Prenuptial Agreement. The Appeals Court reversed a Probate Court judgment upholding a prenuptial agreement, the proponent of which was the husband, a biologist, who drafted it himself. The Appeals Court focused on a variety of factors in its decision to invalidate the agreement. Neither party had counsel. There was no evidence that the wife, also a biologist, had been advised to obtain counsel. There was no discussion of marital rights in the agreement, no discussion of how marital rights would be altered by the agreement – and, importantly, no demonstration of the parties’ understanding of those rights and the effect of the agreement. Most critical to the Appeals Court, however, was the absence of an express waiver of marital rights in the document, an explicit requirement since Rosenberg v. Lipnick, 377 Mass. 666 (1979). Eyster v. Pechenik, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 773 (May 23, 2008)
- Alimony
- Arbitration of Family Law Issues
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Attribution of Income
- Beneficiary Designation
- Child Support
- College
- Contempt
- Dependency Exemptions
- Division of Assets
- Earned Bonus
- Earning Capacity / Imputed Income
- Earnings in a Sub-S
- Emancipation
- Financial Restraining Order on Assets
- Foreign Custody
- Grandparent Visitation
- Health Insurance
- Imputing Income
- Income Equalization
- Income of Second Spouse
- Inheritance
- Inherited Assets
- Joint Legal Custody
- Judicial Discretion
- Jurisdiction
- Life Insurance
- Marital Estate
- Mediation / Unauthorized Practice of Law
- Merger and Survival
- Modification
- Non-Disparagement Provision
- Parent Coordinator
- Parental Fitness
- Parenting Time
- Plan Document Rule
- Postnuptial
- Prenuptial
- QDRO
- “Real Advantage” Standard
- Restraining Order
- Retained Earnings
- Retroactive Support
- Rights of Unmarried Partners
- Same Sex Marriage
- Self-Employment Income
- Stock Options
- Valuation Date
