As is well known, human feelings are an unexplored and fleeting thing. Over time, they can change. At one period they grow, they turn, and then they fade away.

All this concerns the most beautiful feeling, which calls love. It lives according to some of her laws. And these laws are not studied yet.

According to the brilliant plan, love should always please and inspire us all. But, alas, real life does not always correspond to the light plan.

If you look at the statistics of divorces, not only in Indiana ut ablso in other states and countries, their number is only increasing.

At the same time, as the classic remarked a century ago: “All happy families are alike, each unhappy family is unhappy in its way.” But this also has its laws.

Here is an example for you. When two young people, whose hearts are beating in unison, decide to unite, each of them does not have much property.

But when, after a while, they, alas, decided to leave, it turns out that the estate is already rather big.

And the question “how will we divide” often arises against the background of emotions. These emotions are negative. And these emotions do not help solve the property section amicably.

And here the marriage contract would be beneficial, but … our people until recently wholly ignored ше. Like, we are entering into a marriage contract “kills” light feelings. Of course, it is not.

According to our legislation, the marriage contract exclusively regulates property matters. He has nothing to do with feelings.

In many other countries, yes, the marriage contract can also regulate “sensual” questions — for example, the responsibility for treason.

In general, about the marriage contract, we have as many myths as there were about any other document. I will try to dispel the main. Well-off people suffer a divorce harder – in addition to moral discomfort, they have to go through a very unpleasant process of dividing property.

Divorce specialists are very skeptical about entering into marriage contracts and insist that, if desired, such a deal can be challenged and that it can be declared invalid. So, everything will be back to normal. The saddest thing is that the court may even retreat from the standard 50/50. In this matter, the court is entirely subjective and, as a rule, is on the side of the woman. It is entirely possible to sue for providing a larger share of assets, for example, if the court considers one of the parties to be less non-disabled or if there are children with it.

Saving trusts

And yet the situation is not so hopeless. Lawyers who have filled their hands on divorce proceedings assert that our legislation also gives prosperous people a lot of ways to stay with their interests and money, freeing themselves from the bonds.

As practice shows, by the time of the trial, the significant amount of property belonging to one of the spouses is no longer possible to identify – the funds are withdrawn from bank accounts in advance, deposits are removed, stock exchange transactions alienate vehicles. It is tough to prove that the given property ever belonged to spouses by the right of common joint ownership.

Of course, these transactions can be challenged, but subsequently, it may be even more problematic to reclaim such property from third parties.

It is much more difficult to get rid of the claims of the “second half” when it comes to dividing the business, and first of all, corporate rights expressed in a form other than securities (for example, if one of the spouses is a member of a limited liability company).

The most effective way to preserve assets when sharing property in Indiana is to build a business based on the acquisition of corporate rights to the private property of one of the spouses. In practice, a wide range of possible methods is used, ranging from investing one of the spouses of the funds belonging to him to the acquisition of corporate rights and ending with their purchase under a donation contract.

However, all these methods are useful as a preventive measure. And it is unlikely to be able to save the acquired when the relationship between husband and wife is hopelessly ruined. If you didn’t even think about protecting your assets in advance, you would have to fully and completely rely on lawyers in the divorce process, who in these cases use their methods of proving that the demands to get their share of corporate rights from the ex-spouse are entirely groundless.

For example, lawyers focus judges on the fact that sharing the contribution of one spouse to the share capital of a business partnership is out of the question since the ownership of such a gift is transferred from the participant to the company from the moment it is made. In exchange for the said contribution, a participant acquires corporate rights that constitute the aggregate property (the right to participate in the division of the company’s profits and receive its part, etc.)

As well as personal non-property (for example, the right to participate in the management of the company) rights. So, as objects of the power of joint property of spouses, Article 61 of the Family Code of Indiana refers only property (that is, things, property rights and obligations), that is, grounds to conclude that the non-property component of corporate rights cannot belong to the spouses under joint ownership rights, and therefore cannot be the subject of a section.

As for the property rights of a participant in an industrial company, they, at first glance, may be subject to the right of joint property of the spouses. However, the realization of these rights is closely related to participation in such a society. For example, a person who is not a member of a company is not entitled to receive part of his profit. Consequently, the property rights of a participant in the financial company are not subject to division during a divorce. The last may be divided into dividends already paid to the participant, part of the company’s assets received by it during its liquidation. Most lawyers agree that by far the universal way to protect assets from an undesirable section is their initial transfer to trust management. This method works perfectly in the case of divorce proceedings, as well as in situations where the state has taken their eye on them (the operations are being conducted on illegal acquisitions) or raiders.

Myth 1: A marriage contract can only be entered only before marriage. It is straightforward to debunk. The legislation directly says that the spouses can conclude it even if they marry, at least at any time they are married.

Myth 2: This is such a new legal tool that Indianan’s people are not used to using it. This is also not the case.

Negotiations between parents, matchmakers, etc. took place always and at all times before marriage.

It was there that issues of property relations in marriage, dowry, etc. were resolved.

Of course, the newlyweds themselves did not do this – both because they are young, naive, and because it is not the business of the lovers themselves to discuss “low,” but difficult issues.

Myth 3: Whatever you write in the marriage contract, everything can be canceled. And this is not true.

It is based on the general provisions of the law that property acquired during the marriage is the common property of spouses and one of the spouses cannot be significantly infringed upon divorce.

But … as always, “but.” The law directly and unequivocally says that the marriage contract may change the principle of the division of property “equally.”

Why do you need a marriage contract? It carries two essential functions. They cannot be overestimated.

First, the marriage contract fixes the property status of the spouses at the time of marriage.

In our country with our mentality, when every second businessperson cannot immediately (and some cannot even after a week) remember where the originals of the constituent documents signed a year ago are, it is worth a lot.

The marriage contract allows you to fix the status quo at the time of marriage clearly, and this will enable you to immediately withdraw this “premarital” property from the objects of disputes in case of divorce.

In the case of a divorce without a marriage contract, theoretically, all corporate shares, all homes, all cars should be divided equally. Yes, it is possible to agree on vehicles.

And if there is a significant bias in value, then one pays the difference to another. Also, one of the best decisions would be to ask for help professional lawyers in Indiana. Moreover, you can do it on the Internet. And you can apply for divorce online as well. According to feedbacks, it saves a considerable amount of time, money, and nerves. And you need to be careful with choosing a person with whom you plan to marry.