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.''
It makes sense that a ex-spouse should receive alimony, particularly when children are involved. However the Court rightly upheld the asset-protection aspects of the pre-nup, which was proper. Even Ivana got a $14 million settlement from Donald Trump, even though she signed a pre-nup waiving all support.
If folks want their employers to treat "contract partners" the same as a spouse (benefits, etc.) let them negotiate that as part of their emplyment contract. If they don't have the clout to get that done, tough.
If people want the stae to treat "contract partners" as spouses (social security, etc.) then let them work to elect representatives who will pass laws to that effect. If they can't make the case to get those clowns elected, then I guess they are SOL.
And if a gay couple wants to adopt or "artificially" create a new baby, let them subject themselves to very strenuous review of just how sane and wholesome their relationship is and the environment will be for raising a child. "but that's not fair, straight couples don't have to do that" the gay activists will scream. Wrong. We have 50,000 years of practical experience to say that a heterosexual couple who goes through the hassle of getting married (particularly in a church) provide a better place for raising a child than any other situation. When gays have 50,000 years of majority "good conduct" in child rearing to back up their claims then they can raise children without critical ovservers looking over their shoulder.
This case is not unique and is very commonly the reason prenups are ditched. Either the husband or wife decides to be clever with a prenup at the last minute when the guests have arrived and the hall has been paid.
There is also the other part of the equation, nobody goes INTO marriage with the anticipation of divorce. Thus the added burden is one of "It will not matter because we are not getting divorced."
In this case the husband was just plain stupid. IF she had the agreement reviewed by a lawyer, even had terms modified at her request no matter how small, he would have been in a much better position to argue upholding the prenup.
When you buy stock, when you go to the track you KNOW the deal you are getting into. (insider trading aside) Here the woman was planning a big wedding, and from out of no where came this legal document that she would either sign or cancel the rest of her life.
It depends on the state. Texas has common law mariage (and common law divorce), Washington does not. California doesn't have it either, but does have palimony. In California the divorce is divided up by a computer program called Dissomaster.
Hahahahahahaha! Stop, I can't breathe, where's my oxygen tank? Hoohoohoohoohoo!!!
LOL! Dontcha love it?
It is illegal of an ordained minister of any CHRISTIAN congregation I am aware of to perform a marriage ceremony without a marriage license. AT the very least, his church will lose their tax-exempt status.
I agree with the rest of your post though...
FFC has all states recognizing commonlaw marriges from other states, thus FL and Mass will recognize another states common law marriage in their divorce courts. (FFC)
Withing their church rules perhaps. But as a matter of law, I can pay a willing priest to perform the marriage rite and forgoe the certificate recording the marriage. The law only cares about recording licenses. This is why in the USA priests are also notaries in order to execute the marriage license at the same time.
A very comon example is when a priest perform the service for a couple which had to be civily married in advance in order for him or her to process their green card papers.
Middle class men cannot afford to be divorced. That's what your really mean.
So men better marry wisely. Don't marry the hottest woman. Marry a nice conservative woman who wants to have children. She may not be the best looking around, but she'll probably be the nicest.
Marry for life!
I'm talking about Washington state. When we were married we could not get a Christian minister to marry us without a license, they all gave the same legal reason.
Piffle. Men are schoolyard compared to women, who are generally Olympic caliber. It's not a comment about character, it's about the difference between the genders.
Glad to hear it, RR! Maybe she should now start supporting you! That way, you can clear your conscience by making the supreme sacrifice of hanging around the house all day. :-)
Words of wisdom, luckystarmom.
Good idea except for one problem:
People change. The person that divorces you ten or twenty years later is usually not the person you married.
On the other hand, barring mental illness, when a marriage lasts only a few years or months, you have only yourself to blame.
There isn't enough info in the article to know, so we are all guessing. I'm guessing that her lawyer said she didn't have time to have an attorney review the pre-nup before she signed it. That would be grounds to nullify it.
You are not required to have an attorney review a contract for it to be binding.
But you're right about not enough info in the article. It is very sparse about a subject that is very complicated.
That may have been his church rule, it is not a rule of law.
"Marriage is a commitment of several years of your life"
That is your first problem.
Marriages is a commitment for the rest of your life.
So far in my family (my parents, brothers, and myself) we have been married for over a 100 years. My brother and his wife were married for 26 years, and would have loved to have been married longer. Unfortunately, my brother died this year.
My parents have been married over 50 years. My other brother has been married 26 years. I have been married for 13 years.
We married for life, and we don't regret it. We like our spouses and our children. We can't imagine life without them.
My husband is my best friend. When I married him, I thought about what it would be like to grow old with him. I knew it would be difficult. We've suffered through 3 miscarriages, one son, and twin daughters. Our twin daughters almost died when they were babies. Now one of them has brain damage. We both married someone that could handle the stresses of life, and wouldn't cut and run when the going got tough.
You must have responded to me by mistake. Your quote is not from me and I agree with everything you say in you post.
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.