Antenuptial Agreement Attorney Fees

The Casto case involved a massive restructuring of Florida`s marriage contract law. It was no longer important for an agreement to be reasonable as long as it was freely executed with general knowledge of the assets of the other party. However, the Supreme Court`s failure to address the temporary lawyers` fees raised in Belcher and the temporary issue of aid, Casto was only a cosmetic victory for those who would become contracts in order to avoid lengthy litigation over otherwise valid marital contracts. In Crupi v. Crupi, 784 so. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that Casto was too strict a standard to apply to any marriage contract entered into after the commencement of the dispute, given that the parties no longer work with less than arm reach during the performance of the contract, but have the advantage of a court-ordered discovery to ensure that full disclosure takes place.15 The Florida Supreme Court has approved this conclusion. n Macar v. Macar, 803 so.

2d 707 (Fla. 2001), which found that a wife who had entered into a conjugal agreement included in a final judgment and, after a thorough discovery, did not have the right to use Casto`s provisions to attempt to annul that agreement.16 Shortly after Posner II, we examined in Belcher „whether the husband, by express provision in a marriage contract, was not entitled to use Casto`s provisions to attempt to annul this agreement.16 Shortly after Posner II, we considered in Belcher „whether the husband, by express provision in a marriage contract, by paying a current marriage contract, in fixed consideration, his future commitment to pay alimony, appeal costs and attorneys` fees in a separation before the dissolution of the marriage.“  271 d.2d to 8. We found that „until there is a decree on the dissolution of marriage, ending her role as a wife, the wife`s support remains within the long-standing guidelines of the husband`s help, which cannot be consistently replaced by its previous summary provision by agreement.“  Id. at 11.   Given the husband`s long-established obligation to have a spousal pension „in the historical line of business for shortly after the establishment of Florida in 1845,“ tradition and the perceived need to protect women led to the conclusion that pre-judgment assistance obligations could not be waived.2 1989, after three months of negotiations (with the help of a separate lawyer), the Lashkajanis concluded a marriage contract.   Soon after, they got married.   Their marriage lasted about ten years and gave birth to three children.   However, in 2000, the wife filed for divorce.   She argued that the agreement was unfair to her and that she had been forced to sign it.   The District Court found that the husband`s „financial disclosure was complete and open“ and that the agreement was „fair and grossly disproportionate to the detriment of the wife.“ The court concluded that the agreement was valid and enforceable. In Edmonds v.

Edmonds, 710 N.Y.S.2d 765, 769 (Onondaga Cty. 2000), for example, the Tribunal decided that the application for [d] effect for an increase in temporary support must also be dismissed. Paragraph 3 of the agreement provides that „both parties shall waive the right to a temporary or permanent pension or pension in the event of separation or divorce“. It is indisputable that the parties are separated and the defendant does not claim that he is about to become a public accusation. The defendant`s contractual waiver of his right to a temporary pension is valid and enforceable. Id. at 769. The wife appealed the husband`s remission of the fees.   See Lashkajani, 855 d.2d to 89.   She argued that in paragraph 16 of the agreement, contrary to what we decided in Belcher v. Belcher, 271 so.2d 7 (fla.1972).   The second district agreed and found that paragraph 16 was not applicable because it „would have waived the ex-husband`s obligation to pay the lawyer`s fees and expenses incurred during the marriage“.

 Lashkajani, 855 so.2d to 89.   The court ruled that „in Florida, it is well regulated that the obligation for a spouse to offer marital support during marriage, including liability for attorneys` fees and expenses, cannot be removed by a marriage contract.“  Id….

Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.