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.''
< chuckle >
Not exactly... but thanks for playing!
(c8
your joking, right?
"What happened to the rule of law?" It went by the way of the buggy whip when the RATS started appointing liberal activist judges.
Some people in this thread seem to say that men don't have the right to change their mind if the future Mrs refuses to sign a prenup. They call it duress. I say it is their right to do so, especially in light of the current laws of the US; these laws are unreasonable to the extreme as they don't take into account the hardships the man would be under, the fairness of the sums of money involved if she didn't bring much monetarily into the marriage and he was loaded. The prenup is one of the few mechanisms that decrease the risks of deciding to marry.
CAN WE PLEASE STOP INCREASING THE RISKS OF MARRYING AND INCREASING THE INCENTIVES TO DIVORCE?
Then she was a fool to sign it!
I think being presented with a prenup two days before the wedding - after invitations have been sent, you've told family and friends how you're so much in love, etc. - could be a situation causing duress. It would freak me out, that's for sure.
Since the days of Blackstone, the common law has prohibited the enforcement of contracts to the extent they violate public policy. This is nothing new. Whether the pre-nup violates public policy is a different issue.
I'll take: "So Lawyers can make lots of money..." for 200 Alex.
Two classes of men can afford marriage -- the very poor and the very wealthy. Middle class men can no longer afford it.
Of course the story doesn't say that there was NO discussion regarding a pre-nup until it was given to her to sign. (Gee... did the MSM do this hit piece against the man?) My guess is that if they were getting married they talked about these things many months, if not for years, before the final contract was presented - two days before the marriage contract was executed.
Of all the I've dated women I always bring up the financial issues for discussion in detail, and how things will go (although I don't ever want a pre-nup and I have plenty to loose), if marriage is to be considered.
They would have to love G-d, spouse, children, and grandchildren more than they love their money ...
Thats is absolutely false. As long as the couple is married in a country that the United States recognizes marriages from then they are 100% legally married. I have several friends who have traveled to foreign countries to get married and they are as married as if they got married at a church down the street from their home.
Many resort areas promote wedding packages.
We have a winner. The lawyers and judges make the rules and get paid.
Don't worry......there are tons of groups across the country fighting hard to slow down the legions of crooked shysters and judges trying to ram their stautory/administrative "legal" system down our collective throats.
She could have just cancelled the wedding. She had a choice.
Expect men to be even more resistant to commit to a wife now.
Many forms of contract are illegal. A contract to kill, to gamble, to commit a crime. A contract made under duress, or while intoxicated. Contracts for services pull in. implicitly, the normal expectations of service. Marriage is a special form of contract, and frankly -- unlimited discretion in pre-nups dilutes that special contract.
You're acting like they invalidated the whole pre-nup. They didn't. Just one aspect of it. He still has all the assets he brought to the marriage...
Let's face it - to expect a woman, who stayed home and raised your children and made a home for you, to just "move on" and be able to support herself after you tire of her is just wrong. Period. Anyone who says otherwise isn't much of a man.
I agree with that! There is a good study out that goes into this in detail... Why men are no longer wanting to get married when they get into their 30s and 40s. It's because they have too much to loose if the wife decides to leave. I'll have to find that study...
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.