[KJacob]

Can it not be argued that springing the pre-nup on her two days before the wedding was "unconscionable" ?

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

[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.

[Go Gordon]

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

Wrong. It means the guy wasn't going to marry her and assume the risk of alimony. However, if she signed a contract forbidding the possibility of alimony, then he would get married. Its really that simple. There would have been no marriage without the agreement, and the guy's conditions for marriage should be respected and enforced. The judge, in essence, has breached the original contract.

[Tempest]

In fear that he would leave???

You're kidding right?

That's not duress, people are free to leave if they wish and if she felt that it would be so easy for him to leave perhaps she should of rethought the whole marriage all together.

[Old Professer]

Next, they will be mandating a three-day recission period for whorehouses.