Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W were both previously married and divorced. Because of the problems with the previous marriages and the fact that H was a man of means it was suggested that they enter into a prenup agreement. The terms of the agreement were suggested by W at a meeting with H and his attorney. The attorney acted as scrivener and did not advise the wife regarding her interests. W signed the agreement without benefit of counsel even though having been given the opportunity to get one. Upon dissolution, W would get the car she was then driving, and any gifts given her by H and all of her separately owned property at the time of marriage, $2,000 in cash, and 1/2 of the balance of any joint savings accounts into which all the earnings of the marriage were to be deposited. There would be no maintenance or other property division, and if W was disabled at divorce, she would be entitled to get $500 per month. W's dissolution requested maintenance, a property division, attorney's fees, and costs. H asserted the agreement. The trial court gave the judgment to H and W appealed. W contends that prenup agreements are void as against public policy as they support divorce. H lost an appeal issue regarding the maintenance provisions of the contract. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co