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.''
I got married in Denmark, and that's perfectly valid in the US. Just get an international marriage certificate to avoid any translation problems on this end.
Ever been what ??? (I cannot read what you are asking !!)
It is sad that divorce has become so common place that my own children have asked me what will happen if or when my husband and I divorce. I told them it wasn't happening. The only two things that would entitle it to me would be abuse or adultery. We have had our disagreements, but we love each oher even more now. I don't know how I could have gotten through a lot of things without my husband beside me. He's my hero. When we were married we were young and foolish. We were 19 and had only known each other three months. Everyone thought we would be divorced within the year. Twelve years (this coming Saturday) and five children later, we're even happier now.
As I understand it in my state, he could protect his previous assets. Anything after that would have to be equal. As for her signing a non-alimony agreement, my guess is 2 days before a marriage would be considered duress and again, in my state, I don't believe she can legally sign her rights away in matters such as this. I'm not a lawyer, but went through a divorce and this was discussed.
I hope for his sake he wan't filing his taxes as married. I think the IRS would like to have a talk with him, and it'll probably be more expensive than if he'd just given his wife half.
The courts are fairly straight when it comes to timing of pre-nupt agreement presentations.
Two days or two hours that is not reasonable. In this case two days was not a reasonable amount of time to seek independent legal counsel to review the agreement and negotiate any additional terms or conditions. There is an element of reliance in the days leading up to the wedding.
The EXACT SAME agreement might have survived if he had presented it to her three months instead of two days.
BTW the keeping of his properties before marriage is no biggie and in and equitable distribution state would be done without the pre-nup. (for example if his house from before marriage is worth $100k at the time of marrige he would keep the $100k value of the house and divide any increase in value during the course of the marraige. So if the house is now worth $120k she would be entitled to $10k of that value)
Well, I am not emotional about it. I was responding to the flawed "logic" of your response. And this was an EXCELLENT thread in which to include the spam.
Now let me share another anecdote from my family: My sister married a man worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. She signed a pre-nup. If they were to get a divorce and she wanted the pre-nup waved, I would be HIS witness. A contract is a contract, unless unenforceable, such as giving up rights to a child if you can't make payments, or signed by a minor, or under duress.
The rule of law dictates that for a society to exist, long term, contracts MUST be honored and held up in a court of law. Saying signing the contract was an unreasonable desicion is beyond lame - especially for a judge.
When you sign a contract, you adjust your life to honor the contract. My sister knows where she stands. They both love each other more than any other couple I have ever met, with the exception of myself and my wife of seven years (literally, the honeymoon is not over). And she actually has her own future protected. I am sure it will not matter, nor does she expect it to, but she is a very responsible person and has built up her own assets.
Then again, I believe the woman in this court case ended up with quite a few assets herself...
This judge is worser than worthless. This is a very damaging decision for our culture. It is even more evidence for why men are nuts to marry in the US in the current political climate.
In fear that he would leave???
You're kidding right?
That's not duress, people are free to leave if they wish and if she felt that it would be so easy for him to leave perhaps she should of rethought the whole marriage all together.
We're getting there. IIRC, people are suing over dropping engagements, demanding financial compensation for the time they spent waiting to get married. Whatever happened to the simple "she keeps the ring if he drops" rule?
In my state a wife CAN sign away alimony in exchange for something. Usually it is a lump sum amount which does INCREASE over time.
Perhaps, but assuming that he decided that she no longer need to work after they got married and told her that he would support the both of them. I would say that those circumstances should be taken into account in altering the fairness of the contract.
Fredoneverything.net
You have to search through the titles to get to the divorce articles though, and there are about 300 titles.
These stories are so good because they hit so close to home to so many. And I mean SO VERY MANY.
Interesting. You're right. The IRS would not be happy about that. Back taxes and penalties could be more than the alimony - not to mention time spent in Danbury, CT.
I was not imagining a normal woman. I was thinking of someone that had convinced herself that she could not survive without this person. I do not know if that is the case but if she was that devoted and he knew it then it would be duress.
...and there's NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT !!!!! ?????
>>Two days before a wedding wasn't enough time to get her own lawyer to go over it.<<
Most people sign the contract to purchase a home on the day of closing.
But trust me, it wasn't "sprung" on them...
That's got to be woman's worst nightmare -- having children, running a house and not having to work at a job -- all while being supported by someone else.
Great,
Now the courts are invalidating contract law.
This is soooooooo encouraging.......
Considering all the up front money she spent of her own for the wedding, "pushing it off" isn't an option.
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.