In Re Marriage Of Pendleton

5 P.3d 839 (2000)

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

W and Fireman (H) married on July 13, 1991. On July 1, 1991, they executed a premarital agreement which provided, inter alia: 'Both parties now and forever waive, in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, all rights to any type of spousal support or child support from the other; . . .' The agreement acknowledged that each party had been represented by independent counsel in the negotiation and preparation of the agreement, that counsel had advised each of the meaning and legal consequences of the agreement, and that each party had read and understood the agreement and its legal consequences. Their respective counsel certified that this had been done and that their clients understood the meaning and legal consequences of the agreement and executed it freely and voluntarily. The couple separated in 1995, and on April 3, 1996, W filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage seeking spousal support. Each party had a net worth of approximately $ 2.5 million. W, who had two children from a prior marriage, held a master's degree and was an aspiring writer. H held a doctorate in pharmacology, a law degree, and was a businessman with ownership interests in numerous companies and business ventures. W's net monthly income was $4,233. The court ruled that the waiver of spousal support was against public policy. The couple had maintained a lifestyle in the high $20,000 to $32,000 per month range, and the court ordered H to pay temporary spousal support of $8,500 per month. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the current state of family law is one that 'should not per se prohibit premarital spousal support waivers or limitations. It remanded the matter to the trial court which, in the belief that such waivers were per se unenforceable, had not determined whether this agreement was enforceable under the rules set forth in section 1615 and the policies underlying the Uniform Act and the California version thereof. W appealed.