• 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
      • San Francisco
    • 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
    • Family Law Terms
    • Estate Planning Resources
  • Contact Us
    • Careers
  • Get a Free Consultation
  • Menu

Posts

From Bonds to Zuckerberg: The Importance of a Prenup in the Silicon Valley

May 29, 2012/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

Will Mark Zuckerberg join the list of billionaires who tied the knot without prenuptial agreements?

Mark Zuckerberg is making national headlines for his marriage that took place on May 19, 2012, just one day after the initial public offering of Facebook. The mystery remains: do Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have a prenup? All are in agreement that Zuckerberg would be better off with a prenup. Chan reportedly asked Zuckerberg to sign a relationship agreement before she moved to California several years ago to be with him, which outlined, for example, how much time they should spend together. It would not be surprising if she brought up the subject of a prenup first. However, celebrities such as Paul McCartney, Katy Perry and Mel Gibson chose to forgo a prenup. It’s easy to get caught up in the romance of a marriage, but it’s important to mix in a little realism.

California is a community property state, meaning that assets are typically divided 50-50 upon divorce. If Zuckerberg and Chan signed a prenuptial agreement, they would have agreed exactly how to split assets, including his Facebook stock, if their marriage dissolved in the future. The resounding principle behind prenuptial agreements is spouses themselves can determine how their property will be classified; they can agree that what would generally be classified as community will be separate property of one or the other, and conversely, they can change separate property to community property.

The current trends toward delayed marriage, cohabitation, rising divorce and remarriage rates have combined to create a new awareness of the seriousness of the marital contract and the far-reaching consequences that contract, once made, can have on individual lives. Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri can assist you in understanding your legal rights, and help you protect your family.

The Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling complex family law matters.  If you are interested in learning more about prenuptial or antenuptial agreements, contact the Certified Family Law Specialists*  at Lonich Patton Erlich Policastri for further information.  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 detail general 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

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 Ehrlich2012-05-29 09:56:442021-12-22 21:30:05From Bonds to Zuckerberg: The Importance of a Prenup in the Silicon Valley

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 Erlich Policastri have decades of experience handling premarital agreements. If you are contemplating marriage, please contact the Certified Family Law Specialists* at Lonich Patton Erlich 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

 

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

Premarital Agreements vs. Marital Agreements vs. Marital Settlement Agreements

February 17, 2011/in Family Law /by Mitchell Ehrlich

California family law is quite complex.  For those who are not familiar with the workings of California law, it may be very difficult to differentiate between the terms “premarital agreement,” “marital agreement,” and “marital settlement agreement.”

A premarital agreement is a contract that is executed between two prospective spouses.  The premarital agreement, or “prenup,” is entered into in anticipation of marriage with the idea that it will become effective upon the marriage of the two prospective spouses.  Premarital agreements often address issues of the parties’ present and future property rights.  Premarital agreements must comply with certain formalities to be enforceable.

A marital agreement, or postnuptial agreement, is a contract that is executed by spouses during marriage.  This type of contract affects the rights and obligations incident to an ongoing marriage, both during life and after death.  Post-nuptial contracts can be broad in scope, laying out in comprehensive detail the parties’ rights and duties towards each other and the characterization of property.  This category also includes “transmutation” agreements, which are contracts changing the property status of a specific asset from its current form to another form (e.g. separate property to community property).  Like a prenuptial agreement, marital agreements must comply with certain formalities in order to be enforceable.  Additionally,  spouses entering into postnuptial agreements must comply with their fiduciary obligations and act with the “highest good faith and fair dealing” towards one another.

A marital settlement agreement (MSA) is executed as part of a dissolution of marriage or legal separation.  The MSA typically addresses the parties’ ownership of marital property and other rights and obligations in relation to divorce or separation.  Usually, an MSA is incorporated into a judgment of dissolution, and the rights and obligations of the ex-spouses are governed by the terms of the final judgment.

Note that the same rules governing these agreements between spouses also generally apply to domestic partnerships.  For more information about prenuptial agreements, marital agreements, or marital settlement agreements, please contact us.

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.

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 Ehrlich2011-02-17 09:17:372021-12-22 21:54:04Premarital Agreements vs. Marital Agreements vs. Marital Settlement Agreements
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
  • 2024
  • 2025
  • Business Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Family Law
  • Firm News
  • In the Community
  • News
  • Personal
  • Probate
  • Spotlight

Posts From The Past 12 Months

  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024

Explore Our Archives

Free 30-Minute Family Law or Estate Planning Consultation

2 + 3 = ?

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

LONICH PATTON EHRLICH POLICASTRI

Phone: (408) 553-0801
Fax: (408) 553-0807
Email: contact@lpeplaw.com

1871 The Alameda, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95126

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, San Benito, and San Francisco. For a full listing of areas where we practice, please click here.

MAKE A PAYMENT BY SCANNING THE QR CODE BELOW:

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

© 2024 Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

Scroll to top

LPEP COVID-19 Office Protocol