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.''
Is she a child? Or a consenting adult?
Is she incompetent? Or in her right mind?
Did she sign because somebody held a gun to her head or because she perceived that she was acting in her own self-interest?
Was she defrauded or was she offered a contract whose terms were crystal clear?
People waive all sorts of options in business contracts and the courts generally uphold these terms -- except in pre-nups.
The initial problem was going into marriage with the thought it wouldn't last. Look - it didn't.
With some of the judges and the decisions they are forcing upon the public, don't be suprised to one day have a judge say something like the following:
This man required his fiancee to be to sign a prenuptial agreement before he would marry her. She refused. Because she refused, the man refused to go through with the marriage ceremony. The court finds this act reprehensible. Since the court cannot force the man to marry the woman without the prenuptial agreement, the woman must be compensated for the loss of "benefits" she might have acquired as this man's wife. Therefore the court awards this woman 1/2 of all assets this man may acquire over the next 50 years, including the current home inwhich he currently resides.
Gowning flame retardent suit.....
All marriages using prenuptial agreements will need them.
Nope.
Life is full of tense situations and difficult decisions. We are still responsible for ourselves and for our commitments.
Exactly. If you want a prenup give your spouse to be time to get a lawyer to review it. In PA the agreement would be void.
Palimony lawsuits???
Is your marriage officially valid if the license bearing the wedding witnesses is never filed?
Especially for lawyers...
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.
all future Mrs Donald Trumps should take note.
IMO, this is the most important aspect.
Should I ever be insane enough to pop the question, that term will definitely be written into my prenup. Along with one which states that all additional wealth derived from the management of the previously owned capital assets remains with the original party.
This pre-nup was in trouble when it was introduced TWO days before the wedding.
I certainly don't see that as unreasonable. Men get screwed by the courts in divorces too often...
>>``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.''<<
I beg to differ.
That is what ALL men do when they sign a marriage license.
People do unrealisic things all the time. And when they are put to pen and paper, they must honor those obligations - at least in a country that is governed by the rule of law.
Agree 100%. I had a pre-nup for my 2nd marriage that saved my @ss when my much younger wife decided I was boring and got a boyfriend during my 2nd semester in electrical engineering(back to school at 30 thanks to my Grandfather). I kept my home, my car, my bills, AND we split the joint bills. Louisiana, 1985.
On alimony, I have mixed feelings. Over a LONG(decades) marriage...I can understand it. When awarded after a "brief" marriage to "maintain the standard of living" for the EX....I view it as legal prostitution payments/extortion/theft-by-fraud AND way out of line.
Sorry, I didn't make it clearer. Foreign weddings are valid but in the case I described the man hired someone who wasn't legally able to marry them. It was a sham ceremony but she didn't know it. When they came back from their honeymoon they had a big wedding reception. While they were 'married' she continued to work in his chain of stores - I think it was childrens clothing, Ragged Bear or something like that and also had some children with him. I could be wrong on these details but something similar to this actually happened and I think Jacob Atwood was an attorney on that divorce also.
depends on the state but there is a deadline to file the marriage certificate in most states. (I believe it is within 30 days of the ceremony/signing)
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.