Divorce: Private properties and assets I know nothing about law (or economics) and have recently tried to understand (personal curiosity, not a homework) the basic laws concerning the separation of goods in case of divorce. Scenario Alice and Bob got married. Bob had absolutely no private property before the wedding and Alice has a private property of P dollars from her parents before the marriage. During the first 15 years of their marriage, Bob and Alice worked hard and in between both of their income (and eventually the income from Alice's private properties), they manage to spare some money. With it this money, they bought together (under both of their names) an apartment for y dollars. After buying this apartment Alice and Bob felt like they have enough goods and money to stop producing wealth. They diminish their income and increase their expenditure. In 5 years, they consumed the extra money they managed to spare together plus a ratio r of the private property P. As a consequence, at the term of these 5 years, Alice and Bob only have (1-r)P dollars and an apartment worth y dollars (assuming no loss/increase of value through time) left. Question Bob and Alice decide together to divorce! Who gets what? Does the answer to this first question depends on whether Bob and Alice's acquests were equal or higher than the value of the appartment (y) or not? Simplifying assumptions We will assume for simplicity that y &gt; rP so that y + (1-r)P &gt; P. In words, in between the appartment and what is left from Alice's private properties exceeds Alice's private properties before the wedding. We will also assume Alice and Bob are both residents of Canada! My thoughts I can think of two ways things may go. First possibility Alice must receive the private properties she had before the marriage plus half the acquests. Alice gets P + (y-rP)/2 Bob gets (y-rP)/2 Second possibility Alice gets back whatever is left from her private properties plus half of the appartment. Alice gets (1-r)P + y/2 Bob gets y/2
This depends entirely on which law applies to the divorce. For example, if this happens under Australian law then it falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court (a Federal court as the Commonwealth has power over marriage, not the states). They say: You can agree and not involve the court. If you agree you can, but are not required to, have the court formalise the arrangement. If you cannot agree, then you can apply to the court for financial orders. In general, the court is happy to allow couples to agree on whatever they want - for your example this extends from &quot;Bob gets everything&quot; to &quot;Alice gets everything&quot; and anything in between those extremes. If the parties don't agree (which is the most common situation) then the court will hear the evidence and make a decision: There is no formula used to divide your property. No one can tell you exactly what orders a judicial officer will make. The decision is made after all the evidence is heard and the judicial officer decides what is just and equitable based on the unique facts of your case. Factors the court is required to consider are: working out what you've got and what you owe, that is your assets and debts and what they are worth looking at the direct financial contributions by each party to the marriage or de facto relationship such as wage and salary earnings looking at indirect financial contributions by each party such as gifts and inheritances from families looking at the non-financial contributions to the marriage or de facto relationship such as caring for children and homemaking, and future requirements – a court will take into account things like age, health, financial resources, care of children and ability to earn. So, for your example, the answer to how property will be divided up is: Nobody knows until it is agreed or the court rules on it.
Applicable Law A marital agreement can be entered into both before marriage (a prenup) and after marriage (a postnup). And, it will have the same legal effect in either case once entered into by the parties. In practice, marital agreements are usually proposed by a more affluent spouse and are reviewed by a less affluent spouse who will be giving up many of the legal economic rights usually associated with being married because the alternative is to not get married at all and the less affluent spouse thinks that marriage is still worth it even with fewer economic rights. The governing principle of marital agreements is that they must be entered into with the highest level of voluntariness, good faith, and full disclosure. Typically, a prenup with (1) limit the rights of the less affluent spouse in a property division upon divorce, (2) limit the less affluent spouse's inheritance rights, (3) limit the less affluent spouse's right to maintenance (a.k.a. alimony) upon divorce or legal separation, and (4) limit the less affluent spouse's rights to attorneys' fees in the event of a divorce. Often, these limitations are phased in superficially more equal terms, but the agreement only has a practical affect limiting a spouse's legal economic rights in marriage on the less affluent spouse, when it is recognized that one spouse is starting out affluent and the other spouse is starting out less affluent. The question states that: "I have kids so I want to protect them." So, determining precisely what you want to protect your kids from and how, in a manner that your spouse, courts evaluating the agreement in the future, and immigration officials, would consider to be legitimate, would be critical. You should know what impact a death or divorce would have during a short lived marriage for someone in your shoes because you start trying to change the rules, because you might be surprised to learn that the status quo is less unfair than you believe it to be. For example, in many states, property owned by one party before the marriage was commenced is not subject to division as marital property upon divorce and often the right to alimony following a short marriage that does not produce children is quite modest. Also, if you are extremely worried about the possibility that your new marriage could fail and that this would force you to make economic sacrifices that you do not think would be acceptable under the status quo in the absence of a prenup, you might want to think twice about whether getting marriage in the way that you are planning to get marriage is really a good idea. Excessive worries about a break up that is damaging to you may be your subconscious's way of telling you that you have grave concerns about this marriage that could be deal breaking, as well as your outward positive hopes and dreams that may be unrealistic. You had a relationship or marriage that failed once. You may be ready for a more successful relationship now, but you need to be comfortable that the circumstances that caused your previous marriage to fail are unlikely to recur. No prenup will ever make a divorce easy or painless, although it can bring some predictability to the process, if a prenup is well drafted and reasonable. Typically, to prepare a valid marital agreement: it must be in writing; it will contain no invalid terms (e.g., in most cases, terms relating to child support or parental responsibilities, or terms that make marital fault relevant to the economic rights of the parties); both parties will have reviewed a complete disclosure of the other party's financial circumstances; each party will have had an opportunity to consult with a lawyer familiar this these agreements (at the other party's expense if the person agreeing to it can not afford a lawyer of their own); each party will review the terms of the agreement in a language that they can understand, and the circumstances under which the agreement is signed will not be under duress broadly defined (for example, to include presentation of the agreement on the eve of the wedding day without adequate time to consider its terms without undue negative consequences if the spouse does not agree). Typically, the lawyer for each party would sign the agreement to confirm that all formal requirements and counsel regarding the agreement has taken place. A marital agreement that doesn't meet the applicable legal standards (which vary state to state). I have cited the law in Colorado which requires parties to follow what would only be considered "best practices" in many other states, although there would be plenty of states where these legal standards would apply. A marital agreement is still not valid if it is unconscionable to a spouse at the time it is to be enforced, for example, leaving one spouse unable to meet her basic needs and the other spouse wealthy after a long marriage. There is no requirement that a prenup be signed in any particular country or place, so long as the person signing it understands that their signature is intended to be binding. There is no requirement that a prenup be signed by both spouses at the same time, as long as both spouses sign it before it is to become effective. Realistically, as of 2017 in an average cost of living U.S. area, you are probably looking a legal expenses and related expenses involved in making a prenup happen given the need for Chinese speaking legal professionals and logistical issues, at an expense of $7,500 to $15,000 or more to get a prenup done under this circumstances. You would need to decide if this expense was worth the benefit to you. Options It could be signed by your spouse while your spouse to be is in China, if the proper formalities are observed. In terms of the enforceability of the agreement, and the likelihood that it will be executed, this is probably the best option. But, as a practical matter this may be difficult to accomplish this because lawyers knowledgeable about U.S. law who can communicate in the spouse's topolect of Chinese may be hard to find, and Chinese attitudes towards prenups may be different from those of people in the U.S. Negotiating a prenup in the face of a quite new relationship that often doesn't have a lot of depth at the start and is based upon mutual hope and a belief that the couple has shared interests as much as an actual long term relationship prior to getting engaged (which is common in marriages of the kind described in this question) can present a difficult challenge for the couple as they develop a marriage relationship very early on in their process when they don't have a lot of communication and relationship foundation to build upon. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Suppose that you've known your girlfriend continuously since she was 14 years old and she is now 24 (you are 25) and both of you are fluently bilingual, because you grew up next to an embassy and she was the daughter of an embassy official and you went to prom together, and then the two of you went to college and graduate school together living together for five of those years. Suppose that she is from a wealthy family and needs the pre-nup to protect her family's wealth, and you are not very affluent despite being the U.S. spouse. Suppose that she's was a paralegal in a family law firm that draws up prenups when she was in college before moving back to China when she finished her studies, while you are a divorce lawyer, and that the two of you have talked about marital agreements for years. This might not be much of a relationship issue and might not pose the kinds of immigration questions raised below. But, if you fell into one of the exceptions to the general rule, you wouldn't be asking this question in the first place in all likelihood. It is possible to obtain a financee visa which allows a foreign spouse to immigrate to the United States with an intent to marry upon arrival. But, in that situation there would be real doubt about whether a marital agreement signed upon arrival would be truly voluntary because failing to agree to the prenup and not getting marriage as a result would result in the financee's immediate deportation and terminate a wedding that the wife had already moved half way across the world and given up everything to participate in. It is possible to execute a post-nup, but in that case, if it was truly voluntary, the wife probably wouldn't sign it because it would mean that she would be giving up rights that she had already acquired as a result of the marriage for nothing in return, and if it was involuntary, then it wouldn't be valid. (There are circumstances when a post-nup can make sense for a spouse to voluntarily enter into after marriage, for example, to make rich relatives comfortable including a person in their Will or making a large gift to one of the spouses that is intended to stay in the family but will benefit the spouse during the marriage and the couple's children, but the facts in the question don't naturally suggest any of those circumstances.) Immigration Concerns Unlike an ordinary marriage, which is presumed to be valid and in good faith, marriages which afford a spouse the right to immigrate to the U.S. and in due course, to become a U.S. citizen if certain other requirements are met, are carefully scrutinized for signs that it is a "sham marriage" and immigration judges can be quite skeptical in determining whether or not a marriage is a sham. Couples go to great lengths to prove otherwise, and the burden is effectively placed upon them to show that they are not engaged in marriage fraud and instead actually married for love. If a marriage with an immigrant is found to be a sham, the immigrant's visa will be revoked, the immigrant's citizenship application will be denied, and the immigrant may become deportable. There may also be sanctions for the citizen or permanent resident spouse who sponsored the immigrant. One factor among many that can be considered when determining if a marriage is a sham marriage or not is the existence of a prenup or postnup, and even more importantly, its terms. The more unfavorable the terms of the prenup or postnup are to the immigrant spouse, the more likely it is that an immigration official will conclude that a marriage is a sham for immigration purposes. There isn't a hard and fast rule, but it is one factor that is considered among others in reaching that determination. The key factors in evaluating a prenup for immigration purposes are the terms of the agreement. The more the immigrant spouse's legal rights in the marriage are limited, the more likely immigration officials are to view the marriage as a sham and the couple as engaged in marriage fraud. On the other hand, if all a prenup does is to insure that a new spouse and children from a former relationship have equal inheritance rights and no rights upon divorce are modified at all, immigration officials may view the prenup as relatively innocuous. Conclusion There are a lot of good reasons not to get a prenup in the circumstances you identify if most of my hunches about the usual circumstances involved when someone asks a question of the kind that you have are true. Before taking this step, you would be wise to consult with a lawyer to see what the likely economic and legal consequences of a divorce or death in the absence of a prenup would likely be in your case, as I suspect that your fears may be exaggerated or may involve issues that a prenup can't address. It could be that once you are well informed it is still clear to you that a prenup is a good decision. But, given multiple indications that this may not be a good choice for you, I would strongly suggest thinking twice about this decision after conferring with a lawyer about your individualized circumstances before going forward with this plan.
The Constitution said people have the Rights to Properties. No it doesn't. There is no such provision. The closest I am aware of is the so-called &quot;takings clause&quot; in the Fifth Amendment, which reads: Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. There has been a good deal of litigation over just when when a &quot;taking&quot; occurs under this provision. The classic and most obvious case is the use of eminent domain to aquire actual title to the property by a government (Federal, State, or local). This is always a takign, and compensation nis required. The more questionable cases have occurred when some law or regulation leaves the owner with title, but significantly restricts the uses to which the property may be put, particularly when the existing use becomes unlawful. Courts have ruled in different ways in such cases, but I think the current standard is that when a regulation removes all, or almost all, economic value from the property there has been a &quot;regulatory taking&quot; and compensation must be paid. But as far as I know, a tax on the property has never been considered to be a taking inn this sense.
There are only a few areas of law of which I am aware that U.S. law treats people who are engaged to be married differently (although perhaps with more thought I could expand the list). Fiance(e)s come under a special immigration status when applying for a visa. There is a body of law related to whether an engagement ring is an absolute gift or is conditional upon being married (this is not uniform from state to state and I don't recall what the majority rule in those cases is under the common law). In South Carolina, ownership disputes over engagement rings are litigated as breach of promise to marry actions. Pre-marital agreements governing a future marriage can be made by people who are engaged (although a post-nuptial agreement is also equal in effect in most cases). People who are engaged, like spouses, are generally considered to be in a "confidential relationship" with each other which imposes higher duties with respect to fairness in their dealings with each other than strangers, but generally less high duties than fiduciaries. While not strictly arising from the status of being engaged, adult cohabitants are generally agents for service of process of each other at their shared home, and are often considered to have a legally significant relationship for purposes of domestic violence statutes (usually related to either domestic violence crimes or temporary restraining orders). I am not familiar enough with the law of France to fully answer the balance of the question, which someone more familiar with that law can expand upon. But, there is similarly a special immigration status in French law for a fiance(e). And, French law, in a flourish so romantic it could scarcely be any other country's law, also allows people who are engaged a right to marry after one of them has died in certain circumstances: "The legislation that allows posthumous marriages stems back to when a dam burst in 1959 and killed 420 people in southern France." It was most recently invoked in 2014 when a grieving French woman was granted permission by the French President to marry her former fiancé, who tragically died in 2012, just a month before they were due to wed. To be eligible the bride to be had "to convince the President of France that her’s was a special case and that her love for Michael went beyond the grave. It took four letters to the president and 20 months of waiting, desperately hoping for a positive response." The President's discretion in this matter is somewhat similar to the pardon power in U.S. law. This French law was also invoked in 2009. The law in question is set forth at Articles 171 of the French Civil Code. In English translation this states: Article 171 The President of the Republic may, for serious reasons, authorize the celebration of the marriage if one of the future spouses is dead providing a sufficient gathering of facts establishes unequivocally his consent. In this case, the effects of the marriage date back to the day preceding that of the death of the spouse. However, this marriage does not carry with it any right of intestate succession to the benefit of the surviving spouse and no matrimonial regime is considered to have existed between the spouses. I am aware of one documented case where a court entered a post-humous marriage in the United States between people who were engaged, but I am not familiar with any legal authority actually authorizing that action.
You did not specify a country or the specific contracts that might rule your condominium. At least in some jurisdictions indeed the repair cost of private portions cannot be shared. Moreover, you may not be required to pay some costs for common portions if you refuse to do so and won't make use of them. Do I have to sue them to fix this issue? A lengthy law-suit is too costly for me. If I refuse to pay $2k and only pay 1.2k, will I be facing any legal troubles? You will probably manage to continue paying just 1.2k, and have them have to sue you if they want to collect that supposedly owned money from you. However, there might be some requirements about providing notification of your refusal in a certain way or before some time elapses. I would recommend you to consult a local lawyer, it will be well-spent money. Plus, that refusal is actually sent by your lawyer (rather than just telling you how/what to say), should make your &quot;law-understanding neighbor&quot; think twice about going forward with their attempt of having you pay for it.
Not a lawyer, but: In many countries, a purchased item is your property once you removed it from the premises of the seller. In practice, this rarely makes a difference. You have entered a contract with the seller where the seller has to deliver the product, and you have to pay the money, you did your part, they have to do their part. There would be a difference if the item was stolen while in the store, or damaged by fire, or if the store went bankrupt and bailiffs took the item. If these rules apply in your country, then what they did is not theft, otherwise it would be theft (in all countries, if the store removed the door from your home after it is installed, that would be theft). You paid for a door, the store owes you a door. You have a legal contract. Both sides are bound by that legal contract. They have to do what the contract says (delivering the door that was displayed in the store), if they can't, then they have to do the nearest thing that isn't to your disadvantage, like delivering a new door. Or possible a different door that was on display. They can't just declare your contract invalid because it suits them better. That wouldn't be the case if this would put the store at an unacceptable disadvantage. For example, if thieves had broken into the store and stolen ten doors, including yours, the store might get away with returning your money. Since they intentionally sold your door again to someone else, I don't think they could use this as an excuse. I'd go once more to the store and ask them whether they want to deliver a door to you, according to your contract with the store, or if they want you to get a lawyer. A letter from a lawyer might work wonders. (Or of course the lawyer might tell you that I'm completely wrong, but they don't know that, so telling them that you will hire a lawyer might be enough).
Did I lose possession of my goods? That seems unlikely. But enforcing it sounds complicated, at least from the standpoint of substantive law (the Code civil). I am not knowledgeable of French procedural law. The difficulty begins with identifying whether your claim is cognizable as unjust enrichment, or --per your subsequent oral agreement-- breach of contract. You might want to read sections "The French Law of Unjust Enrichment" and "Enrichissement sans Cause" in this post. Please note that the French Civil Code recently underwent significant reforms, whence references of its articles are likely outdated. Here I pointed out one example of statutory renumbering in the Code. In the second link, you will read that originally [...] the action in enrichissement sans cause would not be available to the claimant if he or she had any other cause of action, even if that cause of action was blocked for some reason. [...] [B]ut it is perhaps here that the law has relaxed most in recent cases. Thus, the subtleties of your matter can be decisive for identifying the type of claim that is applicable to your situation. Lastly, according to this treatise (on p.54), "[t]he French legal system does not have the principle of [reasonable] reliance as it exists in the American legal system" (brackets added). That makes it easier for a plaintiff to prove his claims under French law.
There are several reasons people wish to get a marriage annulled. I'll try to list them in order of frequency -- though I'm unaware of any statistics that confirm that my ordering is correct. Money. As per Nij's comment, when people are divorced, their property is subdivided 50-50. If one person can get away with an annulment, and keep the property which he earned, then it will be in his interests to do so. Religious reasons. As per SJuan76's comments, several churches, including Catholic, Mormon, and Russian Baptist, do not allow a person to marry if his previous spouse is still alive. An annulment is a way around that. Fraud marriages. This is rare, but under Trump it happens more often then you might think. People (usually women) come to the US illegally, marry someone (generally significantly older), and after the wedding day they are never again seen by their spouse. They use their marriage certificate to ensure permission to stay in the US -- but, they were never interested in marrying that person in the first place. When found, often such people are living with another illegal alien "as a boyfriend", with kids born before the fraud marriage even took place. It is in such cases, that their new spouse often tries to attain an annulment of the marriage -- to make sure that the illegal alien doesn't get rewarded for cheating them. Personal reasons. For some people, having never been married means it's easier to get a spouse who also has never been married -- and being able to check the "Single -- Never married" box on a form is always a plus in such cases. Now, don't ask me why people prefer to marry someone who's never been married, over someone who's been divorced. :) Incest. Under the US law, if you marry someone who's your close relative, then you are guilty of a felony -- even if you didn't know they're your close relative at the time of marriage. However, if you annul the marriage, then you can avoid prosecution.