ANSIN V. CRAVEN-ANSIN 929 N.E.2d 955 (2010) CASE BRIEF

ANSIN V. CRAVEN-ANSIN

929 N.E.2d 955 (2010)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal in a divorce proceeding to determine whether so-called 'postnuptial' or 'marital' agreements are contrary to public policy.

FACTS: H and W entered into a 2004 written agreement 'settling all rights and obligations arising from their marital relationship' in the event of a divorce. H's minority interest in Florida real estate was given a 'placeholder' value of $4 million to $5 million (the amount varied from time to time), of which W was well aware. W understood that H's principal objective in executing a marital agreement was to protect his interest in the Florida real estate in the event of a divorce. H and W were married in July, 1985. The marital agreement in 2004 was brought on by marital problems that began toward the end of 2003. At the time the couple sought the assistance of a marriage counselor. In early 2004, H informed W that he 'needed' her to sign an agreement if their marriage was to continue because of his 'uncertainty' about W's commitment to their relationship was the reason for this request. It caused W a 'great deal of stress.' They separated six weeks later. H stated he would not recommit to the marriage if W failed to sign a marital agreement. W agreed to do so, she said, in an attempt to preserve the marriage and the family. The parties resumed living together, and went on a 'second honeymoon.' Each retained counsel. W negotiated terms more favorable to her. Several draft agreements were exchanged. W was 'fully informed' of the marital assets, and that she was 'satisfied' with the disclosures made by H with respect to the Florida real estate, which included the financial summaries using the 'placeholder' values for H's. It was signed in July, 2004. W 'disclaims any and all interest she now has or ever may have' in the husband's interest in the Florida real estate and other marital assets. H agreed to pay W $5 million, and thirty per cent of the appreciation of all marital property held by the couple from the time of the agreement to the time of the divorce. The agreement provides that W could remain in the marital home for one year after any divorce, with H paying all reasonable expenses of that household. H agreed to pay for the wife's medical insurance until her death or remarriage, and he agreed to maintain a life insurance policy to the exclusive benefit of the wife in the amount of $2.5 million while the parties remained married. Relations got better but soon turned for the worse. They considered separating, but decided not to do so at least until their younger son graduated from high school. During this time, they purchased a new home for $790,000, and paid $500,000 for its renovations. At W's request, H moved out of the house. W became involved in a serious relationship with another man. Eventually H filed a petition for divorce. W argues that marital agreements should be declared void against public policy because they are 'innately coercive,' 'usually' arise when the marriage is already failing, and may 'encourage' divorce.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner