IN RE MARRIAGE OF SHANKS 758 N.W.2d 506 (2008) CASE BRIEF

IN RE MARRIAGE OF SHANKS

758 N.W.2d 506 (2008)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Randall (H) appealed a judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming a holding that denied a request for specific performance of a premarital agreement in a dissolution of marriage proceeding against Teresa (W). W cross-appealed for more money.

FACTS: H is an attorney W holds an associate degree in court reporting and a Bachelor of Science degree in marketing management. W has been employed in various roles, including a position in the marketing department of a casino, and employment as a bookkeeper, secretary, and office manager in H's law office. They were married in Jamaica on April 23, 1998. This was a second marriage for both parties. H had two children and W had three children from prior marriages. Prior to marriage H and W discussed H's goal of preserving his current and future assets for his children in the event their marriage was to end by his death or a divorce. H suggested they enter a premarital agreement, and W agreed, stating she was not marrying H for his money. H drafted a premarital agreement and presented it to W by April 13, ten days before their wedding. H insisted that W seek independent legal advice as to the meaning and legal effect of the proposed agreement. W got a Nebraska attorney and when that attorney realized it was for Iowa, W was advised to get an Iowa attorney. When they met on April 16, the attorney advised W to seek Iowa-licensed counsel. W was charged ninety dollars for the legal services. W then returned the document to H and requested he make the changes and clarifications suggested in Line's handwritten notes. H made some revisions, gave the new draft to W, and again told her to review it with her lawyer. W did not seek further counsel. The parties signed the agreement on April 17, and they departed for Jamaica the next day. The marriage failed, and H filed a petition requesting its dissolution and enforcement of the premarital agreement. The court found W's execution of the agreement was involuntary, and therefore concluded the accord was unenforceable. The district court dissolved the parties' marriage, divided the marital assets, and awarded W spousal support for a term of only two months. The decree allocated to W assets valued at $86,755 and ordered H to pay W a total of $150,000 in three equal installments payable on April 1, 2006, September 1, 2006, and January 1, 2007. H appealed, challenging both the ruling denying his request for enforcement of the premarital agreement and the property division ordered in the dissolution decree. W cross-appealed, claiming equity requires for her a more favorable property division, more substantial spousal support, and an additional award for attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision. H appealed.

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