Over the past two decades, women have entered the world of work and earned wages often higher than those of their husbands, restrictions on spousal support and the division of property have often been desired by potential wives and husbands. It was no longer uncommon for spousal support to be granted to men, so that the issue of gender equality was no longer a fundamental factor in the development of such arrangements. Proper representation can also affect the validity of a marriage contract, at least in the state of California. The state version of the UPAA requires each spouse to hire an independent lawyer to review the marriage contract and inform them of their rights. Failure to do so could invalidate the contract. 2. Not properly executed: Both parties must sign a prenuptial agreement before marriage for the agreement to be considered valid. 3. You have been pressured: A prenuptial agreement may not be valid if one of the spouses has been pressured by the other (or their lawyer or family) to sign the agreement.
In December 1987, Barry Bonds, the baseball player, told his fiancée Sun, a Swedish waitress and makeup artist who was unemployed at the time, that he wanted a marriage contract before the planned wedding, which was scheduled to take place the following year. The couple lived in Phoenix, Arizona, and planned to fly to Las Vegas on February 5, 1988 and get married the next day. On the day of the robbery, Barry and Sun met at his attorney`s office, where a marriage contract was first presented to sign. According to her testimony in court, she was advised to consult an independent lawyer, but she refused because she had no assets. The agreement also referred to a list of the party`s assets and assets, but there was no such timeline. The California Supreme Court upheld the trial court`s finding that the agreement was voluntary: the trial court found that there was no coercion. She said Sun was not threatened, she was not forced to sign the agreement, and never expressed any reluctance to sign the agreement. She noted that the proximity of the marriage to sign the agreement was not a constraint, because in the particular circumstances of the case, including the small number of guests and the informal nature of the wedding preparations, little embarrassment would have resulted from the postponement of the wedding. He noted that the presentation of the deal came as no surprise to Sun, noting that he was aware of Barry`s desire to “protect his current property and future income” and that he knew such an agreement was planned “at least a week before the parties signed the formal prenuptial agreement.” Note, however, that if the facts had been the same, but the marriage contract after the 1. In January 2002, under the new law, there would have been a different result, since there was no written waiver of the right to an independent lawyer, no seven-day waiting period and no written statement in Swedish about the effect of the marriage contract and the rights sun waived. A court may find coercion or undue influence if there is a history of domestic violence.
L`affaire In Re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal App. 4th 1509, although it is a post-marriage contract signed after marriage, is illustrative. In this case, the court declared a marriage contract invalid for reasons of coercion and undue influence if the husband signed a post-marital contract in which a percentage of his business was transferred to his wife as a result of continued verbal and physical abuse by the wife, including a slap in the face in front of the children and threats by his wife to undermine her relationship with her children. In the Dawley case, the Supreme Court ruled that the fact that the woman entered into the marriage contract because she was pregnant and concerned about her financial security was not under the influence, but only because “James, who was threatened with paternity proceedings and the probable loss of his position, was unable to take advantage of his distress, which reflected this blatant equality of bargaining power.” This seems to leave the door open to the fact that the threat of not marrying a pregnant woman may be partial evidence of coercion or inappropriate conclusion. In other states, courts are divided on this issue, and one commentator noted that if pregnancy is the only evidence of coercion or undue influence, cases tend to hold agreements valid, but if there are other aggravating factors than pregnancy, the agreement is more likely to be invalid. 2. Plan to avoid the allegation that the agreement was unscrupulous and not obvious A party may claim that a prenuptial agreement is invalid because it was both unscrupulous at the time of performance of the contract and there was no adequate disclosure. The burden lies with the party claiming that the agreement is invalid. Unfortunately, there are no Californian cases that concern the question of whether a marriage contract is unscrupulous in this context.
Applying the criterion of lack of contractual scruples, most commentators argue that there must be both a lack of procedural and material scruples. Lack of procedural scruples has been defined as oppression caused by unequal bargaining power and surprise due to hidden and unexpected regulations. The lack of substantial scruples implies a unilateral and unreasonable agreement that has no justification. (Little v. Auto Steigler, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1064.) 7. False information: A prenuptial agreement is only valid if it is entered into after full disclosure by both parties with respect to their income, assets and liabilities. If one potential spouse provides the other with information that is not true, the agreement is void. One of the reasons why a marriage contract can be considered invalid is the inclusion of unscrupulous conditions. Lack of scruples refers to the fact that the terms of the document are grossly unfair or unfair, or would entitle a spouse to receive public financial support if applied. A prenuptial agreement can also be considered unscrupulous if the conditions require a spouse to do certain things during the marriage, such as.
B, a certain level of household chores or intimate acts with their spouse. The judge in the case can either rule that the entire document is invalid, or remove the unscrupulous terms and apply the rest of the agreement. The main case In Re Marriage of Bonds (2000) 24 Cal. 4th suggests that there is a high burden to prove coercion or undue influence. The Court concluded that there was no confidential relationship between the parties contemplating the marriage. The Court also concluded that the general fairness or abuse of the agreement was not relevant to the examination of its validity. The court also noted that the agreement was voluntary, although Bond`s fiancé was not represented, the agreement was presented a day before the wedding, Swedish was his main language, and it was unclear whether there had been full disclosure. For example, a prenup cannot decide on child support or custody issues. There is no agreement that can waive a child`s right to parental assistance, and a court must rule or approve a custody arrangement based on the best interests of the child. Factors that could influence the issue of lack of scruples would be whether a party was presented with a fait accompli in a lawyer`s office shortly before the marriage, or whether they were notified in advance and had the opportunity to review a draft before signing; whether amendments have been made to the agreement at the request of the party challenging enforcement; if they were represented by a lawyer; whether they considered the agreement to be fair at the time of its signature; and whether the terms of the agreement were clearly stated and not hidden in the fine print. There are many cases where prenuptial agreements are maintained that appear unfair, but are “entirely within the scope of a permissible benefit to one of the parties.” Even though the agreement is unscrupulous, it should also be noted that there has not been full disclosure of the nullity of the agreement.
The person claiming that the Agreement was invalid must also prove all of the following: (a) the party has not obtained fair, reasonable and complete disclosure of the other party`s property or financial obligations, (b) the party has not voluntarily and expressly waived in writing any right to disclose the other party`s property or financial obligations, that goes beyond the intended disclosure, and (c) that party did not or could not reasonably have had adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party […].