1. Should spousal support be terminated due to the income of the recipient's new spouse?
2. Were prenup income disclosures valid even though not within the agreement itself?
3. Should the value of economic misconduct be imputed to the husband?
4. Were stock options enforceable during the marriage distributable?
5. Could an LLC be required to pay a weekly stipend to cover household expenses?
6. Was custody rotation over 900 miles an acceptable parenting plan?
7. Could children be ordered to switch schools two times per year?
These questions and others which arise in the daily practice of Family Law are answered in this issue of the American Journal of Family Law (AJFL). They are from Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Oregon.
The AJFL welcomes recommendations for this Feature from readers.
American Journal of Family Law
225 Kingsland Terrace
So. Orange, N.J. 07079
FAIRSHARE CASES: SPOTLIGHT
INCOME DISCLOSURE NOT MENTIONED IN PRENUP
A prenuptial agreement could be valid and enforceable even though the husband's income disclosures were not set forth in the agreement itself, the Georgia Court of Appeals has decided. In Brantley v Brantley, 2018 WL 2109710 (Ga App 5/8/2018), both parties waived any claims for alimony. In addition, the agreement referenced attached financial disclosures from both parties and provided:The parties agree and stipulate that each of them has made a full and fair disclosure to the other of his or her current financial worth and income. Further, both parties agree and stipulate that they have reviewed Exhibits "A" and "B" hereto, and, therefore, both parties are fully acquainted with and are aware of the financial circumstances of the other patty.
Nearly 14 years later, the husband filed for divorce and filed a motion to enforce the prenuptial agreement. The trial court denied this motion, ruling that the agreement was unenforceable because the husband failed to provide full disclosure of his income.
Georgia had established a three-part test for determining whether a prenuptial agreement was enforceable: (1) the agreement was not the result of fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material facts; (2) the agreement was not unconscionable; and (3) taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including changes beyond the parties' contemplation when the agreement was executed, enforcement of the agreement would be neither unfair nor unreasonable. An issue was whether the party seeking enforcement had to show both that there was a full and fair disclosure of the assets of the parties prior to the execution of the agreement, and that the party enforcement entered into the agreement, freely, voluntarily, and with full understanding of its terms after being offered the opportunity to consult with independent counsel. Georgia law, like that of virtually every other state, imposed an affirmative duty of pre-execution disclosure on parties to a prenuptial agreement. Indeed, mutual disclosure of the material facts was a precondition for entering into a prenuptial agreement.
In this case, the agreement referenced...