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.''
Not the women that I know.
We should take a poll of the women at freerepublic and see what they say.
Yeah, it's much better to let them stay so you can torture them on a daily basis >:>
ROFL!!!
The courts are very feminist in Massachusetts. Tons of female judges and their male camp followers. Some are half OK while many are full blown feminazis. Male feminazis too. A great place for a guy to get reamed out in a divorce.
And from experience I can say this: you have to BOTH feel that way for it to be true. One isn't enough. Mine lasted over 20 years too, and when I was served papers it was an utter and total shock.
Before that day I had little respect for divorced people and bought into the 50/50 fault lie. I often said exactly what you say in your post.
And what you say IS true as long as both of you STAY on board. If only one of you really sees it as "for life," then it won't be.
The problem with you argument is that it makes sense and is logical.
You're right. Just because one person files for divorce does not mean that's the person who wants it.
That's exactly the point. A divorce, which is seeking legal dissolution of the marriage, ipso facto is concurrently seeking dissolution of the prenuptial contract.
That is to say, one party seeks to break the contract. Breaking contracts unilaterally is always dicey business.
While the marriage is still in force, the terms of the prenuptial contract are deemed to be complied with. Hence, there is no problem with the contract or it's terms.
That is why it doesn't come into play until divorce is invoked.
If prenups were not valid contracts willfully and legally entered into by both parties, they would not be recognized by any court in the land, save perhaps Louisiana, as they, as contracts, would not be deemed governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and thus would be unenforceable in a court of law. There would consequently be no reason for them to exist, and therefore they would not exist.
Like I say, I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I see it.
CA....
(You don't spring a prenup on your lady two days before the wedding.)
...but it's ok to kill a baby when it's 70% out of the womb! I'd say that's ...rude too!
Back to the point, I agree with you that it's rude, but should it disqualify it as a contract?
Buy a clue. The following is from the article:
"Two days before the wedding, Craig Austin presented Donna with a prenuptial agreement, which she signed, according to her attorney, Dana Curhan."
The word 'presented' implies that she saw it for the first time.
If someone literally holds a gun to your head in order to get you to sign over the deed to your house; is that a valid contract?
Maybe the terms of the prenup left her with no settlement at all, and so was not really a contract (no consideration given). If there was a predefined settlement, I would think it should have held up.
Also known as a Mineshaft Divorce; she gets the gold mine, you get the shaft.
Clauses that waive alimony are always tricky. The best ones are very very very explicit. Even to the point of puting acknowledgments regarding the ecconomic and career differences.
That, of course, remains a possibility. However, the article, which was woefully short on facts, does not raise that issue.
Still, valid point.
CA....
Close - it was the old "irreconcilable differences" garbage.
He told me the judge offered to lock her up, but as I said he declined in the interest of the child. I remember him telling me the judge said to her something like "You're a very lucky woman..."
.
You KNOW that isn't what I meant ...
.
I hate the divorce laws here. For the most part, I think the laws are designed to screw men. Having said that, I have always thought pre nup agreements were not worth the paper they were written on. I think it sucks, but I am surely not surprised by this ruling.
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.