[Kurt_D]

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

[gov_bean_ counter]

Tereeeeza, be afraid, be very afraid.

[KJacob]

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.

[BibChr]

Logic test: how is this like abortion?

Dan

[Mears]

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

[Hildy]

Why would anyone with money want to get married?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Makes sense, I guess. I don't honestly see how a man can expect a woman to stay home raising the kids, and all that related stuff, while he earns a living, then upon divorce expect her to be able to just make a living after not being in the job market for over a decade.

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

[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.

[taxcontrol]

If this is NOT overturned the SCOTUS has some 'splainen to do.

[Pondman88]

This is the peoples republic of mass, so really no surprise that a court should overturn a legitimate agreement. Especially one involving alimony, as the liberals really love sticking it to men.

[Hu Gadarn]

Ah yeas GREED AND LAWYERS.... where you find one you find the other. If the Prenupt is voided by the court then there isn't a single contract that is safe from this.... This is a very bad thing.

[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?????

[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.

[Tempest]

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

[DennisR]

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.)

[Wolfie]

The only pre-nup worth a damn is a video version.

[AmericanChef]

The initial problem was going into marriage with the thought it wouldn't last. Look - it didn't.

[G Larry]

Gowning flame retardent suit.....

All marriages using prenuptial agreements will need them.

[nightdriver]

Is your marriage officially valid if the license bearing the wedding witnesses is never filed?

[longtermmemmory]

first mistake: two days before the wedding.
Second mistake: making no "bargain" for waiving rights to alimony. (in exchange for alimony she agrees to X in its place)
Third mistake: No making the agreement adjust for time. No alimony for five years, then some kind of lump sum support based on MARITAL assets.


While this story may be sensational, it fails as usual with the MSM to show that PROPER presentation and drafting and REASONED THOUGHT in such an agrement can get the proper result.

The husband should be looking to the malpractice insurance of the lawyer.