Invalidating divorce in va Free iphone chat rooms
You can sign away your right to spousal support if you should end up in divorce court, even if your spouse makes ten times as much money as you do.You can even agree that your spouse gets all of the property and you get all of the bills, if that is what you want to do.If the groom hands the contract and a pen to the bride just before she says, "I do," the agreement is probably invalid. Invalid Provisions: Although a premarital agreement can cover just about any financial aspect of the parties' relationship, it cannot in any way modify the child support obligations that either spouse would have if the marriage should end in divorce.Any other provisions of the agreement that violate the law would also be invalid.
1993) (husband's alleged mischaracterization of community assets as his separate assets did not constitute extrinsic fraud). Threats by one spouse that force the other into accepting a property settlement constitute extrinsic fraud, according to Gordon v. The essence of extrinsic fraud is "the deliberate use of some device to stop an adverse party's voluntary participation in the litigation process," the court said. The equitable distribution law clearly contained no express statutory duty of mandatory disclosure, and such a duty could not be reasonably inferred from the language of the statute, the court said. 445, 557 A.2d 23 (1989) (husband's alleged failure to reveal cash surrender value of life insurance policies did not constitute extrinsic fraud so as to authorize opening of divorce decree); Lee v. Yet another view is that spouses are entitled to rely on the other spouse's disclosures about assets and their values without a duty to validate that information independently. Billington, supra , where the Connecticut Supreme Court laid out several reasons for abandoning the state's former requirement of due diligence in the discovery of marital fraud. Other courts, however, have allowed spouses to maintain an action or motion based on fraud after equitable distribution even if the spouse was represented by counsel in the equitable distribution proceedings and the attorney undertook little or no discovery on the valuation issue. The court in Selke rejected the argument that such disclosure is necessary to permit the court to accomplish its statutory duty to divide property in a just and reasonable manner. Ratarsky, supra (no extrinsic fraud where husband disclosed existence of life insurance policies but not their cash surrender value, and wife's attorney did not ask about their value or examine the policies). E.2d 55 (1993) (existence of a special relationship that imposes a continuing duty of trust in settlement negotiations depends on the specific facts of each case). The fact that the spouse seeking relief was represented by counsel in the dissolution proceeding has been cited as evidence that the spouse did not rely on the misrepresentations, or that the spouse's reliance was unreasonable. Despain, supra (no reasonable reliance because wife was represented by able counsel). It should not be surprising, therefore, that a great deal of postjudgment motions are filed seeking to set aside or reopen the decree. 1993) (husband's alleged statements to wife that his financial condition was bad and that she would receive all he could afford were mere expressions of opinion). But the outcome in these proceedings is often difficult to predict. Alternatively, if the proof supports it, counsel might argue that his client did not know, or have reason to know, that the representations were false.
629 (1983) (husband's failure to disclose savings account prevented wife from receiving a fair adversary hearing and deprived her of the opportunity to present her case); Ridgway v. The law did not require her to engage her own expert to value the husband's interests, the court said. Under these facts, the court held, there was no fiduciary relationship between the parties as a matter of law, and they were dealing at arm's length.