In Re Marriage Of Friedman

122 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W worked as an attorney. H and W discussed marriage. W said that she wanted to keep her law practice as separate property if she married. H agreed. H was diagnosed with leukemia. W urged H to undergo a bone marrow transplant and proposed marriage so that he could be placed on her medical insurance. This saved H's life. They married January 27, 1991. Within days of the marriage, H called his attorney, S. Timothy Buynak, Jr. H wanted to protect W from creditors if he did not survive the medical treatment. The attorney suggested a postnuptial agreement providing that their individual income, business property, and debts would be separate property. H's prior marriage ended with a bitter fight over a family business. Buynak explained that he was representing H and that W would have to retain separate counsel or represent herself. Correspondence between the parties stated Buynak's representation and the agreement itself stated that W was an attorney representing herself. W made changes to the postnuptial agreement, and to protect against medical creditors, H gifted his boat to W. H fully recovered. H and W maintained separate bank accounts and separate businesses. W started her own law practice but also helped H in his fledgling business. H's business flourished beyond his and W's dreams. W filed a petition for marital dissolution. H contended that the forensic consulting business was not community property. W claimed that the postnuptial agreement was invalid because Buynak prepared the agreement without obtaining a written conflict of interest waiver as required by Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-310(c). The court held the agreement valid. This appeal resulted.