How to have a successful marriage in 2015 in the USA

[guru1000]

Good response Pairs. Let's delve into this a little deeper, as I think it is a solid discussion. For those who do not get married, well, that's a concrete solution. But what about to those who choose to get married or those who live in community property states/regions: Should we ignore ways to mitigate the financial liability of a divorce/living arrangement?

Maybe Brad with divorce experience and Dasein with corporate experience can also chime in.

Let's say we were to open up a SPOT irrevocable trust as follows:

1. Place all assets into this trust pre-marriage;
   
2. Act as trustee and name a family member as beneficiary, holding the "power of appointment" to transfer beneficiary or trustee to a third party at any moment;
   
3. Include a trust clause stating that under moments of duress, trustee and "power of appointment" powers are automatically transferred to an off-shore trustee (name a trustee in the documents who has no allegiance to the U.S. and thus need not follow US judge's order in case a Judge attempts to pierce the trust)

During the marriage, the trust conducts business of buying, renting, selling real-estate; stock investing; business buying, operating, and selling, etc. All deeds to properties and liquid assets are held in the trust name. The trust files a separate tax return and operates independently from the trustee. The Trust rents the primary residence to the trustee for a nominal amount, let's say $1,000 a month, and the trustee pays this monthly rent. The trust owns all vehicles, and allows trustee use of these vehicles to perform his role as trustee. The trustee is given a nominal salary for incidentals.

The trust during the marriage appreciates 1000%. The trustee has no personal assets with only a nominal salary paid by the trust. Now here comes wifee filing for a divorce. Under this moment of "duress," all trustee powers are automatically transferred to an offshore trustee.

The wife attempts to file for income imputation, but the husband now has no job, no salary, no assets, no credit liabilities to work from. The wife claims fraudulent transfer or conveyance of the trustee rights, but such a claim cannot hold as husband transferred nothing of his own accord; the trust documents pre-marriage already delineated what would occur under moments of trustee duress. Even in the tiny probability the wife had a great attorney who successfully argued the "alter-ego" doctrine with relation to the trust/husband's relationship (which would be a labyrinthine motion to navigate and win), the trustee is offshore and will not cooperate to relinquish any trust assets irrespective of US judge's orders.

In the above-scenario, how could the wife secure anything from the husband?

Granted, salary-wise, the above would work only with a self-employed husband, not saddled by a third-party W2, garnishable salary. But assets are nonetheless protected. Any arguments to the contrary?

 

[Tenacity]

Guru,

I don't know about that? The Attorney might argue for a repatriation order which would have the husband firing the foreign trustees, appointing U.S. ones, and then bringing the assets back under potential seizure. And if the husband refuses, he could be held in contempt of court and put in jail.

But I'm not an Attorney, so someone more familiar with Commercial Law would have to chime in here, but that's what I have pretty much heard from the likes of Jay Adkisson which deals primarily in the Asset Protection arena.

Here's some of his resources on coverage of cases involving Offshore Trusts: http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=8

The mantra is that if you have money offshore and you are still here onshore, you might need to run offshore with your money to protect both. But again, I'm not an Attorney in Commercial Law.

 

[Tenacity]

Lexington,

So the benefits directly from marriage that you listed are as follows:

- Fitting into Elite circles such as running for Politics and networking yourself into wealthy familial networks.

- It's better to raise children within a quality marriage than outside of one

- There are tax benefits that come with marriage

Okay, here's my additional questions/comments:

1.) The Elite circle situation applies to less than 1% of the Men in the market, so 99% of the Men in the market do not have to worry about the Elite Circle exclusion because they aren't even going to be near the Elite Circle anyway. The Elite Class are those pulling at least $350,000 a year and over 99% of Men are not there and will never get there. The Higher Class are those pulling $100k a year and that's the Top 5%, which means 95% of Men aren't there. The Middle Class are those pulling at least $50k a year in a low COL, and 85% of Men aren't there. So if a guy should at least be Middle Class to get married, that's only 15% of the Male population we are even talking about to begin with. In terms of guys running for office, what's that, about 0.01% of the guys in the market lol?

2.) I told Hit Hard, that the real way to receive more government tax benefits is to open a business, where you would be taking personal expenses and converting them into business expenses, allowing you to have more deductions. You don't have to get married to get more tax deductions, credits and exemptions, all you need to do is open a home based business. The tax incentives from opening a business far outweigh those from being married.

3.) Studies are showing that two parents in a child's life and stable home does lead to an increased productivity in the child and the child's ultimate standing as they grow into an Adult. But studies also show that having two caring and loving parents period (in combination with an in tact family "community") also yield about the same results as well. Basically if a child has a productive Father and Mother, knows both of them and has a great relationship with both of them, the child still grows into a productive citizen in spite of the Father and Mother being either separated or never married. The children have issues when they are raised primarily by a Single Mother with little-to-no Father involvement, that's when the issues come in and all studies show this.

I am engaging in much bigger risks right now. I'm starting a business. If my business succeeds, I stand to make millions. If it fails, I will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But see you have clearly pinpointed with this example a Risk and Reward situation. You have invested over $100k into a business because the potential is to make over $2 million, which is a $1.9 million return at least (I know you said a return of millions and the investment in the hundreds of thousands, but I simplified it down for this comment). If someone asks you why are you investing $100k in this business, you can clearly tell them it's to potentially make $1.9 million before taxes.

I still don't know what I am specifically looking to gain by investing in a marriage, considering the potential to lose 10% of my assets on the very low end?

The honest truth is there are no additional benefits, guys are getting married because they are socially pushed into it.

 

[AntaraNarang]

Nvm Airport Car Pick Up

Marriage??? lol..

 

[guru1000]

Guru,
I don't know about that? The Attorney might argue for a repatriation order which would have the husband firing the foreign trustees, appointing U.S. ones, and then bringing the assets back under potential seizure. And if the husband refuses, he could be held in contempt of court and put in jail.

Here's some of his resources on coverage of cases involving Offshore Trusts: http://www.assetprotectionbook.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=8

Tenacity, I read all the case law in your link. The distinction here is that in all the cases the participants were either committing fraud or created the trust immediately prior to creditor/bankruptcy proceedings to hide assets. This is known as fraudulent transfer(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3304). Accordingly, the judges in criminal proceedings have expansive power, including incarceration. Here, the trust is structured before the marriage, so no fraudulent transfer can be committed. The trust engages in legal activities, thus not subject to criminal culpability on part of the ex-trustee.

Further, a judge could not put forward a repatriation order which would have the husband firing the foreign trustees, as the husband automatically relinquished his trustee rights and “power of appointment” at moment of divorce, “the “duress” clause, thus having absolutely no power to hire, fire, or change trustees. The trust is 100% completely out of his hands/control.

I'd be interested if you can find the incarceration of the husband/ex-trustee in a non-criminal, or non-fraudulent transfer, trust matter.

The problem with any attempted legal solution is that extremist activist judges can overturn most anything it seems. You could have an ironclad concrete legal standing but that goes out the window if the judge gets white-knight syndrome.

Exactly and that’s the beauty of this trust with “duress” provision: We expect a rebellious judge to attempt to pierce the trust. However, the trust is no longer in direct or incidental control of the husband as all trustee and “power of appointment” powers were automatically transferred to an offshore trustee not subject to US laws. Outside of any criminal prosecution demonstrating fraudulent transfer/bankruptcy or other types of fraud by the husband, the judge is powerless, by law, to pierce a third-party managed trust.

I doubt there's much, if any, case law for the above. And if a case like this did manage to work its way up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have a very difficult time allowing the piercing of a third-party trustee trust as that would desecrate the sanctity of trusts entirely causing a nationwide panic/liquidation of asset-protection trusts, thus abrogating public policy.

 

[guru1000]

The honest truth is there are no additional benefits, guys are getting married because they are socially pushed into it.

The monetary advantage would be if allegiance to the wife and her family would open doors or opportunities to you--or if the wife has greater financial resources than you.

If you're dealing with an impoverished wife or proletariat, and you are of abundant financial resources, then a marriage-contract serves no purpose, and if such a proletariat woman were not secure with remaining unmarried while having a relationship/family, then she was out for your money, not love, irrespectively.

 

[G_Govan]

The honest truth is there are no additional benefits, guys are getting married because they are socially pushed into it.

Exactly, this quote is very telling:

While it's true that one can have children without getting married, a lot of quality women won't accept this deal.

Therein lies the truth. "Fear."

Look at the sheer mountain of effort detailed in this thread that's required to minimize your losses in case of divorce.

I find that modern women will do either one or both to get their hooks into you.

Have kids and/or get married.

They don't do this out of some sense of moral justice or concern for the family, they look at it as an insurance policy. Why do you think "No Fault Divorce" was legislated?

Men just keep lining up and getting their asses handed to them.

I've witnessed the relationships of close friends who are married and have been for many years. Let's just say I don't envy them even a little bit. Their women control EVERYTHING. They'll tell you different if you ask them so seeing is believing.

 

[Tenacity]

I'd be interested if you can find the incarceration of the husband/ex-trustee in a non-criminal, or non-fraudulent transfer, trust matter.

I grabbed the prior links in a haste, but I can do some digging. I think the question that might be more relevant is can you provide links to cases where this type of asset protection situation played out?

I have seen this type of asset protection technique sold by the "asset protection planners" and I just don't think it's going to hold up at the end of the day. I mean the guy is here on US soil and I just don't see how in these serious cases, he's going to end up getting out of eventually cracking the technique he has established.

But I'm not an Attorney for sure, so I'm not all that familiar with how Trust cases go, but I do know that these asset protection planners sell this type of procedure as a "end-all" of asset protection, but I just don't buy it at the end of the day.

Sort of how the Nevada LLC used to be the "end-all" of asset protection because of the "bearer shares" situation lol. If you are outside of the State of Nevada but incorporated in Nevada, all you are doing is subjecting yourself to additional state fees.

 

[zoooz]

Nvm

You're an ass hole.

 

[Colossus]

I formally retired from Sosuave, but I poke in every few months to see what's changed.

Not much.

You guys want to mitigate any and all risk before you get married, and you cant. It's not possible, never has been, and never will be.

Furthermore, I think a lot of guys here don't realize that simply not getting married does not absolve them of certain headaches that are common to ALL relationships regardless of a formal commitment. Even litigation and child custody issues happen outside of marital relationships. I think the risks are overstated here.

That said, I am now happily married. I think there are some very clear and lasting benefits to marriage....but with many, many caveats.

First of all, the #1 rule of game---ONLY PURSUE HIGH INTEREST!!!

-After you master that, you have to choose well. That's the subject of many other threads going back for years, but in a nutshell she should have zero or very close to zero past partners, an intact family and a good relationship with her father, blah blah blah it's been covered here ad nauseum.

-Wait till after you hit 30 and have lots of experience. Marry a younger girl, but not so young she's an idiot.

-Even with game, experience, and luck, you still have to work at cultivating and maintaining your marriage. It's much like a garden. Start with good seed, good soil, and care for it every day. Don't micromanage it, but spend time with it and get a feel for it's needs, problems, potential pests, and seasons.

-Always maintain and improve yourself as a matter of priority, and insist your woman does the same. You'll have down seasons, but your life should show an upward trend of self-betterment.

-Flirt with other women, within respectful bounds. But be careful....sex gets boring after a while with the same gal. Let your flirting go too far and you might find yourself tempted beyond your constitution.

-Strive to be a little bit "better" than your wife; not in an arrogant way but in the sense that she really has a prize in you. She will look up to you and that's what you want. This goes back to proper selection as well---don't try to date up.

-Be kind to her but don't tolerate bratty BS.

-Be protective of who she hangs out with and what influences her. Not controlling, but steer her in the right direction.

-There's a zillion "donts" of course, but we could fill a thousand pages with that.


I'm still a newly married guy and I definitely don't have all the answers. But I have a lot of experience in dating, game, and picking the wrong hoes!! When you find the "right" chick all your failures and horror stories start to make more sense.

Ultimately all marriage is is a higher level of commitment. You are basically saying to each other, "hey, we're in this together and our actions affect each other. We cant treat each other like sh!t and we need to take care of each other." It's a daily commitment though. Either party can renege whenever they choose, and that's just life. But you don't get the same commitment just dating a chick forever. Nothing wrong with that at all, just a different mindset.