Nope, a prenup could cover issues arising during the marriage, in addition to at dissolution. It is critical that she not have rights during the marriage to his separate property because then it could be taken by creditors.

And also, as mentioned below, she is obviously not super trustworthy!

No, he means you're confused about the need for a pre nup. Creditors do not have rights to the separate assets of a spouse for pre material debts even without a pre nup.

Sure, but assets can be commingled, and I would think one would want to have a very clear understanding of what would and wouldn't be commingled, and what happens to earnings during the marriage (which would be community property in CA).

You're still not getting it...

Premarital assets of one spouse are not subject to the premarital debts of the other spouse. Period. For actions like this arising before the marriage but concluding after the marriage, the debt is premarital.

The same is true of one spouse's separate assets, such as an inheritance.

Marital debts can be subject to marital assets, regardless of whether you have a prenup or not, but even most community property states generally treat legal settlements as debt of the incurring spouse rather than as marital debt. And even the ones that don't will usually allocate that debt to the incurring spouse in the event of a divorce.

Yeah, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying either.

My point is that this is a very untrustworthy person who is currently being sued and will likely be sued again, marrying a person who is super wealthy. This is clearly a situation where an ironclad prenup is warranted.

As to the specific legal/financial implications: if she continues to lie about things in her civil or criminal trials, she could end up incurring further liabilities — during the marriage — that could put marital property at risk. Or she could defraud other people, again putting marital property at risk. It would be a good idea to cordon off as much as possible to keep it from being attachable by her current/future creditors.

But honestly, I have no idea why anyone would take issue with my original comment: The dude needed a prenup, he probably paid a lot, and it was probably worth it. Why pick nits?

And I say this as a (former) lawyer, who appreciates nuance and getting things right.

But his assets would be protected for all of this, by default, because she (allegedly) committed all of these crimes prior to the marriage.

I think he is making insinuations as to her wiles.