Posted on 12/30/2004 8:52:27 AM PST by Radix
In a possibly precedent-setting case, the state Appeals Court has ruled that an ex-wife is entitled to alimony even though she signed a prenuptial agreement waiving it.
Donna Austin was 37, and Craig Austin was 35 when they were married in May 1989, each for the second time. Two days before the wedding, Craig Austin presented Donna with a prenuptial agreement, which she signed, according to her attorney, Dana Curhan.
The Appeals Court upheld the portion of the prenuptial that protected assets Craig Austin had acquired before the wedding. But it said Donna Austin's waiver of alimony was not reasonable at the time she and Craig Austin signed the document.
``It was unreasonable to expect that his spouse, who then had no assets and negligible earning capacity, would contribute to the marriage by raising his child and by supporting his ability to work outside the home, with no expectation of future support, no matter how long the marriage, and regardless whether she might never acquire assets of her own,'' Justice Fernande Duffly wrote in the court's opinion.
Craig Austin's attorney, Jacob Atwood, said he will appeal the decision. Atwood said Donna Austin benefitted greatly by receiving ``hundreds of thousands of dollars'' in the division of property assets at the end of the Sandwich couple's 12-year marriage.
``I think this decision flies in the teeth of the DeMatteo case,'' Atwood said, referring to a 2002 Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding prenuptial agreements except in cases where one of the marital parties was left with an extreme hardship.
But Donna Austin's attorney said, ``The court is saying that by waiving her right to alimony, she was essentially waiving her future rights, which was not a realistic thing to do.''
This would legally be a common law marriage. The court would still, in all probability, do the same thing as it would during the dissolution of a conventional marriage.
But that's not how it is. The courts encourage divorce, and they rape men. Get used to it.
This may sound cruel and maybe a little evil but why do men put up with this ?? I cannot imagine a conservative that values his freedom and his life like freepers do submitting to such things.
You have a valid point. All she'll need is a group of her associates to say they heard the man offer marriage to the woman.
I had to "spam" chad fairbanks reply. I WAS the Willy Bill in a divorce after 20 years. It is all true, and extremely common.
A male american citizen can be removed from his home and his children. He can have his home and MOST of his assets removed and all for one simple reason. He married the wrong woman - who decided she just didn't like him any more.
And this judge wants to protect an ADULT woman from making an "unreasonabl" decision IN WRITING?
Don't let this get out to people that owe way too much money on their credit cards. They should stop paying and hope they get the same judge when the debtors sue.
EXACTLY.
I would need twenty fingers on each hand to count the number of men I know that this has happened to.
The prenup is one-sided precisely because, in return for giving up the right to alimony, she got nothing in return in the prenup.
Of course, a real lawyer who took Contracts will probably want to weigh in and say whether or not I'm right.
Because they cut open a mothers stomach, took out a squalling baby, and clubbed it like a baby seal with flecks of blood spattering everywhere and the running and the screaming and the panicking....
No, you didn't have to "spam" me, just because you let your emotions (based on bad experiences) get the best of you.
I've stated several times on this thread that men get the shaft by the courts. I don't disagree with that at all - I know it happens - too frequently, and often unjustly...
However, that doesn't mean that there are no women out there who get shafted - because it can, and does, happen, too. Deal with it, and move on.
In abortion, only she decides when she will become a mother. But she also has complete capacity to decide if the man will become a father. If the man wants the child and the woman does not, she can decide to abort. If the man does not want the child but she does, she will deliver and require the man's financial support.
With respect to abortion, she has the ability to decide a second time on the ramification of her initial decision. In this pre-nup case, the woman had the ability to decide to accept or reject the man's offer. She chose to accept the deal he put forward. Now, she wants the ability to change her mind - just as she could if it were an abortion.
Yours is a logical attitude except for one important fact...
this is all taking place in Massachusetts!
WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW. WOW.
Been through all of this. It is sooo painful.
Made a nice guy cynical, mad, depressed, lonely, dejected.
Where did you get this ? Who can I credit 10 minutes of reading that fully summarizes the last 17 years of my life ...????
Too many sexual connotations here for a dirty mind like mine to comment...
LOL... For once, I'm being serious, and it still sounds dirty. Sigh...
>>This may sound cruel and maybe a little evil but why do men put up with this ?? I cannot imagine a conservative that values his freedom and his life like freepers do submitting to such things.<<
Because most men (maybe like this woman signing the prenup) really have no idea what they are getting themselves into.
The problem is that as a Christian, you really have no choice other than to get married and "hope for the best."
BTW, mine was seven years ago, but my youngest was ten and I now have custody of her. It did get better for me, and my ex really is working her way towards a lonely appartment with a "cat named fluffy."
Many, many of the men this happens to are seriously scarred for life. And it may be exactly what the state wants. Think about it:
Over half of marriage ends in divorce. The man is now basically a slave of the state until his youngest reaches 18, AND even longer if the ex chooses to take him to court to continue paying support and pay for the childs education. It is not unusual for men to pay support into the offsprings (no longer a child) mid-20's. Meanwhile, dad lives in a small appartment and driving a beater that gets broken into every month or so because of the quality of neigborhood he can afford to live in, ,in spit of his $50k+ anual salary.
Once the last child support payment is made, many men are a mere shadow of who they were, totally broken down and nothing more than an earner/consumer who's sole value is to help keep the engine of the economy running until he dies.
If you have Christ, on the other hand, it really can't harm ytou much. I am permanently scarred from what happened, but sort of in the way that when you work out at the gym, the muscle you produce is really scar tissue.
What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
"Honey, if you're springing this on me now, I want to push off the wedding until next week so I can think about it. Forget about it, and we can still get married the day after tomorrow. Force the issue, and I'm not marrying you."
Not too hard unless you're a money-grubbing skank.
To me, it was nothing more than an indemnification clause. She promised not to sue him (for alimony) in return for starting a Joint Venture (marriage).
How's that for wedding bliss :-)
Have you ever been?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.