Prenuptial Agreement

[Justice???]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

The court's decision to rescind the prenuptial agreement was based on an alternative finding that the prenuptial agreement was void as against public policy. The court determined that enforcement of the agreement would have been unconscionable because the terms of the agreement encouraged divorce or profiteering by divorce.

Is this saying that many awards of alimony are "unconscionable"?

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

no - the terms of THAT prenuptual agreement was void

 

[Justice???]

Agreed, but I think you missed something in the second sentence.

If alimony encouraged the divorce and the plaintiff profitted by the divorce, in absence of fault, I read it to be considered "unconscionable".

 

[Ohiogal]

Agreed, but I think you missed something in the second sentence.

If alimony encouraged the divorce and the plaintiff profitted by the divorce, in absence of fault, I read it to be considered "unconscionable".

Really? Because the words "alimony" or "spousal support" are no where near there. It doesn't say what exactly was considered profiteering and you didn't provide the case site so an attorney could actually look at the case and determine how the court came to that decision.

 

[Justice???]

unconscionable because the terms of the agreement encouraged divorce or profiteering by divorce.

Hmmm, I think I read that very reasonable rationale to say that "anything" that would encourage divorce or provide a "profit" or "windfall" by divorce, should be considered unconscionable.

 

[LdiJ]

Hmmm, I think I read that very reasonable rationale to say that "anything" that would encourage divorce or provide a "profit" or "windfall" by divorce, should be considered unconscionable.

Again, it was referring specifically to the case at hand. In law, you cannot take a single sentence, without the context of the rest of the case, and try to make it mean what you want it to mean.

If you want to tell us the case name, and where you found it, someone may have time to read the whole case and THEN comment on the sentence.

 

[Justice???]

Don't be so surprised that we actually have such a reasonable statement made in Domestic court.

I really like the rationale behind this thinking. Hopefully, it will catch on.

 

[Perky]

Don't be so surprised that we actually have such a reasonable statement made in Domestic court.

I really like the rationale behind this thinking. Hopefully, it will catch on.

Alright, already!!! Sheesh! Why won't you provide the case?

For anyone who's interested, I think the case is probably this one (Gartrell v Gartrell):

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/5/2009/2009-ohio-1042.pdf

It's not an exact quote, but it's pretty darn close.

OP, you're comparing apples to oranges. The quote refers to a prenuptial agreement. That is, knowing what one can gain from a marriage may lead to divorce so that one can profit from the divorce. In a prenup, the parties know what can be gained.

YOU are trying to compare that to an award of alimony, which is never guaranteed. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Seniors!) It may be likely in some cases, but it's not spelled out in advance so that one can rely on it. Therefore, to say that the possibility of alimony encourages divorce and profiteering is ludicrous.

Get over it.

 

[Justice???]

Thanks for your comments perroloco.

It may be likely in some cases, but it's not spelled out in advance so that one can rely on it. Therefore, to say that the possibility of alimony encourages divorce and profiteering is ludicrous.

I hope you don't believe that. In many States, it's written in stone. I think it is more than fair to say, that it is for the most part guaranteed, in many instances. Money is a motivator, and excessive awards, some in excess of $500,000, yes, have encouraged divorce. I don't think anyone can disagree with that.

In a prenup, the parties know what can be gained.

In the case you are referring to, the prenup was not guaranteed.

unconscionable because the terms of the agreement encouraged divorce or profiteering by divorce.

While obviously being applied to the case at hand. I think the "blanket" rationale here clearly states that "anything" that would encourage divorce or provide a "windfall" or "profit" by the divorce would be considered "unconscionable". What a great choice of words.

I would think the only legal argument is what can be considered encouraging or profitting. That would be a worthwhile argument. Not the rationale of his statement.

I would never think that alimony is wrong in all cases. I'm only agreeing that excessive awards encourage divorce. I believe that 83% of divorces are initiated by ____________.