• Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Vk
Call Us At: (408) 553-0801
Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri
  • Home
  • About
    • Why LPEP
    • Our Attorneys
    • Locations
      • San Jose
      • Santa Cruz
    • Testimonials
  • LPEP Spotlight
  • Practice Areas
    • Family Law
      • Annulments
      • Certified Family Law Specialists
      • Child Custody and Visitation
      • Child Support
      • Divorce and Your Estate
      • Divorce Litigation
      • Divorce Planning
      • Domestic Partnerships
      • Domestic Violence
      • Enforcement and Modifications
      • Extramarital Affairs
      • Grandparents’ Rights
      • Harassment
      • Legal Separation
      • Mediation and Collaborative Divorce
      • Parental Relocations
      • Paternity
      • Postnuptial Agreements
      • Prenuptial Agreements
      • Property Division
      • Restraining Orders
      • Same Sex Divorce
      • Spousal Support and Alimony
    • Estate Planning
      • Business Succession Planning
      • Power of Attorney
      • Probate
      • Trust Administration
      • Trust and Probate Litigation
      • Trusts
      • Wills
  • FAQ
    • Estate Planning FAQ
    • Family Law FAQ
  • Blog
  • Pay Now
  • Resources
    • Family Law Resources
    • Estate Planning Resources
  • Contact Us
    • Careers
  • Get a Free Consultation
  • Menu
Mitchell Ehrlich

Court of Appeal Clarifies Seven-Day Waiting Period for Premarital Agreements

October 14, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

California Family Code §1615 outlines the factors a court will consider when deciding whether to enforce a premarital agreement.  If the court finds that, among other reasons, the agreement was not executed voluntarily or if the agreement was unconscionable (a fancy word for unreasonable), it will void a premarital agreement.

Section 1615(c) states that a premarital agreement will not be deemed voluntary unless the court makes three findings; one of them being that the party against whom enforcement is sought had not less than seven calendar days between the time the party was first presented with the agreement and advised to obtain a lawyer and the time the agreement was signed.  The question most recently before the First Appellate Court was whether section 1615(c)(2) applied to a party who was represented by an attorney from the outset.

In Marriage of Cadwell-Faso & Faso, 191 Cal. App. 4th 945 (2011), husband (H) and wife (W) married in 2006.  H was a wealthy, retired businessperson and W owned and operated her own business.  Prior to their marriage, H’s attorney drafted a premarital agreement and presented it to W and advised her to seek independent counsel.  W was unhappy with the agreement and her attorney subsequently drafted four separate addenda to which H disagreed.  W faxed a goodbye letter to H following their inability to come to an agreement.  Following further discussion, W’s attorney drafted a fifth addendum and faxed it to H.  Six days later, H and W signed the agreement and were married

Eighteen months later, H and W sought dissolution of marriage.  H asked the court to void the fifth addendum because he did not have seven days between the time of representation and execution and the agreement was thus involuntary per §1615(c)(2).  The trial court ruled in H’s favor, finding that the requirements of §1615(c) were mandatory and the addendum was thus invalid.   W appealed and the appellate court reversed.  In its decision, the court could not determine from the text of the statute alone whether the seven-day rule was confined to unrepresented parties.  Therefore, the court looked to the legislative history of §1615 and found that the legislature was concerned with situations where one party was not represented by counsel, not where counsel has been present from the start.  The appellate court thus held that both the premarital agreement and the addendum were enforceable against H where he was represented by counsel throughout the premarital agreement process.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri have decades of experience handling premarital agreements. If you are contemplating marriage, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri, who can provide you with an in depth analysis of your issues.  Please remember that each individual situation is unique and results discussed in this post are not a guarantee of future results.  While this post may include legal issues, it is not legal advice.  Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

*Certified Family Law Specialist, The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization

 

Tags: California divorce law, dissolution of marriage, divorce, legal separation, premarital agreement, prenup, prenuptial, prenuptial agreement
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Share by Mail
https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LPEP_PC.png 0 0 Mitchell Ehrlich https://www.lpeplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LPEP_PC.png Mitchell Ehrlich2011-10-14 09:24:292021-12-22 21:34:37Court of Appeal Clarifies Seven-Day Waiting Period for Premarital Agreements
You might also like
Two wedding rings on top of a child custody agreement Post-Nuptial Agreements and Spousal Support
Two wedding rings on top of a child custody agreement How to Choose a High Net Worth Divorce Attorney in San Jose, CA
Two wedding rings on top of a child custody agreement Modification of Spousal Support: The Duty to Become Self-Supporting
Two wedding rings on top of a child custody agreement Common Fears about Divorce in California
Two wedding rings on top of a child custody agreement Beware: Sign Your MSA With Care
Two wedding rings on top of a child custody agreement 4 questions to ask before hiring a mediator
Learn more about estate planning with a free resource
Read all about family law and child custody
Learn more about family law matters such as private divorce counseling.

Categories

  • 2021
  • 2022
  • 2023
  • Business Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Family Law
  • Firm News
  • In the Community
  • News
  • Personal
  • Probate
  • Spotlight

Posts From The Past 12 Months

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022

Explore Our Archives

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

1 + 4 = ?

Link to: Contact Us

Contact Us

LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI

1871 The Alameda, Suite 400, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 553-0801 | Fax: (408) 553-0807 | Email: contact@lpeplaw.com

Located in San Jose, Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri handles matters for clients in northern California, specifically San Jose and Silicon Valley. Our services are available to anyone within the following counties: Santa Clara, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito. For a full listing of areas where we practice, please click here.

DISCLAIMER

This web site is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Nothing in the site is to be considered as either creating an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri or as rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. Readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri Web site without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.

About | Why LPEP | Contact | Blog

© 2023 Copyright Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

Executing an Estate: A Blessing or a Curse? California Enforcement of Out-of-State Support Orders
Scroll to top

LPEP COVID-19 Office Protocol