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

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

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.

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

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