How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Lucy, Esq. Your Own Question
Lucy, Esq.
Lucy, Esq., Lawyer
Category: Family Law
Satisfied Customers: 27196
Experience:  Attorney with experience in family law.
Type Your Family Law Question Here...
Lucy, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

FOR LUCY ONLY You wrote: "You could potentially argue the

This answer was rated:

FOR LUCY ONLYYou wrote: "You could potentially argue the meaning of "together" since only your name is ***** ***** but if she had any hand in picking it out, that's a tough argument."She is arguing precisely what you write. However, she required not to be on the title after she assisted me in the acquisition process by dealing with the broker.She also says it's "our home" and that is why she did not write her home (Evans lane) on the line that's designated for that purpose on her financial affidavit. She declared that property as just a real estate asset with the 2 others. She wrote "title in the LLC", because she quitclaimed it too. The prenuptial reads that it's separate property. She was owning it when we married. It's been her home since decades, she raised her sons there.The bot***** *****ne is that we have lived separately most of the time since our marriage, because after we moved to FL she was homesick and moved back to CT, her home State where she has her family and was born. I could not follow because I had my employment here in FL. and there was no stability to stay at her home in Evans.The reason is that she's also renting Evans as vacation rental intermittently and the rentals are managed by the LLC. Basically, she hops from one property to another and she has an RV at the one in Boston Post Rd., that's a large property with a huge yard, so when the 3 properties are rented she stays in the RV. Before, she was going to her brother's.Based on the belief that our prenuptial was separating our properties and revenues, we never had any bank account in common, we never signed anything jointly, we provided for our own expenses with our own incomes separately, we avoided to interfere in each other's businesses etc...I did not object to her quitclaims because I never could imagine that she would declare 0% interest in that LLC that's an alter ego, and for me she had her properties and incomes in CT, and I had mine in FL.The rationale was that if both of us are not on the title, then the property is separate and belongs to the spouse that's on the title.The paragraph of the prenup that says: "ALL properties acquired together are marital properties" is ambiguous/ It should read ONLY properties....She's claiming things that are false, hence the incoherence all over.My logic is that the best line of defense in a divorce is to put everything on the table and be honest.Trying to trick the other spouse, like obviously her counsel is pushing her into, and lack of transparency are just going to make the dispute more complicated and hard to resolve.THEREFORE, I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT I SHOULD NOT BRING THE PRENUP TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT.This prenup is ambiguous but when looking into the facts, they are reflecting the intentions of the parties to keep separate the assets they acquired separately.In particular, my wife never requested any written consent to all these quitclaims.On the other hand, the judge should take into consideration all assets, separate and common, to divide equitably. That's CT law, the decision is in equity and not in law.If the judge decides that the assets deeded to the spouses individually are separate assets because to be common, they should have been bought together as per the prenuptial, then this would simplify the whole lawsuit.So here is my question: arguing that this arbitration would simplify the lawsuit and help the conciliation, is filing a motion to designate a referee to arbitrate the dispute, as provided by CT General Statutes, a possibility ?

Good morning,

I don't think the prenuptial agreement can fairly be read to mean that ALL assets are separate unless they were bought together. I mentioned that with regard to the house because the word "together" was used in the agreement. If you're not using the agreement, the default in the law is that everything bought during the marriage is marital property unless you can show that it was bought with premarital funds and that you didn't commingle the assets.

Customer: replied 2 days ago.
Thank you for this valuable information. The way you express it, that's part of the issue. The other part of the issue is that the prenup defines the marital properties as those bought together, but does not clarify in contrast what are the properties bought separately.
Here is my question:
The prenup also stipulates that CT law is ruling. So the ambiguity is:
a) what was the intention of the parties to put that clause in the contract when CT law defines marital properties as those acquired by either or both parties ?
b) this clause is redundant with the clause stipulating that CT law governs, correct ?
c) Why then not stipulate that the marital properties are those bought by either or both parties as in the CT law that rules the contract ?I couldn't find the CT statutes defining marital properties or case law ?
Customer: replied 2 days ago.
changing a) to "WHAT COULD BE...",sorry

a) What did the two of you talk about before signing it? It could be interpreted as meaning that both names have to be in the property, but the way that clause is worded is ambiguous. That usually means it's interpreted AGAINST whoever wrote it.

b) Not if it was actually supposed to mean that you both had to put your name on the title to make the property joint. Or not if it was intending to keep separate property that one of you bought with assets acquired before you got married - that's the opposite of Connecticut law, so that would make sense. But I don't know if that's what you had in mind when you signed it.

c) What was your reasoning for including this clause in the first place?

This document refers to several cases that talk about equitable distribution of property in a Connecticut divorce. It may be helpful:

Customer: replied 2 days ago.
Thank you for the link.
The lawyer who wrote the prenup is the lawyer of a friend of my wife who did the closing of the Guilford property when her brother acquired it (then quitclaimed to my wife and then she quitclaimed to the LLC). She was appointed by my wife who paid her fee I guess, but that years 10 years ago.
The point was that my wife wanted to have all our present and future properties separated, including bank accounts etc... and waive all rights to their transfer to the other spouse or division in case of death or divorce.
This is pretty much corresponding to what happened during the 10 years up to now. We have and never had no bank account, loan, property, income and even taxes jointly. She has filed sworn affidavits in the past saying we were separate, etc... etc...Despite this fact, the prenuptial in my opinion is not clear enough to force the judge to override the CT law that allows him to take into account all assets including those held by 3rd parties.What would be the benefit of having the court validate the prenuptial and rule that the properties acquired separately are not dividable, as the prenuptial waives such right very clearly ?The benefit would be to save my home and my income.The inconvenience is that the fraudulent transfer argument becomes moot, because my wife would have transferred to a third party, the LLC, the properties that she acquired separately, and it's her right to do whatever she wants with them. Besides, she has declared the situation in her Financial Affidavit, so the fraud argument is tough to argue.The advantage of clarifying the situation is that either I end up securing my home, or her transfer is fraudulent and I can ask the sanction that any rights she may have acquired from the lawsuit be voided, or whatever you would phrase this.Is there anything that I missed here ?
Customer: replied 2 days ago.
Reviewing the question, I had missed this one : (a) "Or not if it was intending to keep separate property that one of you bought with assets acquired before you got married - that's the opposite of Connecticut law, so that would make sense."The objection here is that the clause ("bought together") would not mean the above (a) because this is already provided by prior clause:
"Specific Agreements between the Parties:
a. The following real property and any derivative property (property purchased
with proceeds from the sale of this property or by the use of equity of this property
through additional loans taken after the date of the marriage) is considered the separate
property of Y:
1. 14 Evans Lane, CT and adjoining unimproved lot.
3. a one-half interest in property at Meadow Street GuilfordIs that objection correct ?

No, I'm not talking about properties bought before you got married. I was talking about a situation where, for example, you had $200,000 sitting in investment accounts before you got married, and you bought a $200,000 house after the marriage. Technically, it was acquire during the marriage. But if you agreed to keep all assets separate, you'd be able to argue that was a separate asset because you used pre-marital assets to buy them.

Does that make sense?

Customer: replied 2 day ago.
Thank you, ***** ***** a major ambiguity in the prenuptial and your analysis was brilliant, once again.

You're welcome. I'm glad I could help.

Lucy, Esq. and 2 other Family Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related Family Law Questions