BEDRICK V. BEDRICK 17 A.3d 17 (2011) CASE BRIEF

BEDRICK V. BEDRICK

17 A.3d 17 (2011)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Bruce (H) appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of Deborah (W) in the enforcement of a postnuptial agreement.

FACTS: In August, 2007, W initiated this action, seeking dissolution of the parties' marriage, permanent alimony, an equitable distribution of the parties' real and personal property and other relief. H filed a cross complaint, seeking to enforce a postnuptial agreement that the parties executed on December 10, 1977, and modified by way of handwritten addenda on five subsequent occasions, most recently on May 18, 1989. The agreement provides that in the event of dissolution, neither party will pay alimony. Instead, W will receive a cash settlement in an amount to be 'reviewed from time to time.' The May 18, 1989 addendum to the agreement provides for a cash settlement of $75,000. The agreement further provides that W will waive her interests in H's car wash business, and that W will not be held liable for the H's personal and business loans. The trial court held that it is clear that a court may not enforce a postnuptial agreement if it is not fair and equitable. It concluded that the agreement was not fair and equitable. The court found that the value of the parties' combined assets was approximately $927,123, and ordered, H to pay lump sum alimony in the amount of $392,372 to W. H appealed. H contends that the trial court should have applied only principles of contract law.

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