Dilema

Forums: Relationships
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As some may have seen in another thread I'm dying to buy a house up in cload forest outside Cali but my dilema is this: I've been married for only a year and there have been "rough spots". Colombian divorce law is very cut and dried. In case of divorce the couple splits half and half anything purchased following the marriage if there was no pre-nuptial agreement. In fact the house I lust after is being sold by a divorcing couple. I am told you can sign a post-nuptial agreement dividing everything acquired to date with any future purchases by either party not figuring in to any future divorce. My wife was stunned when I proposed our signing such an agreement prior to buying the house thinking I don't trust her and am protecting myself for a planned future split. Fair enough and I have no reason from her behavior over the last year to suspect her of duplicity or capriciousness but what if she decides to divorce me in a couple of years for whatever reason? With out the "post-nup" I will be out half of a goodly chunk of many years savings. Even a good lawyer can't change that here. Que sera sera? It is true that there are differences between North American and South American culture, divorce is way less common here except among the upper classes and I am thinking like a typical gringo but... but...

Stumped

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,319 • Replies: 24

No top replies

Ain't love grand? Mr. Green

You are such a romantic, you devil you. Laughing

Seriously, I wouldn't buy that house unless your wife agrees to sign a post nup agreement. I think it's most important that you look out for your own best interest first and foremost. If she won't sign a post nup, I wouldn't buy the house without getting a divorce first or stay married and don't buy the house.

0 Replies

Which do you want more, the marriage or the house? Sounds to me like your wife's made it pretty clear that a post-nup is out (if I were her, I'd be pretty p. o.'d, too), so either give up the house dream or the marriage dream.

Ouch. Yeah, I know. But since protecting your assets in the event of a possible divorce is so important to you, you're boxed into this corner. If you can see your way past that, then you can have the marriage and the house, too. Would you still get divorced in the future? Who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe not until after the house is lived in and sold. The future's, to quote Doris Day, not ours to see.

0 Replies

I agree with jespah. Sounds like you're more interested in the house than your marriage.

I'd be very insulted if my husband ever suggested a post-nup. Husbands and wives are supposed to be partners. A post-nup would mean he's planning for when the marriage ends, so I would have serious doubts about his commitment to me.

And by the way, ALL marriages go through rough spots, ESPECIALLY during the first year. Establishing priorities sounds easy enough, but isn't in practice.

0 Replies

You should have got her that soft drink, my man. Sorry to say it, but I think you are off-base here, and I don't blame your wife for being insulted. If, as you say, you have no reason for not trusting her, then I don't see the need for a post-nup. It's still early days for you two. Let it ride a bit before planning the divorce. Good luck!

0 Replies

Ok points taken. Appreciate the input. I don't want a divorce. As to wanting the house more than my marriage I see "lusting after" was a poor choice of words.

0 Replies

errr, I'll take the other side of this.

What you bring into a marriage should be what you take back out. That is a truly non-romantic view, but I am on the far side of not romantic.

Soooooo, if the money you brought in pays for the house entirely, I'd go for making it clear that it is yours - or keep the money. Seeing the way things have gone lately, I'd be hanging onto the money for a while longer.
And the pop/soda thing? She wanted it - she could have picked it up when she got her meal. (I know, not very romantic)

0 Replies

Pitter, if I may offer a suggestion here, women want to be seduced into an idea, not blocked by it via pre or post-nups. Don't get divorced, just learn how to woo your new wife! Stop overthinking everything, just listen and observe, and respond in an adult manner. Believe me, I talk from experience.

0 Replies

Part of the problem may be the age difference, adding to the cultural factor. A lot to work through.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

errr, I'll take the other side of this.

What you bring into a marriage should be what you take back out. That is a truly non-romantic view, but I am on the far side of not romantic.

Soooooo, if the money you brought in pays for the house entirely, I'd go for making it clear that it is yours - or keep the money. Seeing the way things have gone lately, I'd be hanging onto the money for a while longer.
And the pop/soda thing? She wanted it - she could have picked it up when she got her meal. (I know, not very romantic)

Erm, yes, perhaps, I share your views here, but extremism is not the answer to this problem. I do agree about that what you bring into a marriage is what you take out.

0 Replies

What you bring into a marriage is what you take out? That depends. For short marriages, maybe.

I've been married for 20 years. We have joint accounts, and both of our names are on everything. It would be impossible to trace whose money paid for what. It's all "ours."

And what about households with only one income? The unemployed partner often contributes greatly to the household. Wouldn't you value that?

0 Replies

I have mixed feelings. Pitter is older and these are long time savings. I have no clue what portion of the long time savings would go to the house, but it the marriage doesn't last long, losing half the savings put into the house would be a blow on top of a blow.
And yet you don't want protective measures to cause the blow..

I am unsure about the concept of mingling funds. In the US if one person gets some money in some way, perhaps inheritance, and uses the money from that account to pay for something in both names, then they are mingled, isn't that true? (Not sure, think it is that way in California).

Pitter, if you divorced this minute, would the funds still be yours, as long as they weren't in a household account?

I see the concern, especially as I seem to remember she is not quite as keen on the house, or that might just have been about the driving situation; it is a weekend house, isn't it?

On the other hand, I agree with all the posts about marriage being a partnership and a matter of US and OURS not me and me.

On the other hand again, I had a marriage like that, and the partnership part broke down when it was his turn to pay the mortgage while I tried to make a go of it in an artistic field... And not even every basically good marriage works out... it continues to take two to keep it going.

I also agree that the one who stays home is not less of a partner - in funds now earned.

0 Replies

Ossobuco thanks for your insightfull response. Yes if I divorced right now the funds for the house would remain mine since they are savings from before the marriage. You're right about not being keen on the house or the location initially and that's something else. to worry about However with plans to renovate to her taste enthusiasm has increased. It would be our only residence.

0 Replies

Eva wrote:

What you bring into a marriage is what you take out? That depends. For short marriages, maybe.

I've been married for 20 years. We have joint accounts, and both of our names are on everything. It would be impossible to trace whose money paid for what. It's all "ours."

And what about households with only one income? The unemployed partner often contributes greatly to the household. Wouldn't you value that?

Just a big yup, Eva.

0 Replies

doglover wrote:

Seriously, I wouldn't buy that house unless your wife agrees to sign a post nup agreement. I think it's most important that you look out for your own best interest first and foremost. If she won't sign a post nup, I wouldn't buy the house without getting a divorce first or stay married and don't buy the house.

Firstly being married is not about looking out for your own interests. And if you were at these early stages of your marriage, i would be pretty damned annoyed at you if you were my husband.

Why dont you trust your wife? do you think that in a couple of years she would be leaving you?

I agree choose the house or the wife.

It sounds to me like you are a pretty insensitive jerk of a husband to not have faith in your marriage beyond two years.

Is it common for americans to value marriage as so little? Do you guys see it as another progression of dating, if it doesnt work out i can ditch the wife and get another... and another... and another...

I dont think the issue has anything to do with the house. I think this is about your selfishness. How much do you love your wife?

My partner and I share everything... and we are not even married. Our income is jointly shared and spent evenly between us irrespective of who is the greater income earner.

I think you basically have to stop being a such a selfish dick and respect your wife and marriage a little more.

If my partner made me sign a pre-nup or post-nup he wouldn't have a wife.

So, all in all, do you want the house or a marriage?

0 Replies

tigerprincess81 wrote:

....

Is it common for americans to value marriage as so little? ...?

Pitter's not an American, far as I'm aware.

0 Replies

I think Pitter is American, now lives in Colombia, is quite a lot older than his new wife, wants very much for the marriage to work, but is not sure it will. I think he is being realistic in his concern. If you have worked for your whole life and have gotten x savings and not all that many years remain to earn more, the potential loss of half the value of the house is something to think about if the first year of the marriage to a person of a different age and culture is rocky.

I don't think he is a jerk to think about it. I kind of wish he hadn't mentioned it to her yet, though.

0 Replies

I thought the same thing, osso. I don't think they're ready for house-buying just yet.

0 Replies

tigerprincess81 wrote:

Is it common for americans to value marriage as so little? Do you guys see it as another progression of dating, if it doesnt work out i can ditch the wife and get another... and another... and another...

A look at the divorce statistics answers this question.

0 Replies

Ossobuco thank you again. Yes the facts are as you say. I am an American retired, living in Colombia and married to a Colombian much younger than myself (almost thirty so not that young). I continue to have 'lose my shirt' fear attacks periodicly as I gradually move the money down here for the house but I've pretty much resolved to go ahead with out an agreement and take my chances. For the more critical above I should point out that a Colombian man in my shoes (man with life savings, woman with none) wouldn't consider making an unprotected purchase of this kind for one second. He would insist on an agreement or put the house in his brothers name etc. Trust here there ain't! So that's your cultural difference.

0 Replies

Dilema

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know