USA Marriage Contracts - Please help!

[Green_Gem]

Could someone please explain to me how marriage contracts work in the USA with regard to assets and debts accrued during a marriage. Basically we have marriage contracts here, as follows:

In Community of Property, where everything amassed during the marriage (assets and debts) is owned by both parties. In the event of a split, irrespective of whoever ran up the debts, both parties are 50% liable for payment, and assets belonging to either party before the marriage may be seized to pay for the debts.

There is a Nuptial contract with the accrual system - whereby each party retains what he/she owned prior to the marriage, and all assets that accrue during the marriage are split down the middle in the case of divorce. Personal gifts of jewellery, the gift of a house ( if it’s specifically bought, say for the wife and placed in her name) and personal inheritances are excluded from what is ‘accrued’ during the marriage. But the big thing with this marriage contract is that each person retains their own debt and is responsible for paying it. The other person cannot be held liable for payment in the event of a split.

Finally there is the Nuptial contract, without the accrual system, which literally means each person ‘owns’ what s/he brought into the marriage and what s/he earns/buys/inherits during the marriage (aside from specified gifts which the parties might exchange). Again this means each is responsible for their own debts.

I’m basically wanting to know, if there is a type of marriage contract, which could disadvantage one partner ( say the wife) with regard to being left saddled with a large amount of debt accrued by either one or both parties during the marriage. And no, I haven’t been proposed to yet, by an American… I’m just writing a story and want to be accurate.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Green_Gem

 

[sweetnpetite]

It varied depending on the state.

 

[Weird Harold]

I’m basically wanting to know, if there is a type of marriage contract, which could disadvantage one partner ( say the wife) with regard to being left saddled with a large amount of debt accrued by either one or both parties during the marriage.

As SnP says, the default property disposition in a divorce varies from State to State here.

To add to the confusion, the Judge who grants the divorce decree can make all sorts of odd stipulations within the broad outlines of of the default rules -- depending on the specifics of each case -- which could inlcude assigning all joint debts to one spouse or the other.

Pre-nuptual agreeements can stipulate almost anything both parties are willing to agree to, but they're not actually "marriage contracts" as such.

A naive bride anxious to marry and trusting of the cad she's marrying, might sign a pr-nuptual agrement without reading it and find all sorts of punitive clauses in it when she files for divorce.

I think the solution to your needed plot device is a "pre-nuptual agreement" that was dismissd as "If you insist, but it's not necessary; we'll never get divorced" and signed without being read.

 

[sweetnpetite]

In Michigan, this is what I have seen happen.

Debts accrued (?) during the marriage are supposedly the responsibility of both parties. However, women usually keep the house so they have the same address, same phone number that the man had when he got into debt, and gave out to his debtors.

The man moves away and slips under the radar. The creditors call and harrass the exwife, telling her that they are both responsible for the debt. (Read, we can't get ahold of/ intimidate him so we're going after you.)

It's a real f**ing pain in the ass. I suppose that if the guy stayed in the house he might have the same problem. All I know is that debt collectors can be really nasty if need be and they are more than willing.

I'm not sure of the legality- but it's often the case that whoever can be bullied into taking responsibily will shoulder the *whole* of the debt, and not just the *half* that they theoretically should be accountable for.

Now this may or may not be how the law is written, but it's how it really happens. Hope that helps some.

 

[Green_Gem]

SnP and Weird Harold,

Thanks, wow, you've both given explanations that make it easy for me to credibly incorporate the fact that this woman gets caught up with the debt, left by a husband. Much appreciated, and I might add, interesting to see how the other half lives. I always forget that things will, and do differ from State to State in the USA It 's really quite unique in that regard.

Thanks again,

Green_Gem

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Keep in mind, that in many states the judges for family court are elected officals. This county has two judges in family court. My roomate grew up living next to one and went to school with th the other. In many cases the judges here have to recuse themselves and a lot of our family court cases have to be moved to Rockland because the judges know one or both parties personally. An unethical judge, however, might sit on a case wehre he knows one party and totally screw over the other, especially in cases where one can afford a lawyer and the other cannot.

Just another possible twist if ya like.

-Colly

 

[cloudy]

Or, there's always the case like it is in the county that I live in: the husband's lawyer is also a county judge.

Been there, done that, have the scars.

 

[R. Richard]

One final thing.

In the USA title to real property is part of a sales contract. Real property may be deeded to either of husband or wife, or as joint tenants or as tenants in common. Each type of deeding has implications during a divorce. The issue is too complicated to explain here. However, you can probably Google some info from the 'Net.