Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the final decree of divorce entered by the district court in this case.Before Wife filed for divorce from Husband, the parties executed a stipulated judgment and decree of divorce establishing property distribution, child support, child custody and visitation, and alimony. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court correctly found that the stipulated decree was a valid agreement between Husband and Wife that was supported by consideration, and the stipulated decree was not unconscionable; (2) the district court appropriate enforced the order in the divorce decree with respect to the property, debt distribution, and alimony; but (3) the district court erred in enforcing the order with respect to child custody, visitation, and child support. View "Long v. Long" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the final decree of divorce entered by the district court in this case.Before Wife filed for divorce from Husband, the parties executed a stipulated judgment and decree of divorce establishing property distribution, child support, child custody and visitation, and alimony. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court correctly found that the stipulated decree was a valid agreement between Husband and Wife that was supported by consideration, and the stipulated decree was not unconscionable; (2) the district court appropriate enforced the order in the divorce decree with respect to the property, debt distribution, and alimony; but (3) the district court erred in enforcing the order with respect to child custody, visitation, and child support. View "Long v. Long" on Justia Law

Before marrying Claudia, Mathew downloaded a form and drafted a premarital agreement, describing Claudia's rights in real property owned by Matthew. Matthew retained attorney Chernick to represent Claudia. Chernick advised Matthew to seek independent legal counsel. Matthew stated he would represent himself. Chernick spoke to Claudia outside Matthew’s presence, revised the agreement and, on March 5, sent a red-lined version to both, containing additional provisions and stating that each party had had more than seven days to review the agreement before executing it. The parties signed a final version on March 6. Matthew executed a waiver of legal counsel. The parties separated. Claudia sought enforcement of the agreement. The court of appeal affirmed that the agreement was unenforceable under Family Code 1615(c)(2), because Matthew was not presented with the final version of the agreement at least seven days before its execution and, under Family Code 1615(c)(3), because Matthew had not been provided with a written advisement of the rights he was relinquishing and did not execute a waiver of those rights. When the evidence shows an unrepresented party to a premarital agreement was not provided with the seven-day review period, the agreement’s recitation that the review period was provided is not binding. Section 1615(c)(3) applies to an agreement that was initially generated by the unrepresented party. View "Marriage of Clarke & Akel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court requiring Wife to return certain personal property Husband after the divorce decree’s ninety-day deadline.On appeal, Wife argued that, by allowing Husband to recover property after the divorce decree’s ninety-day deadline, the district court improperly modified the parties’ property settlement without the required written agreement. The settlement declared that no modification or waiver of the terms of the agreement shall be valid unless in writing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not modify the parties’ agreement, but rather, the parties modified the agreement on their own, and the district court approved the modification. View "Acton v. Acton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's revocation-on-divorce (ROD) statute after she remained the beneficiary of her ex-husband's IRA account when he died. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly determined that an Arizona state court would disregard the choice-of-law provision in the Plan and instead apply Arizona's ROD statute; the application of the ROD statute was not preempted by federal statutes and regulations governing IRAs; the district courts erred when they denied plaintiff standing; and the California district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case to Arizona under 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) on the grounds that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Estate. Although it disagreed with the district court's holding that plaintiff lacked standing, the panel affirmed the dismissal of the constitutional challenge to the application of Arizona's ROD statute in the allocation of the proceeds of the ex-husband's IRA. View "Lazar v. Kroncke" on Justia Law

Upon their divorce, Wife and Husband entered into a marital dissolution agreement (MDA) that contained a provision entitling the prevailing party to an award of appellate attorney’s fees in subsequent legal proceedings. The MDA was incorporated into the parties’ final divorce decree. Wife later filed a relocation motion seeking to modify the parties’ parenting plan. Wife then filed a motion for judgment against Husband for reimbursement of uncovered medical expenses. After a hearing, the trial court granted both motions filed by Wife and awarded Wife attorney’s fees based on the MDA. The court of appeals affirmed but declined Wife’s request for an award of fees and costs on appeal. Wife appealed, arguing that she was entitled to appellate attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Wife was entitled to an award of appellate attorney’s fees incurred before the court of appeals under the parties’ MDA. View "Eberbach v. Eberbach" on Justia Law

Prior to their marriage in 1993, Wife and Husband entered into a pre-marriage agreement (PMA) listing their assets and liabilities. In 2012, Husband sued Wife for divorce in Minnesota. The Minnesota court determined that Butte County, South Dakota, was the proper venue to determine the issues regarding the validity and enforceability of the parties’ PMA. Wife filed a declaratory judgment action against Donald in Butte County requesting a judgment declaring the PMA valid and enforceable and asking the court to construe the rights and interests of the parties under the PMA. The circuit court declared the PMA valid and enforceable and interpreted the PMA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it interpreted the PMA to permit tracing of earnings or property through the joint marital account and applied the marital loan concept; (2) the circuit court did not err when it adopted Wife’s expert’s report; and (3) Wife was not entitled to appellate attorney’s fees. View "Charlson v. Charlson" on Justia Law

M.C., a gestational carrier, challenges the trial court's declaration that Father is the sole legal parent of triplet children and finding that M.C. has no parental rights. M.C. entered into the surrogacy arrangement with Father, pursuant to a written “In Vitro Fertilization Surrogacy Agreement.” As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that M.C. is not estopped from challenging the legal effect or validity of the Agreement. On the merits, the court concluded that Father complied with the requirements for establishing a parent-child relationship and for terminating M.C.’s claimed parental rights pursuant to Family Code section 7962. The court also concluded that the trial court's application of section 7962 is consistent with the constitutional rights of M.C. and the children. In this case, M.C.'s various substantive and procedural challenges are foreclosed by specific legislative provisions and by a prior decision by the California Supreme Court. Because the court found no error in the trial court's ruling, the court affirmed the judgment. View "C.M. v. M.C." on Justia Law

Mother and Father shared joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children as stated in a stipulated order. One provision of the order provided for “teenage discretion” in determining time spent with either parent when a child reaches the age of fourteen, and another provision conferred authority to resolve disputes to a “parenting coordinator” and authorized the district court to issue an order that defines the coordinator’s role. Father later filed a motion to modify the original stipulated child custody order, arguing that the two provisions at issue should be rendered void because they were against public policy. The district court denied modification. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither contractual provision was against the best interest of the children, which is the paramount public policy concern in child custody matters, and the parenting coordinator provision did not improperly delegate decision-making authority. View "Harrison v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Linda Davis and Matthew Davis executed a property settlement agreement prior to their divorce providing that Matthew maintain his life insurance policy and keep Linda as the beneficiary. The decree of dissolution entered by the circuit court failed to incorporate the agreement. The omission went unnoticed until after Matthew died. Prior to his death, Matthew changed the beneficiary on his life insurance policy to Karen Davis, his then-wife. Linda, upon learning of Matthew’s death, filed a proof of claim against his estate, alleging breach of the agreement. Karen, as executrix of Matthew’s estate, denied the claim. Karen then filed this action seeking the policy proceeds. Linda intervened as a third party plaintiff. The circuit court ruled against Linda. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Ky. Rev. Stat. 403.180(4) essentially voided the agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a settlement agreement involving property division that was not incorporated or referenced in the final decree of dissolution may be enforced through an independent contract action. View "Davis v. Davis" on Justia Law