Reply to After working 20 years became SAHM - how to protect self financially

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "After working 20 years became SAHM - how to protect self financially"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Maybe this case (wVA) will helps you u deretand the concept of fairness really means foreseeability:

https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1985/16590-5.html

Quoting from the case:

Many courts supervise prenuptial agreements by inquiring into their "fairness," either at the time they were entered into, or at the time of divorce, or at both times. We have no problem accepting the requirements set forth in the jurisdictions cited above that prenuptial agreements must be voluntarily and knowledgeably entered and validly procured, but we are loath to apply a vague and entirely subjective standard of "fairness." Throughout all of contract law there is the recurring problem of disparity of bargaining power; thus if mere disparate bargaining power alone is grounds for invalidating contracts, contracts between rich and poor or between strong and weak will always be of questionable validity. Such, however, is not the rule elsewhere in contract law, and we see no policy reasons to make it so in the law of prenuptial agreements.

The term "fair," without some further elaboration, gives no guidance whatsoever concerning which agreements will be binding and which agreements will be struck down. Furthermore, candor compels us to raise to a conscious level the fact that, as in this case, prenuptial agreements will almost always be entered into between people with property or an income potential to protect on one side and people who are impecunious on the other. Measuring an agreement by an undefined judicial standard of fairness is an invitation to the very wealth redistribution that these agreements are designed to prevent.

D
The cases that discuss prenuptial agreements in other jurisdictions lead to the conclusion that when courts talk about "fairness" in the setting of a prenuptial agreement, they are usually not talking *115 about an entirely subjective, open-ended concept that allows judges to renegotiate contracts and substitute their own judgment for the agreement of the parties. Rather, what other courts are really concerned about is "foreseeability."[10]

In the case of Larry and Elana Gant there is no reason not to honor the parties' prenuptial agreement because circumstances have transpired exactly as the parties foresaw that they might transpire at the time the prenuptial agreement was made. Basically, things did not work out romantically between two middle-aged adults, and that was the exact eventuality about which they had bargained and contracted.

But what would our decision be in this case if Elana and Larry had had an idyllic relationship for five years and had decided to have three children? Certainly that was not a foreseen event, and if ten years after entering into this prenuptial agreement, with three hypothetical children aged four, three, and one, Larry had decided to divorce, these hypothetical, unforeseen, intervening events would compel us to think very hard about whether to honor the prenuptial agreement's waiver of alimony. Elana would need support for herself so that she could care for the children, but neither party had contemplated having children at the time they entered into the agreement.

In crafting rules in an area such as the enforcement of prenuptial agreements only one thing is certain: no matter what rules we adopt, there will be cases when the application of those rules will be inequitable. Therefore, the question to be asked is whether the adoption of firm rules making prenuptial agreements presumptively enforceable in their stated, explicit terms will advance or undermine legitimate public policy that favors marriage. In the field of prenuptial agreements, firm rules favoring enforceability inevitably further the public policy of encouraging middle aged, cohabiting couples to regularize their relationships by getting married.

Furthermore, these rules are unlikely to have any untoward consequences among those marrying for the first time and contemplating children because experience instructs us that it is a rare, starey-eyed couple in their early twenties who enter into an elaborate prenuptial agreement; after all, among the young, marriage is an exercise in optimism. Such optimism, however, is less likely among those who have been divorced one or more times, and it is an understandable pessimism, based upon the national statistics cited above, that cause many middle aged individuals particularly those with property or income to protectto prefer unmarried cohabitation to formal marriage. Although courts have *116 a high regard for their own wisdom, not everyone has unreserved enthusiasm for the proposition that at divorce time his or her future economic well-being is entirely "within the sound discretion of the trial court judge." Zirkle v. Zirkle, W.Va., 304 S.E.2d 664 (1983). See also W.Va.Code, 48-2-15 [1980].

A prenup/post nup are both contracts and would be evaluated the same by a court.

[/quote]

A prenup involves agreeing to terms BEFORE marriage when you are not likely to feel coerced into agreeing to them.  A postnup after marriage involves signing away your right to what would be a legally equitable split of assets.  An unfair split might be viewed as coercion.  I'm not a judge or a lawyer but I can't imagine a coerced agreement holding up in court.  So much depends on what the terms agreed to are.

Prenup is not the same as postnup.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics