On appeal, a husband challenged the trial court’s invalidation of a wife’s spousal support waiver contained in a 1985 prenuptial agreement. The soon-to-be wife had no input about the wording of the document. She claims the first time she saw it was three days prior to the wedding, after all the invitations had gone out.
After the parties married, they had a son, R., who is mentally disabled, and also suffers from Fragile-X syndrome and autism. Roberta stopped working full time in 1997. The parties separated in October 2009, and Roberta filed her petition for dissolution in November 2009. After the separation, Roberta lived with and cared for R., who is now 24 years old. He is able to work part-time as a janitor, earning $9 an hour. Roberta is unemployed.
The appellate court said the status of the law in 1985 was that prenuptial agreements would be enforced if the provisions did not objectively encourage or promote dissolution. There was no per se rule invalidating premarital agreements. However, it was also determined any written waiver of the statutory obligation of spouses to mutually support each other was void as being contrary to public policy. But in 2000 our Supreme Court recognized there had been a nationwide shift in public policy towards spousal support waivers. (See, In re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman, 24 Cal.4th 39, [5 P.3d 839; 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 278].)
Then in 2002, the California Legislature required spouses to be represented by independent counsel before waiving spousal support in a premarital agreement. (See, Fam.Code, §1612, subd. (c)). Family Code section 1615, was also amended to create a presumption that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily unless the court makes five designated findings [including a 7 day period between the time agreement first presented and the time it was signed.] In affirming the trial court’s order, the appellate court stated: “We conclude the trial court properly applied the law as it then existed in 1985.” In re Marriage of Raymond and Roberta Melissa (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; January 2, 2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 598.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.