The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The parties were married in September 1997. H was 71 years old, was a multimillionaire. W, who was 48 years old, had a net worth of about $60,000 and was earning approximately $12 per hour. W was receiving monthly spousal support of $933 from a former spouse. The prior marriage had lasted 24 years. H asked W to sign a premarital agreement. It provided that the parties' separate property would remain separate property and that earnings and accumulations during the marriage would be held as separate property. W realized that she 'couldn't afford to marry H.' W believed she would be in a 'precarious' economic position if 'the marriage didn't work' or if H died. The support from her former spouse would terminate if she remarried, and 'she could barely make ends meet with . . . her earnings . . . .' W insisted that the agreement be modified to provide that, if 'the marriage terminates due to divorce or death of H (or his estate or trustee if he is deceased) will pay to [W] . . . the sum of $100,000.' W's former spouse was in his early 50'. The agreement was modified to include the $100,000 payment provision demanded by W. Each signed and was represented by independent counsel. The parties separated in November 1998. The following month, W petitioned to dissolve the marriage. She sought to enforce the $100,000 payment provision. The court concluded that it was unenforceable because it encouraged its beneficiary, to seek a dissolution' and therefore violated public policy. On the other hand, the court found that the $100,000 payment provision was ' 'reasonable to the circumstances of the parties.' This appeal resulted.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.