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

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

H and W were both previously married and divorced. Because of the problems with the previous marriages and the fact that H was a man of means it was suggested that they enter into a prenup agreement. The terms of the agreement were suggested by W at a meeting with H and his attorney. The attorney acted as scrivener and did not advise the wife regarding her interests. W signed the agreement without benefit of counsel even though having been given the opportunity to get one. Upon dissolution, W would get the car she was then driving, and any gifts given her by H and all of her separately owned property at the time of marriage, $2,000 in cash, and 1/2 of the balance of any joint savings accounts into which all the earnings of the marriage were to be deposited. There would be no maintenance or other property division, and if W was disabled at divorce, she would be entitled to get $500 per month. W's dissolution requested maintenance, a property division, attorney's fees, and costs. H asserted the agreement. The trial court gave the judgment to H and W appealed. W contends that prenup agreements are void as against public policy as they support divorce. H lost an appeal issue regarding the maintenance provisions of the contract. This appeal resulted.

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

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