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.''
Its a matter of interpretation.
A prenup could always be thrown out, DaMatteo case already allowed that.
What this Judge has done though is to say to basically put alimony in a category with slavery, saying that even if the party willfully agreed to the contract, the contract is void because one cannot give up ones constitutional rights, even if they agree to do so voluntarily.
I don't know the specifics of this case, but if this woman is not destitute, or likely to wind up destitute because of this divorce then I think this Judge just pulled one out of his ass.
There was a case on Cape Cod where a man and his girlfriend went to one of the islands, maybe the Dominican Republic, and got married. It turned out that the person who married them had been hired by the husband to pretend he was a minister or justice of the peace. Ten years later the husband took off with another lady (widow and heiress but not Thereza) and in the divorce proceedings the husband announced that they weren't even married! Surprise! The wife got something but not the equitable distribution that would have occurred if they had been married. I think Jacob Atwood might have been the lawyer for that case too.
The way the law now stands and the way judges apply it, the marriage contract itself amounts to a one-sided contract. It's the only one I can think of that judges do not take a dim view of.
Then expect more men to avoid the contract.
But how else could she lure him into a marriage under false pretenses? She clearly had no intention of honoring the contract, as proven by her subsequent court action against him.
Read the other posts. I am not joking. The decision in this case is so obvious it hardly needs to be explained.
The marital contract - offer to get married and its acceptance - had already occurred long before one guesses, so this is, if anything, a unilateral alteration of the contract.
Upon a closer look, it appears that she got half of the assets aquired during the marriage, whcih the man's lawyer claims is valued in the hundreds of thousands. So, I guess in this instance, I don't see how alimoney can be awarded. She's got quite the nest egg to use in order to get back on her feet and learn a skill to make a living, so...
I still stand by my original opinion regarding Alimoney in specific instances, but not in this particular case.
We have two things here: (1) An idiot judge; and (2) ingrained societal prejudice (thanks to "feminism") against men and for women. (Speaking as someone who was divorced and got essentially nothing but debt from the marriage after 22 years of marriage. It was the typical roadhouse divorce: she got the house, I got the road.)
I've always thought rich people should just shack up.
I will say that you are consistent. You always seem to come down on side that defies reason or rule!...
"Why would anyone safely divorced (with money) and free for the first time in 25 yrs of imprisonment and torture get re-married?"
They are still in shock?
Stockholm syndrome?
Can't handle freedom?
Thinking with the big head instead of the little one?....while trying to maintain a thin veener of morality?
Shared income?
Insanity ?
Vanity?
Stupidity?
Self destructive impulse?
Arrogance?
Foolishness?
Loneliness coupled with allergies to pet dander?
That is exactly what Melvin Belli did. He married the notoriously greedy socialite, Pat Montandon, in a Shinto ceremony in Japan. When she filed for divorce, thinking she could strip him of his assets, she got a big surprise. That, of course, was in the pre-palimony era.
Get over yourself.
Good thing they didn't live in:
Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Common law marriage...
Doing 2 days before the wedding shows that he is a spineless and dishonest weasel.
Accding to the few facts offered here, the man certainly was not constrained into marriage. He could have hired a nanny and maid--but it would seem that he wanted the particularly personal kind of service that a homebased wife/stepmom would provide. That appears to be what he sought for his own benefit. After the child approached majority, it would also seem that he was ready to discard his erstwhile "servant". What a great deal that would have been for him.
It also looks like he allowed his wife, when a fiancee, to get involved in a sentimental arrangement only to present her with a cold prenup after she was commited to paying for the wedding.
I wonder what kind of a prenup you'd like your daughter to have to sign?
I agree. However, I have revised my opinion after looking closer at what was said - She got "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from assets gained during the marriage, so now I don't see the need for alimony in this case if that is in fact true.
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)
The only pre-nup worth a damn is a video version.
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.