CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Premarital and Postnuptial Agreements
......Agreements Enforced
.........Defenses Rejected
14 Cards On This Topic:

Consideration not required for premarital agreement.

Lack of an attorney merely one factor to consider in determining voluntariness of party's assent to PMA.

Failure to make reasonable inquiry to ascertain or effort to understand the meaning and content of the contract precludes rescission for unilateral mistake of fact.

Postnuptial agreement valid; standard defenses rejected; fiduciary duty narrowed.

W not under undue influence because pregnant and in danger of losing job when H had comparable pressures.

Agreement voidable only if terms encourage dissolution.

Fam. Code §1615 (c) added substantive, not procedural, provisions that do not apply retroactively to agreements signed before its effective date.

W’s claims that she was too busy preparing for the wedding to read or understand the final draft of the PMA were not persuasive.

The seven-day waiting period mandated by FC §1615(c)(2) does not apply to parties who are represented by counsel at the outset. [Overruled by statute]

Traditional defenses/exceptions to statute of frauds apply to Uniform Premarital Agreement Act.

Cal. antenuptial agreement enforced in N.J. despite (1) W's signature a few hours before ceremony, (2) no independent counsel for W and (3) no full disclosure of property by H.

Violation of provisions which are not material does not result in rescission of agreement.

Agreement drafted by H's attorney and signed 15 minutes before ceremony not void for fraud or undue influence.

Acknowledgment not required if proof made to judge.