Last month in what is being called an unprecedented decision, the New York Supreme Court invalidated an existing prenuptial
agreement, in an unprecedented decision that is causing headaches for divorce
lawyers across the country.
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court found that the
Plaintiff-Appellant, Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis had been subject to duress and inequitable conduct
leading up to her participation in a prenuptial agreement with her now
ex-husband, Peter Petrakis. In the absence of a valid agreement,
Cioffi-Petrakis may be entitled to as much as 50% of her husband’s wealth and
property, including a real estate empire valued at over $20 million.
While prenuptial agreements are commonly viewed as being airtight and
definitive, the court’s decision is likely to generate uncertainty for
thousands of divorcees and their legal counsel.
That uncertainty is only exacerbated by the vague terms that, based on
the court’s ruling, rendered the agreement fraudulent. Petrakis had proposed
the agreement only four days before the couple’s wedding, leaving his fiancĂ©
little time to negotiate terms. In addition, Petrakis assured his wife-to-be
that upon the birth of their first child, he would shred the document.
Though the couple produced two children over the course of their
12-year marriage, Petrakis made no attempt to destroy the document.
Additional rulings in cases such as these are sure to spring up over
the next several years, as divorced New Yorkers test the court’s more nuanced
interpretation of what qualifies an agreement as fraudulent.
Other states will inevitably face similar decisions, as more and more
former spouses seek to invalidate prenuptial agreements.
Most states already have laws on the books requiring a waiting period
in between the date of the prenuptial agreement and the wedding, and remaining
states may evaluate the merits of a waiting period in the wake of this ruling.
Currently, in New Jersey, a prenuptial or antenuptial agreement will
only be enforced if: 1) the parties are competent; 2) there is an absence of
fraud, misrepresentation, duress, and overreaching; 3) there is full and
complete financial disclosure, with a written list of assets and income
attached to the agreement; 4) the agreement was entered into voluntarily; 5)
each party must also have, or have access to, the advice of independent
counsel; and 5) the agreement is not “unconscionable,” (though it does not
necessarily have to be “fair and equitable”).
No comments:
Post a Comment