Judge to hubby: Forget prenup, pay up

Boston Herald ^ | Thursday, December 30, 2004 | David Weber

[Rodney King]

They didn't nullify the whole pre-nup, just a part that was certainly unreasonable, IMHO.

If it was unreasonable she shouldn't have signed it.

[WildTurkey]

That's bad. The goverment or the legal system shouldn't enforce breach of contract. What happened to the rule of law?

Maybe something about him giving it to her TWO DAYS before the wedding played a part in this.

[WildTurkey]

I am not a lawyer but unless she was under some sort of duress when she signed I do not see how this cannot be overturned.

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

[Kurt_D]

The question is... was the prenup a completely valid contract at the time it was signed?

[NittanyLion]

Could it be shown that she was in fear that if she did not sign that he would leave. That would almost be duress.

I don't think that's duress; the nature of any contract includes the certainty that the other party will leave the table if you cannot come to terms. If that leverage (enjoyed by both parties, BTW) is called fear than every contract ever signed would be void.

Maybe she should've told him to forget it, and then the onus would've been on him to still get married or call the whole thing off. If I were her (I'm actually a man), I'd have had some serious reservations about character after a prenup was sprung just two days before the wedding.

[KJacob]

She must have been afraid that if she didn't sign that he would leave.

[Sam the Sham]

A pre-nup is perfectly voidable if it is "unconscionable", (i.e., one party was head over heels and signed anything) or signed under duress (i.e., bride is pregnant or in this case right before the wedding).

[Quick Shot]

It is somewhat similar to employee non-compete agreements. They can be a real problem and the courts have thrown them out on occasion due to the fact that person has to earn a living and this is their specialty.

Who what the future holds?????

[Chad Fairbanks]

Yeah, it is. However, there are often legitimate reasons why specific parts of a contract can be nullified - it wasn't like they threw out the whole contract, but rather just a portion that the court deemed unjust...

[WildTurkey]

If it was unreasonable she shouldn't have signed it.

People do a lot more that that for love. Especially when it is two days before her wedding.

[Mamzelle]

Not every contract is enforceable. There is such a thing as "unconscionable"--

Loverboy shouldn't seek to marry in the first place if what he really wanted was a slave. I do not believe most prenups are enforceable. They seem to me to be better suited for elder couples who want to protect family assets for their children, rather than Donald Trump wannabes....

[proud_2_B_texasgal]

It's the woman's choice???

[CORedneck]

Liberal Massachusetts. One state not to live in.

In my opinion, prenups should be upheld. If the other party doesn't like the prenup, they don't have to sign it but it also means there might not be a marriage.

I was married at one time but got divorced. Luckily, I got divorced in Colorado instead of Indiana. Colorado recognizes assets obtained prior to marriage to remain with the given spouse where as in Indiana, everything is considered dividable including inheritances.

If I get married again, I plan on doing a prenup and it would be simple. Whoever owns title to the property keeps it. No alimony especially.

[CurlyDave]

Presenting a prenuptual agreement just two days priot to the wedding meant she signed it under duress and the prenup should be void on that basis alone.

I am not certain this is completely true.

Certainly the date of the prenup is two days before the wedding. But they could have been discussing it for months, revising drafts all along the way, and finally gotten it to exactly the right wording two days before the wedding.

Or, consider the possibility that her told her he wanted one, she reluctantly verbally agreed, and then did nothing about it for months. Two days before the wedding he says sign it or call it off. She will claim duress, but he has just as valid a claim to duress if she agreed previously but then delayed in the hope that she could force the issue.

[ladyjane]

Not ennough details are presented here. It looks like the pre-nup was a surprise two days before the wedding. I know of a woman who had such a surprise the morning of the wedding. Surprise! The best way is to go to the islands to get married and hire a local person to perform the 'ceremony'. The 'little woman' never realizes she's not married until years later.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

What the hell is the point of a pre-nup if a judge is going to everturn it?

In the BIG scheme of things the point of a pre-nup, or basically and legal document, is to enrich lawyers (Kerry/Edwards et. al.).

Lawyers should be sued for malpractice if this stands and they have anything to do with putting together pre-nups from that point on. We desperately need legal reform... LOTS of it...

[Sam the Sham]

A contract can be invalid if it is sprung in a way that does not give the other party time for "due consideration". Two days before a wedding wasn't enough time to get her own lawyer to go over it.

[Tempest]

Sounds like the judges made the right decision in this case.

[WildTurkey]

The question is... was the prenup a completely valid contract at the time it was signed?

Most courts have ruled that for a pre-nup to be valid, both parties have to have sufficient time to review it and obtain legal advice in needed. Two days before the wedding would not be sufficient. Besides she is being put under duress to sign it.

[Sam the Sham]

What do you mean ?

Why is the wedding invalid ?