Pre-marital agreements can cover a large number of subjects and are generally maintained as long as the conditions are not contrary to law or public order. In general, pre-marriage agreements deal with property rights. They can take care of the rights of spouses to the property, either together or separately, their ability to control and/or manage the estate or to cede ownership in the event of dissolution of their marriage, the will or trust for the performance of the terms of its contract, property rights and the allocation of a death benefit from life insurance and the choice of law with respect to the establishment of the agreement (i.e. the agreement is interpreted under California law or other law). The most sensitive question is whether an agreement requiring lump sum payments is not applicable because it promotes divorce. In Dawley, the Supreme Court distinguished between terms that encourage or encourage dissolution (invalid) and conditions that tailor the parties` property rights to their (valid) needs. That is why, in one case, a Jewish couple signed a “kethuba” in which, in the event of a divorce, the husband promised to give his wife his separate home and $500,000 or half of his fortune, depending on the highest value. The court found that the agreement was so broad that it “destroyed a marriage that otherwise existed” and invalidated the agreement. (Marriage of Noughrey (1985) 169 Cal App.3d 326.) In another case, The court upheld the agreement in which the 76-year-old millionaire husband promised to pay $100,000 to his 46-year-old fiance if they divorced because the payment was calculated to compensate for the loss of marriage assistance from a previous marriage and was therefore an “adequate reorganization of property rights according to the couple`s needs and wishes,” while the marriage lasted only one year. (In Re Marriage of Bellio (2003) 105 Cal App.
4th 630.) This is why it is good practice to ensure that all post-divorce payments are made in the form of assistance rather than a lump sum payment in assets. 4. Special Rules for Spy Assistance: The exemption or limitation of spising assistance in the agreement is not applicable if one of the parties was not represented by an independent lawyer or if the agreement was unacceptable at the time of the execution. The requirement for independent legal assistance is not expected to be taken into account. It is impossible to know in advance whether the spising assistance scheme is unacceptable, as it will be tested at some point in the future. We know that a renunciation of marriage is not imposed if it prevents a sick or disabled spouse from supporting himself or herself. (In Re Marriage of Rosendale (2004) 1119 Cal App. 4th, 1202.) In December 1987, Barry Bonds, the baseball player, his fiancée Sun, a Swedish waitress and makeup artist who was unemployed at the time, said he wanted a wedding before the wedding scheduled for 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 law firm, where a marriage agreement was first submitted to him for signature. According to court testimony, she was advised to consult an independent lawyer, but refused because she had no property.
The agreement also dealt with a timetable for the property and heritage of the party, but there was no such schedule attached. The California Supreme Court upheld the Court`s assertion that the agreement was voluntary: the court found that there had been no coercion. It stated that Sun had not been threatened, that it had not been forced to sign the agreement and that it had never expressed its dislike for the signing of the agreement.