What I'm concerned about is, if she defaults on the new loan (refinanced/consolidated old student loans), can I be held liable? Texas is community property state...all assets and debts shared...I'm worried that even though this "new" loan is for "old" premarital debts...it can be seen as shared debt, because it was refinanced/consolidated after we are married.
It isn't complicated!
Unless you wish to be personally responsible for the debt, then don't sign anything agreeing to be held responsible. Marriage alone won't subject you to liability for her separate debts. Nor will a refinance during marriage per se affect the character of the debt.
What you might be concerned over is this. Suppose that after the marriage the loan goes into default. That is a big hunk of change. The question is: Under Texas law could the lender attach and levy against community property? Understanding that community property would comprise any property acquired during the marriage by the efforts of either spouse.
Arizona says no. Community property is not liable for a spouse' separate debts. (See:
Forsythe v. Paschal 34 Ariz. 380, 271 P. 865 (Ariz. 1928). *
What does Texas say? I don't know. Have looked briefly, but don't know. But if I was about to marry someone owing that much money, I would like to know how safe my future income will be. And I'd like the opinion of someone in a position of education and experience to know, meaning you will need to pay to learn.
____________________
[*] Noting that the logic applied in reaching the decision in Forsyth seems a bit suspect. What it did is to assume that when the Arizona legislature enacted a law holding that a spouse's separate property was not liable for the separate debts of the other spouse, it included the community estate as well as separate property. And ignored the legal maxim in statutory construction that when a legislative body specifies one thing clearly, a court must assume that all other things are excluded. (Expressio uniu est exclusio alterius.)
Moreover, since a spouse has a vested interest in one half of the community estate, why should the whole of it be immune from their creditors? As R. P. McMurphy said to the Doc in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Makes no sense to me."