Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge to hubby: Forget prenup, pay up
Boston Herald ^ | Thursday, December 30, 2004 | David Weber

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.''


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: alimony; badjudge; divorce; familylaw; prenuptial; ruleoflawnot; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-307 next last
To: antiRepublicrat

ahh the old breach of promise rules.

This case is NOT GOING TO SET ANY PRECIDENT it was already what happens.

Why is this case being reported? BECAUSE THIS HUSBAND HAD AN IDIOT FOR A LAWYER! This should have been presented MONTHS not days in advance AND THE ALIMONY CLAUSE IS TOTAL MALPRACTICE!


181 posted on 12/30/2004 10:54:59 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy; DennisR
And let me guess: She divorced you "without cause."

Actually I'll make a bet and say that she said something like this

"You don't meet my emotional support needs"

182 posted on 12/30/2004 10:55:01 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Truth, Justice and the Texan Way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

You are sure reading a lot into this story. Where in the article does it say they had an expensive wedding. For all we know, they dated for two weeks and got married at a justice of the peace.


183 posted on 12/30/2004 10:55:05 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks
"What does she do then?"

Open the classifieds and start calling -- just like anybody else who needs a job.

184 posted on 12/30/2004 10:55:08 AM PST by Bonaparte (Of course, it must look like an accident...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Radix

Isn't a prenup agreement just setting yourself up for a divorce? If I thought there was a chance of divorce, I wouldn't have gotten married. (Granted, there's not many women around like Mrs. Smittie.) And I wouldn't marry anyone who needed a prenup to get married.


185 posted on 12/30/2004 10:56:08 AM PST by Smittie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks

>>However, I stand by my original statement which is that any "man" who expects a woman to make a home, raise children, and not work, then divorce them and send them on their way with nothing isn't, imho, much of a man at all... but maybe that's just me... ;0)<<

With that I agree, keeping in mind that over 75% of the divorce in this country is filed by the wife. And of the remaining 25% many of the men were deadbeats in the first place. They have no assets to acquire...


186 posted on 12/30/2004 10:56:43 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Hu Gadarn

Right you are, just creating more jobs for lawyes. I wonder if the judge will order the husband's lawyer to refund the prenup fee?


187 posted on 12/30/2004 10:56:46 AM PST by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I am not a lawyer either but giving it to here TWO DAYS before the wedding has been ruled to be under duress

Why is that duress?

What's the threat? That someone who doesn't trust you won't marry you in two days?

That's not a threat-it's a favor.

188 posted on 12/30/2004 10:58:17 AM PST by Jim Noble (Colgate '72)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

Real nice.

Here's the instance I'm speaking of - suppose I married a woman, and after the marriage I expected her to quit working, and be a mom and housewife. We are married for, oh say, 12 years. She's raised my children (from a previous marriage, let's say) so they are now 18 and on their own. I then decide to divorce her.

Should I have to pay her alimoney on some form of schedule, or not?


189 posted on 12/30/2004 10:59:46 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I have a friend who had it easy. His wife filed for divorce on claims of abandonment while he was serving in the Army overseas (she opted not go go with), and she didn't tell him about it. He came back to the US just in time to find out about it, get in his Class As (nice touch) and collect the orders relating to the change of station, and walk into the court during the hearing where she was about to get everything.

The judge was ready to have her hauled away, but he was nice for the kid's sake. She got only what he was willing to give and only on his terms, such as she has to show reimbursable receipts for all expenses just to get child support (he didn't think a single dad in the Army was a good thing for a kid, and I don't blame him).


190 posted on 12/30/2004 11:01:18 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

We're not in any disagreement then, really. It's my firm belief that it's unfortunate when anyone - man or woman - gets royally screwed in a divorce, and would like to see some form of legal reform for divorces - especially when there are children involved...


191 posted on 12/30/2004 11:01:31 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

And besides, there is a disparity in bargaining power.

Women dream of their wedding days and it means a lot to them for everything to be perfect. Men don't.


192 posted on 12/30/2004 11:03:29 AM PST by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

>>All marriages using prenuptial agreements will need them.<<

I used to believe that. I don't any more, especially after what I have observed of human nature. It is like this: All people change. The woman you are asking to sign the pre-nup is protecting the man she loves from the future woman she hopes she would never become - and if she did, she knows with her current mind, that she would not deserve his future income.

But I have a better solution: Pre-nups are ONLY valid under two conditions:

The one in the lower financial status is filing WITH CAUSE (and it better be a doozy).
The one in the higher financial status is filing WITHOUT CAUSE.

That should offer not perfect, but better protection for the party that the other may be attempting to screw.


193 posted on 12/30/2004 11:03:49 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Radix

Equitable estoppels?


194 posted on 12/30/2004 11:05:44 AM PST by shellshocked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
"You don't meet my emotional support needs"

"He left the toilet seat up" is also a good one. The b*stard...

195 posted on 12/30/2004 11:16:43 AM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
Women dream of their wedding days and it means a lot to them for everything to be perfect. Men don't.

Sure we do. It's just a little later in the wedding day that we dream about and she happens to be naked (oddly enough, with Elle MacPherson's body). We also dream...

196 posted on 12/30/2004 11:19:36 AM PST by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: LiveFreeOrDie2001

Married. I responding to your post that you will never get married. I was just asking if you ever had been, that's all.


197 posted on 12/30/2004 11:19:43 AM PST by Hildy ( To work is to dance, to live is to worship, to breathe is to love.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: LiveFreeOrDie2001

>>I wanna know how my EX can freely waste (and I mean WASTE) all the money I give her, spends little or none on my Daughter (She's 17 and still doesn't have her own Bedroom, EX smokes in front of my Astmatic Daughter, etc...)

...and there's NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT !!!!! ?????<<

Welcome to the US of A.

BTW, a friend of a friend did something about it. It was in the papers. He killed his two daughters and then himself.

Not really productive, but becoming more and more common. You really do not want to push human beings too far.


198 posted on 12/30/2004 11:20:27 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Chad Fairbanks

>> he sees no need for her anymore... (such as appears to be the case with the current court case being discussed)<<

I don't see anything that suggests that in the article. I suspect it is actually the other way around.


199 posted on 12/30/2004 11:23:06 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

Could be.


200 posted on 12/30/2004 11:23:29 AM PST by Chad Fairbanks (I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-307 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson