Bellio v. Belli

105 Cal.App.4th 630 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The parties were married in September 1997. H was 71 years old, was a multimillionaire. W, who was 48 years old, had a net worth of about $60,000 and was earning approximately $12 per hour. W was receiving monthly spousal support of $933 from a former spouse. The prior marriage had lasted 24 years. H asked W to sign a premarital agreement. It provided that the parties' separate property would remain separate property and that earnings and accumulations during the marriage would be held as separate property. W realized that she 'couldn't afford to marry H.' W believed she would be in a 'precarious' economic position if 'the marriage didn't work' or if H died. The support from her former spouse would terminate if she remarried, and 'she could barely make ends meet with . . . her earnings . . . .' W insisted that the agreement be modified to provide that, if 'the marriage terminates due to divorce or death of H (or his estate or trustee if he is deceased) will pay to [W] . . . the sum of $100,000.' W's former spouse was in his early 50'. The agreement was modified to include the $100,000 payment provision demanded by W. Each signed and was represented by independent counsel. The parties separated in November 1998. The following month, W petitioned to dissolve the marriage. She sought to enforce the $100,000 payment provision. The court concluded that it was unenforceable because it encouraged its beneficiary, to seek a dissolution' and therefore violated public policy. On the other hand, the court found that the $100,000 payment provision was ' 'reasonable to the circumstances of the parties.' This appeal resulted.