Divorce Settlement

A New York appeals court is making waves throughout the family law community as a result of its recent controversial ruling. Before Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis and Peter Petrakis got married, they entered into a premarital agreement, commonly known as a “prenup”. At trial, the court ruled that the premarital agreement was void. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was upheld. Many attorneys throughout the U.S. believe that this case may have enormous implications on every premarital agreement case in the future. Divorce attorneys are surprised that the premarital agreement was held void and by the court’s rationale.The basis for voiding the premarital agreement in the divorce proceeding was “fraud in the inducement.” Just four days before her wedding to Mr. Petrakis, Ms. Cioffi was presented with a prenup and an ultimatum. Although Ms. Cioffi’s parents had already spent $40,000 on the wedding, Mr. Petrakis told Ms. Cioffi that he would not marry her unless she signed the agreement. Moreover, Mr. Petrakis orally promised to tear up the agreement and put her name on title to their home as soon as the couple had children. In reliance on Mr. Petrakis’ oral assurances, Ms. Cioffi signed the prenup. Once the couple had children, Ms. Cioffi pushed Mr. Petrakis to follow through with their oral agreement and he refused.

At the time Ms. Cioffi signed the prenup she was represented by an attorney and all other typical enforceability requirements were undisputedly met. The written agreement also contained a provision specifically stating that both parties were precluded from relying on all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements. Notwithstanding that provision, both courts ruled that the premarital agreement void by applying the contract principal of fraud.

In Del Mar and across California, if both parties are represented by counsel from the onset of negotiations, there is no required waiting period that must pass before the parties can sign an enforceable premarital agreement. However, if only one party is represented by counsel, the unrepresented party must consider the agreement for a minimum of seven days before signing it. As long as these and the additional statutory requirements are met, many family law attorneys feel that premarital agreements are extremely difficult to set aside.

Learn more about Del Mar divorce lawyer Nancy Bickford

In a 1938 California case, the court determined fraud is an appropriate basis for setting aside a post-marital agreement. It would seem that New York was not too far off the mark when it applied the generally accepted contract defense of fraud to family law. More and more, divorce lawyers are seeing the stricter standards applied to civil litigation at large are being applied in family courts.
Continue reading

The State of Alaska is reforming the way a divorce case proceeds through the court system. The new program named the Early Resolution Project is aimed at resolving divorce cases quickly and efficiently. One distinguishing characteristic of Early Resolution is the emphasis on settlement. Under the program, the Anchorage Superior Court addresses several divorce cases in one afternoon on a biweekly basis. On this afternoon, the parties are give free legal advice and encouraged to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.Superior Court Judge Stephanie Joannides envisioned the program as a result of her experience in the Alaskan family court system. She was concerned because many divorce cases are assigned a court date that is several months after the initial filing. This waiting period caused the parties to become firm in their positions and unwilling to compromise. Judge Joannides proposed to attempt to resolve these divorce cases early in the process and has seen promising results. In the first year, eighty percent of cases settled as a result of Early Resolution.

Besides a quick resolution to the case, the Early Resolution program and others like it offer a number of fringe benefits to the parties. Like any case that settles early in the litigation process, a divorce settlement can save the parties a great amount of money. Litigating a family law case in San Diego involves filing fees, court costs and attorney’s fees. If a case settles early, the parties will not be responsible for any further costs and fees. Another benefit to dispute resolution is the preservation of the relationship between the parties. Litigation has the tendency to ruin the relationship between the parties indefinitely. However, in family law cases involving children, it is crucial for the parents to maintain a co-parenting relationship. Although the California Family Code is often clear, family court judges have an element of unpredictability. The facts of a case may be disputed and therefore the outcome can be uncertain. If parties reach a settlement they are in control of the outcome of the case. In family law cases, the outcome often has life-changing consequences for both parties. In order to have input in the final decision, the parties much reach an agreement.

The San Diego family court system has a program similar to Alaska’s Early Resolution Project. In San Diego, the family court judge will assign the parties a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) date before any case will proceed to trial. Unlike in Alaska, the MSC will occur toward the end of the parties’ case. The MSC will take place at the San Diego Superior Court where the parties have been litigating their case. A settlement conference judge will be assigned to the case. These judges are experienced local family law attorneys who have volunteered their time to help parties resolve their cases before trial. Because they have so much experience with San Diego family law, the settlement judges are able to help the parties predict what the judge will likely do at trial and reach a settlement agreement based on the probable outcome. The benefit to reaching an agreement during the MSC is avoiding trial. The parties are able to avoid the cost, time and emotional toll of a trial.

San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog

Articles Posted in Divorce Settlement

“Shocking” Case Voids Prenup in Divorce

Settlement in San Diego Divorce Cases