Its a matter of interpretation.
A prenup could always be thrown out, DaMatteo case already allowed that.
What this Judge has done though is to say to basically put alimony in a category with slavery, saying that even if the party willfully agreed to the contract, the contract is void because one cannot give up ones constitutional rights, even if they agree to do so voluntarily.
I don't know the specifics of this case, but if this woman is not destitute, or likely to wind up destitute because of this divorce then I think this Judge just pulled one out of his ass.
Upon a closer look, it appears that she got half of the assets aquired during the marriage, whcih the man's lawyer claims is valued in the hundreds of thousands. So, I guess in this instance, I don't see how alimoney can be awarded. She's got quite the nest egg to use in order to get back on her feet and learn a skill to make a living, so...
I still stand by my original opinion regarding Alimoney in specific instances, but not in this particular case.
>>the contract is void because one cannot give up ones constitutional rights, even if they agree to do so voluntarily.<<
Um, what constitutional rights exactly?