a divorce than ends with equal division of assets owning half of the LLC with the lien, and you aren't any better off than before going to the expense of setting up and maintaining that LLC.  The only way your strategy can possibly benefit a person who goes to this effort is if they lie, even it is merely a lie of omission which can still get you sent to jail for committing perjury.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I oppose marriages at all

[Хahar 🤔]

I oppose marriages at all

Why?

[Richard]

A corporation is by its nature a public entity.

No.  You are wrong.  Please substantiate your point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ad Hominem attack; please refrain.

I do not advocate committing fraud.  Maybe you interpreted it that way, in which case I tell you now you did not read it correctly and you should reread it again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Straw man argument; how does a private corporation whose shareholders are not public knowledge fail to secure property rights?  And what does have to do with the topic at hand?  Please stay on topic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you wish.  Save the Children LLC owns the house.  Save the Children LLC is 100% owned by a Panama trust with you as the sole beneficiary and you as the trustee.  There.  Now it is 100% lawsuit and divorce court proof because you don't own anything (trusts are now owned).

You are debating semantics instead of the actual issue at hand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The options are not issued until another shareholder is forced into the holdings.  Dude.  Seriously.  This is not rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't assign what isn't issued.  You don't get it, do you?

[Richard]

So Richius, at least for South Carolina, it seems that you are advocating people pay 50% more property tax so that if they get sued, they can lie to the court about owning the property and hope they don't get caught.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

You just don't understand it.  If property tax is an issue, then own it in your own name, or in states where joint ownership is mandatory, in a LLC but disclose you own it and live in the house.

Always register a lien from another LLC you own against the property.

You're the one that isn't getting it.  Assuming you do not lie about your ownership of the LLC with the lien, then all you have accomplished is having the spouse in a divorce than ends with equal division of assets owning half of the LLC with the lien, and you aren't any better off than before going to the expense of setting up and maintaining that LLC.  The only way your strategy can possibly benefit a person who goes to this effort is if they lie, even it is merely a lie of omission which can still get you sent to jail for committing perjury.

Incorrect.  Just because you don't understand what you are talking about does not mean it is impossible.  Please see the trust setup mentioned above.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A corporation is by its nature a public entity.

No.  You are wrong.  Please substantiate your point.

Corporations were established under government aegis to enable financial activities that individual persons either could not achieve or were unable to undertake due to the risk involved.  Without the power of government backing them, corporations could not exist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ad Hominem attack; please refrain.

I do not advocate committing fraud.  Maybe you interpreted it that way, in which case I tell you now you did not read it correctly and you should reread it again.

How else should I interpret a deliberate effort to obfuscate control of assets so as to avoid paying the obligations one would otherwise incur in a lawsuit as anything but fraud?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Straw man argument; how does a private corporation whose shareholders are not public knowledge fail to secure property rights?  And what does have to do with the topic at hand?  Please stay on topic.

Without government recognition there is no means to enforce property rights.  Why should the shareholders be able to disclose their share ownership only at the times it is beneficial for them to do so? An adverse decision in a lawsuit creates a right to property for the successful plaintiff. Public knowledge of shareholdings enables those plaintiffs to have their rights enforced more easily.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you wish.  Save the Children LLC owns the house.  Save the Children LLC is 100% owned by a Panama trust with you as the sole beneficiary and you as the trustee.  There.  Now it is 100% lawsuit and divorce court proof because you don't own anything (trusts are now owned).

You are debating semantics instead of the actual issue at hand.

The fact that you are a trust beneficiary is an asset, so under an equal 50% division of property, the spouse should gain half the beneficial value of that trust.  So adding the layer of the trust does not result in any shielding of assets unless one lies to the court about being the beneficiary and/or the value of the benefit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The options are not issued until another shareholder is forced into the holdings.  Dude.  Seriously.  This is not rocket science.

An equitable divorce settlement should provide, in addition to you turning over to the spouse half of the existing shares, that any additional shares of this LLC, when issued to you, are split evenly with the spouse upon issuance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't assign what isn't issued.  You don't get it, do you?

But a court can set an order for what happens when they are issued, in this case one that you are required to hand over half of the shares you receive to your spouse.  That potential issue is an asset, the same as any other.  You seem to be overlooking that the primary purpose of courts of equity is indeed, equity.

Your shenanigans seem to be based on hoping your spouse hires an incompetent attorney and/or you being evasive or untruthful when required to make a listing of your assets.

Wouldn't it be simpler and far less risky to simply hire a competent attorney to draw up a prenuptial agreement for you and the spouse to sign before the wedding?