7) Changing Ch of Property by Agreement Flashcards
changing ch of property: ways
1) global premarital agreement
2) asset-by-asset agreements
changing ch of property: effect
CA CP rules no longer apply
premarital agreement: def
agreement between prospective spouses, in contemplation of marriage and effective upon marriage
premarital agreement: reqs
if on or after 1/1/86
1) must be in writing
2) signed by both parties
premarital agreement: how amend or revoke
if made post 1/1/86
only by written agreement
signed by both
premarital agreement: rship to k law
generally must follow, but dnn consideration
premarital agreement: exception to writing requirement
- -partial performance, if party “irretrievably” changed position
- -promissory estoppel
premarital agreement: scop
parties can k re almost anything
- -including making a will re carrying out the agreement
- -inc re life insurance policy
- -ok alter rights/obligations re either party – property whenever and wherever acquired, rights to manage
premarital agreement: CANT include
- -against pub policy or illegal
- -can’t waive child support (but ok waive spousal)
marriage void: effect on PM agreement
enforceable only to the extent necessary to avoid an inequitable result
defenses to enforcement of PM agreement
1) did not execute voluntarily
2) unconscionable when executed
voluntariness defs
1) 1986-2001
2) post 2002
(dated by when agt drafted)
voluntariness factors: 1986-2001
1) amt of x btwn agt + wedding
2) surprise?
3) counsel or opportunity
4) inequality bargaining power
5) disclosure
6) understood nature/effect
voluntariness factors: post 2002
Voluntary = no fraud, coercion, lack of knowledge at time of signing
NOT voluntary unless expressly finds:
1) had indep counsel or waived in writing
2) had 7+ days AND
3) fully advised in writing of all rights/obligations that attach
unconscionability: in general
unenforceable if unconscionable WHEN MADE.
Factors:
1) no full/fair disclosure of other party’s property/obligations
2) right to disclosure not waived in writing
3) party challenging had no adequate knowledge or reasonable opportunity to get