|
|
|
Cases of Interest: Antenuptial Agreements
© National Legal Research Group, Inc.
ALABAMA: James v. James, 764 So. 2d 549 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
The couple's antenuptial agreement had been rescinded, the husband's businesses were held to be marital property, and the wife had no interest in the husband's individual retirement account.
Read More About This CaseCOLORADO: In re Marriage of Rahn, 914 P.2d 463 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
The law is now rather clear that parties to an antenuptial agreement cannot waive spousal death benefits under ERISA. In a recent case, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement whereby the parties agreed that "[a]ll of the property now owned or hereafter acquired by [husband] will remain his sole and separate property throughout the marriage.
Read More About This CaseDELAWARE: In re Estate of Massello, 1997 WL 89091 (Del. Ch. Ct. Feb. 24, 1997).
Under Pennsylvania law, the validity of an antenuptial agreement does not depend on its substantive sufficiency, but depends solely on whether it was entered into without fraud, duress, or misrepresentation and is the result of full and fair disclosure. Simeone v. Simeone, 525 Pa. 30, 581 A.2d 162 (1990).
Read More About This CaseIOWA: In re Estate of Ingmand, No. 1-357/00-1281 (Iowa Ct. App. July 31, 2001).
The widow appealed a determination that the parties' prenuptial agreement was valid.
Read More About This Case
MISSOURI: Darr v. Darr, 950 S.W.2d 867 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
The husband's financial disclosure, combined with the wife's knowledge of his finances, was sufficient to make the parties' antenuptial agreement enforceable, even though his financial statement omitted 12% of his monthly income; however, a provision waiving the right to attorney's fees should be evaluated in view of the parties' economic circumstances at dissolution.
Read More About This CasePENNSYLVANIA: Musko v. Musko, 23 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1409 (Pa. 1997).
As a general rule, prenuptial contracts cannot control the sharing of expenses between spouses during the marriage, since this would essentially negate one spouse's statutory duty to support the other. E.g., Borelli v. Brusseau, 12 Cal. App. 4th 647, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16 (1993) (spouses cannot delegate the duty of marital support to a third party); Boyer v. Boyer, 925 P.2d 82 (Okla. Ct. App. 1996) (antenuptial agreement cannot change duty of support during marriage).
Read More About This CaseTENNESSEE: Lowe v. Lowe, No. E2000-01456-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 30, 2001).
The husband appealed the trial court's ruling declaring the parties' antenuptial agreement void.
Read More About This Case
TENNESSEE: Wilson v. Moore, 929 S.W.2d 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).
The parties' prenuptial agreement was enforceable, where the husband's disclosure of his financial holdings was sufficient to enable the wife to make a knowledgeable decision with regard to executing the agreement.
Read More About This CaseGo to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Store Categories State Guidebooks Find Professionals Support Calculations |
Fairshare Divorce for Women:
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!