Prenup not enforceable as (a) financial disclosure did not include reasonably forseeable future financial circumstances (b) wife did not understand agreement despite being represented by attorney and ( c) changes in circumstances due to husband’s early retirement, birth of their child and resultant disparity in assets would made application of the agreement unfair to wife.
Trial court property determined that it would inequitable to enforce prenuptial agreement due to significantly change circumstances after the execution of the agreement. The parties combined their resources, including inheritances, savings and income. The marital agreement was ignored. They combined efforts and labors to the appreciation of property in a way that cannot be separately identified.
Where prenuptial agreement waived homestead protection, husband did not need to approve subsequent transfer of ownership. Homestead protection can be waived in a prenuptial agreement.
“Suit within a suit” not required for malpractice finding involving enforcement of prenuptial agreement. Plaintiff can recover from attorney even though they settled case.
Oral prenuptial agreement was enforceable.
Waiver of alimony in a prenuptial agreement is void as against public policy.
Lost prenuptial agreement was enforceable by use of parol evidence.
Prenuptial agreement applied only to distribution of property at death, not at divorce. In addition, it did not disclose assets or liabilities or adequately provide for wife. As a result, it was invalid as unconscionable.
Waiver of alimony in prenuptial agreement applies to a request for alimony pendente lite.
Statement in prenuptial agreement that full and fair disclosure of assets was made is prima facie evidence that there was adequate disclosure.
43 year old French “Contrat de Mariage” was an enforceable prenuptial agreement.
Prenuptial agreement waiving attorney fees was unenforceable as unconscionable due to the great financial disparity between the parties.
Court upholds prenuptial agreement even if one party gives up all rights to the property of the other. Court rejects argument that agreement was signed under duress because Husband would not marry without agreement and wife wanted to “legitimize” their two year old daughter.
Prenuptial agreement was unconscionable because it would leave the husband wealthy and the wife virtually penniless.
General disclosure of assets in prenuptial agreement is adequate.
Prenuptial agreement invalid due to duress, including the husband giving it to the wife only three days before the wedding, wife not having an opportunity to consult with a lawyer, threat to cancel the wedding and husband keeping financial information from her.
Although wife was pregnant and presented with a prenuptial agreement one week before the scheduled wedding date, and she was told that if she did not sign it there would be no wedding, she did not establish that execution of the agreement was a product of coercion or duress.
Waiver of alimony in a prenuptial agreement is void as against public policy.
Waiver of maintenance in a prenuptial agreement is unconscionable and unenforceable when it would deprive a spouse of reasonable support.
Prenuptial executed two days before marriage is valid. No duress by husband’s threat not to marry – threat puts potential spouse on notice that the agreement is serious.