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 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-307 next last
To: WildTurkey
Yes, that's a possibility. But it's also a possibility that she gave him a similar verbal promise to never take his children away from him, to never take unfair advantage of him in a court, to never reduce him to virtual poverty in a vindictive divorce action.

People make verbal promises every day.

And every now and then, someone actually fulfills that promise.

221 posted on 12/30/2004 11:51:12 AM PST by Bonaparte (Of course, it must look like an accident...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

Comment #222 Removed by Moderator

To: Hildy
Why would anyone with money want to get married?

Heck, without it either!
223 posted on 12/30/2004 11:52:03 AM PST by plsvn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

She's in, and it is because they wanted someone who could learn what they are NOW teaching.

Programming is different. I am a 21 year veteran of Mainframe programming and now teach Mainframe tools to other programmers. It aint going away soon, althoug a portion is off in other countries. Most of the people I know who work for large companies get trined in new tools as the need arises. Proving you can learn the things you don't already know is a more valuable asset than what you already know. That's been the secret, quite frankly, since the dawn of man.

Oh, and C and C++ aren't going away any time soon. Visual Basic, Java, etc. are transient languages.


224 posted on 12/30/2004 11:52:28 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

Comment #225 Removed by Moderator

Comment #226 Removed by Moderator

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

Where have you been? For the last 30 years marriage has been a legal contract the government has deliberately assisted either participant to unilaterally breech! Since these prenuptial agreements involve the same subject area, their treatment will naturally be the same.

227 posted on 12/30/2004 11:58:23 AM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Schwaeky

No. But yes, she has aged very nicely indeed.

But frankly, this sums up our attitude about the future of growing older together, eventually:

http://www.scifilm.org/tv/tz/twilightzone3-31.html


228 posted on 12/30/2004 11:58:58 AM PST by RobRoy (Science is about "how." Christianity is about "why.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
As long as the two of you are getting what you want, I see no problem, mb. I would only see a problem if you decided you were tired of him and started screeching about all the "sacrifice" you made during those years when you did exactly what you wanted to do.

I'm glad to hear you see your marriage as a partnership, rather than as an opportunity for predation.

229 posted on 12/30/2004 12:00:13 PM PST by Bonaparte (Of course, it must look like an accident...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte

NOT being a lawyer, here is my take:

This is the point.

If the prenup were sprung upon the blushing bride 2 days before the wedding, the entire contract would have been thrown out.

That was not the case.

It is evident discussions went on beforehand about this.

Partners desiring a prenup should, by simple reflex action alone, cause the other party to take a much closer second look at what they're considering spending, if not the rest of their lives, at least a subtantial portion of it.

You always have the option of saying "No". If she agreed and signed with the intention of not fulfilling the terms of the contract, that is fraud and misrepresentation, which are grounds for annullment.

If the marriage is annulled, in the eyes of the law the marriage never existed.

If the marriage never existed, where is the case?

Like I say, I'm not a lawyer (hey, some of my best friends...awww, never mind). But that's just how I see it.

CA....


230 posted on 12/30/2004 12:04:52 PM PST by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #231 Removed by Moderator

To: Chances Are
"If the prenup were sprung upon the blushing bride 2 days before the wedding, the entire contract would have been thrown out."

Most likely it would. And the court's reasoning would be that she rushed into a foolish choice and "should" have had more time to consult and reflect.

But if the prospective groom had offered her outrageous concessions in a pre-nup, the same court would uphold that agreement. And guess what, CA? Those are exactly the outrageous concessions you are making the second you marry her.

232 posted on 12/30/2004 12:11:02 PM PST by Bonaparte (Of course, it must look like an accident...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

You left off the end of the sentence: "...if marriage is to be considered."


233 posted on 12/30/2004 12:11:57 PM 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 213 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
And the court's reasoning would be that she rushed into a foolish choice and "should" have had more time to consult and reflect.

This should make my stock market investing, ar race track betting, VERY lucrative. "WAIT... I rushed into buying that stock/betting on the horse-now-glue, and it was a foolish choice. Money back, including all losses... PLEASE..."

234 posted on 12/30/2004 12:14:59 PM 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 232 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

Actually you are required to certify the opposing party is not serving in the armed services on active duty. Hard to see how she pulled that off and why she and her lawyer were not held in contempt.


235 posted on 12/30/2004 12:15:40 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy

no it is not. You can do the jitterbug and call it a marriage ceremony without a license.

The law says otherwise. Also having represented a party in a divorce cases in a state without commonlaw marraige where the couple was from a state that recognized commonlaw marriage I know you are wrong.

If you were marriage abroad in a legal marraige ceremony abroad, when she goes to divorce court with the paper reflecting that marriage she will be able to make all claims under the divorce laws.


236 posted on 12/30/2004 12:19:32 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
"Fraudulently signing a prenup is not grounds for annulment."

Actually, it usually is. If somebody knowingly induces someone else to marry by offering false representations, the marriage can be annuled.

237 posted on 12/30/2004 12:19:41 PM PST by Bonaparte (Of course, it must look like an accident...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
.


ConnectTheDots


Two days before the wedding, Craig Austin presented Donna with a prenuptial agreement, which she signed, according to her attorney, Dana Curhan.

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.



What Total Utter Feminist Nonsense ! BARF ALERT ...


1) This "isn't" a Moslem/Islamic nation (yet) and so where was the Coercion/Duress, unless hidden in her greed-infected soul ?

2) Contracts are Contacts ... and this "absurd" court decision will be overturned on it's head, to be flushed down the toilet wher it deserves to be.



Patton@Bastogne
Free Republic Member since 1998.



General George S. Patton Jr. Website




.
238 posted on 12/30/2004 12:20:04 PM PST by Patton@Bastogne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
"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."

You assume that it had not been discussed before then. They might have been working out final terms and signed it just before the wedding.

239 posted on 12/30/2004 12:20:06 PM PST by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird

Banks that make foolish choices and go belly-up are bailed out by the taxpayer, so why shouldn't you be?


240 posted on 12/30/2004 12:21:22 PM PST by Bonaparte (Of course, it must look like an accident...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 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