Appellant husband challenged a judgment
Saim Khan
Appellant husband challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), on bifurcated issues following entry of an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellant challenged the trial court's determinations concerning the proper division of property between the parties according to a premarital agreement and related instruments.
The trial court refused appellant husband's request to rescind a premarital contract and related instruments. Appellant, and respondent wife, both lawyers, each with children from previous marriages, entered into a premarital agreement and executed joint mutual wills. Pursuant to the premarital agreement, each party's separate property was deemed community property and all property acquired after the signing of the agreement was likewise to be deemed community property. Visit the best san diego ca employment lawyer for the employment issues.
Each party was to assume the role of a parent towards the other party's children and would continue to perform such a role. On appeal, appellant contended respondent breached the agreement, inter alia, by refusing to allow him to act as a parent to her children. The court held it did not follow from the fact each spouse agreed to treat the children of the other spouse as his/her own during marriage that they would also have agreed to this arrangement if separation or divorce occurred. Appellant was not entitled to restitution for property rendered under the agreement. The court further found the trial court erred in valuing each party's law practice at zero. The court remanded.
The trial court affirmed in part, on the grounds that respondent wife's alleged breach of the premarital agreement did not entitle appellant husband to rescission of the premarital contract and related instruments. However the court remanded to the trial court to determine the value of the parties' respective law practices and to reapportion the parties' respective community property shares accordingly.
Appellant husband challenged a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), on bifurcated issues following entry of an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellant challenged the trial court's determinations concerning the proper division of property between the parties according to a premarital agreement and related instruments.
The trial court refused appellant husband's request to rescind a premarital contract and related instruments. Appellant, and respondent wife, both lawyers, each with children from previous marriages, entered into a premarital agreement and executed joint mutual wills. Pursuant to the premarital agreement, each party's separate property was deemed community property and all property acquired after the signing of the agreement was likewise to be deemed community property. Each party was to assume the role of a parent towards the other party's children and would continue to perform such role. On appeal, appellant contended respondent breached the agreement, inter alia, by refusing to allow him to act as a parent to her children. The court held it did not follow from the fact each spouse agreed to treat the children of the other spouse as his/her own during marriage that they would also have agreed to this arrangement if separation or divorce occurred. Appellant was not entitled to restitution for property rendered under the agreement. The court further found the trial court erred in valuing each party's law practice at zero. The court remanded.
The trial court affirmed in part, on the grounds that respondent wife's alleged breach of the premarital agreement did not entitle appellant husband to rescission of the premarital contract and related instruments. However the court remanded to the trial court to determine the value of the parties' respective law practices and to reapportion the parties' respective community property shares accordingly.