Marriage of Convenience?

[Khan]

Have you ever considered such?
To allow someone to care for you?
To allow money to pass on easily?

 

[W2R]

Have you ever considered such?
To allow someone to care for you?
To allow money to pass on easily?

Nope. Marriage is too complicated and deep with too many possible pitfalls for me to consider that for financial reasons. And really, both reasons you suggest are fundamentally financial AFAIK.

We tentatively plan to move into the two sides of a duplex, or some such thing, in about 15-20 years as we get to the age of needing care from one another. But we don't need a document from the state to do that. We can leave one another money in our wills if desired, I suppose, and if that isn't easy enough then too bad.

For us, the down side of being married exceeds the advantages.

 

[Khan]

Have been considering all plus and minus; don't know end result.
Living together would have some advantages.
Actual marriage would give him SSA.

 

[Purron]

Have been considering all plus and minus; don't know end result.
Living together would have some advantages.
Actual marriage would give him SSA.

Not enough info to give you advice other than be careful and think this through.

 

[Khan]

I think it was Margaret Meade suggested maybe people should have 3 marriages: for lust, for children, for companionship.

 

[REWahoo]

Notice she didn't say "for SS"...

 

[Khan]

I have always wondered of the idea of "perpetual marriage" (I think via Heinlein)...keep marrying someone younger and the estate keeps passing on.

 

[omni550]

Khan,

As you are also looking at minuses, here's one.

Since over 60% of marriages (which were mostly "for love", admittedly) end up in divorce, what is to prevent that possible outcome and how will you protect your assets in that case?

omni

 

[Moemg]

Have been considering all plus and minus; don't know end result.
Living together would have some advantages.
Actual marriage would give him SSA.

He would only get SSA if you are married ten years . Khan, this is not a great idea. He may die and you will still need to think about care as you get older . Plus unless he is a lot Younger ( and good for you if he is )he will also be old & need care .I would look into a lifestyle community where you start in independent living & then move to assisted living as you need it .You could also live together & set up all the legal paperwork .That is what we have done .Without the paperwork he can not make health or financial decisions for you .

 

[Khan]

Khan,

As you are also looking at minuses, here's one.

Since over 60% of marriages (which were mostly "for love", admittedly) end up in divorce, what is to prevent that possible outcome and how will you protect your assets in that case?

omni

But if it's for friendship/convenience, and one of dies in 10 years?

 

[REWahoo]

Don't marry, shack up.

 

[Meadbh]

Don't marry, shack up.

+1

 

[Khan]

He would only get SSA if you are married ten years . Khan, this is not a great idea. He may die and you will still need to think about care as you get older . Plus unless he is a lot Younger ( and good for you if he is )he will also be old & need care .I would look into a lifestyle community where you start in independent living & then move to assisted living as you need it .You could also live together & set up all the legal paperwork .That is what we have done .Without the paperwork he can not make health or financial decisions for you .

I don't think currently married requires 10 years.
Again just a thought.
Would allow both of us to have control of care.

 

[omni550]

Khan,

Friendships can also end, but usually without the legal paperwork that a divorce entails.

I'm trying to figure out what the purpose of this proposed marriage is..companionship now...and your care when you are older (as you mentioned he's a lot younger)...and eventually leaving all your assets to him?

omni

 

[Sarah in SC]

SS benefits don't outweigh the potential negatives.
REW said it best-shacking up is what is do.

 

[tinlizzy]

My grandmother and elderly neighbor died a couple weeks apart. The foursome were acqaintances from card club. My grandfather married the neighbor lady 3 months after my grandmother's death. They were both about 70 and were married for 17 years. Because I knew both couples I can say that they didn't get along nearly as well as they did with their deceased spouses but they enjoyed each other's company for the most part. They did have a pre-nuptial agreement even though they had modest estates.

How much younger is this man?

 

[Meadbh]

Khan, you have told us very little about this man. I am very concerned that this move might make you vulnerable to abuse. What if he is a gold-digger? Please think long and hard before making a decision. It is fraught with huge risks.

 

[Richard4444]

I think it was Margaret Meade suggested maybe people should have 3 marriages: for lust, for children, for companionship.

Just don't let them find out about each other.

 

[MichaelB]

Don't marry, shack up.

+2

Have you ever considered such?
To allow someone to care for you?
To allow money to pass on easily?

Don't need to be married to pass along money. Care doesn't come from marriage, it comes from affection. Live together, share, and see what happens. But keep the assets separate and out of the equation.

 

[bbbamI]

Khan..it's great to hear from you...

You bring up the most thought provoking, interesting threads of anyone here IMHO.

As far as your question goes; no, I've never considered a marriage of convenience. Quite frankly, if it ever comes to that I'm not sure what I would do.

However, I do tend to side with others about living together for a while and see how the two of you get along. My other thought is...even though he's younger than you, he can become disabled/get very ill. Are you willing or able to handle that situation?

 

[devans0]

Who's convenience? I don't know you very well, so I can only speak to my own experiences when I was single.

Every pairing involves some "conveniences". We make those social contracts, but once the matrimonial knot is tied, the social contract becomes a legal contract. For me, that was a huge hurdle because I had encountered some real scummy people looking for 'convenient' situations. I was taken a couple of times, but damages were always limited because I was single.

Convenience may block what you really need from a relationship.. Your intuition is giving you doubts or you wouldn't be posting this question. Perhaps move slowly until you resolve this doubt.

 

[obgyn65]

+3

Don't marry, shack up.

 

[Htown Harry]

Who brought up the idea? If him, it increases the likelihood of financial motives below the surface.

In answer to your question, no....

Except briefly the other day reading an e-mail from a young lady in Russia who said she was looking for a husband.

 

[chris2008]

Control of care might be arranged in a living will or similar documents that could be destroyed easily if the relationship changes.

Marriage for convenience? It could turn out very inconvenient soon.
Sit down and discuss exactly what these conveniences could be. In this thread I do not see any.

 

[bondi688]

See this thread.
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/psa-woman-drains-ex-s-retirement-account-64166.html