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.''
It is illegal.
Staying with your example -- did you support her and pay all the bills during the marriage?
Yes?
Then why shouldn't she pay all that back to you with interest?
Let's be clear on something rfn -- women like having children, women like running a household and women like not having to work at a job. So just what was she "giving up"?
The fact that she wants to keep your children, wants to keep running your (former) house and wants to keep not having to work proves that she made no "sacrifice" during her marriage to you.
She got everything she wanted when she married you and she's continuing to get everything she wants when she divorces you.
" ...making you wonder why we have contracts in the first place."
Precisely.
You are absolutely right, and are right next to my point, but not quite there.
My connection is that both are simply ways of evading responsibility for the consequences of personal choices. Or, of doing what you want, and then denying the bill. Dancing the dance, but not paying the price.
Dan
>>RobRoy - I take it your 2nd marriage was a non-American type Woman ?<<
Nope, but you've opened up a can of worms. I met my wife at my 25th high school reunion. We were BOTH dumped at the same time and totally done with the opposite sex. I told people that the type of woman I would marry have all died of old age by now.
Then I met RobRoys Woman. She is my contemporary, believes in a paternal culture, is a devout Christian, is ALL woman (and that's as much detail as I will go into here) and sees me as, and lets me be, ALL man. I call her "the closest thing to Eve since The Flood." She treats me like I was Adam.
We are both almost 51, have spent our whole lives living in the US, but are barely part of the culture (dumping tv back in the late nineties helped that). She is one in a million and if she dies first, I will be done with women again - at least intimately.
This culture has poisoned the attitude of most of it's women. They are actually quite dangerous to the men they "love." Of course, the men have issues as well, but this aint one of them.
>>Yeah, well then I guess he needs to be looking at his lawyer's malpractice insurance...<<
...or maybe the judges personal address...
Not really. He stands to gain protection of certain assets, while she stands to gain a rich lifestyle during the marriage and, upon divorce, substantial assets. Her power was to not marry him (he loses his love and the nookie). A lot of women use the "You don't love me, you don't trust me?" line to get out of signing a pre-nup.
I'm tired of women always being instantly considered to be the victim. Women can be just as nasty and manipulative as men (just ask my wife, she admits it).
>>Open the classifieds and start calling -- just like anybody else who needs a job.<<
Heh, heh. People thing a ten year marriage is a long time - waht a crock. If he got her when she was 19, she would be 29, still employable in almost any field. If he got her when she was 29, she already had a past for which she was responsible, and now she is only 39. She can still call upon what she accomplished in that past - if anything.
My wife who is fifty just landed a very nice job in the airline industry. She had been away from it for almost 20 years...
The man in this story has no responsibility for this womans wage earning abilities after a measely ten years of marriage, especially considering that this was her second.
And on a side note, you don't need no steenking pre-nup to keep your assets from before you were married. By law, they are yours, unless you used the common assets of the marriage to make payments on them.
Nonsense. They are much more nasty and manipulative when they wanna be...
You don't spring a prenup on your lady two days before the wedding.
>>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.<<
Then you weren't thinking. Your chances are better than 50% that you will get a divorce.
Then again, I don't wear a seat belt because I use the same logic you used when you got married. 8^>
Yes.
That kind of case is very rare however.
hmmm. I don't discuss financial details till after I have dated a person for awhile and things are getting serious.
Perhaps he told her she would be able to establish her career and would not need alimony and then it just happened that she never had the chance. Happens.
Couldn't agree more.
A few of us have come up with a good solution regarding divorce when kids are involved:
If it is divorce without cause, or very little cause (not meeting emotional needs, got angry once, etc.) then the one filing leaves everything AND pays child support AND alimony if income discrepencies call for it.
This would stop a heck of a lot of divorce.
Run an ad in the personals worded thus:
The airline industry has been at something of a tech plateau. If she worked in computers, forget it after being out of work for 10 years. Who needs a Visual Basic 3.0, Clipper, Novell programmer ?
I stand corrected. :)
For all we know she could have run to her lawyer who said "go ahead, we can get the alimony clause thrown out anyway."
Next, they will be mandating a three-day recission period for whorehouses.
>My wife who is fifty just landed a very nice job in the >airline industry. She had been away from it for almost 20 >years...
Is she a stewardess? Hope she ages like Joan Collins/Alexis Colby......
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.