Question: Moreover, the plaintiff acknowledged in article eleven of the agreement that she had examined the list of assets and liabilities provided in schedule A and clearly understood and consented to all of the agreement's terms. We therefore conclude that the defendant's disclosure was "fair and reasonable" because it provided the plaintiff with an accurate representation, in writing, of his income and financial assets at the time the agreement was executed. We conclude that the agreement must be enforced and the assets distributed according to its terms. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law. NORCOTT, J., dissenting. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the trial court improperly determined that the parties' prenuptial agreement was unenforceable. The trial court found] that the plaintiff "was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the amount, character and value of property, financial obligations, and income of the [defendant]." The financial disclosure document attached to the agreement lists several assets that purportedly comprised the defendant's property. It does so, however, in cursory terms that fail to describe the nature of the property in any way whatsoever.
As the trial court noted, the disclosure document simply lists thirty-one ambiguously labeled assets, giving no indication of how they were valued or, in some cases, what they truly are. The disclosure document is similarly vague with regard to the defendant's liabilities. Furthermore, although the final agreement signed by the plaintiff listed the defendant's income for the year 1997 as $2,300,000, the [first] draft did not contain any statement regarding the defendant's income. Additionally, the income stated on the final agreement was not itemized, and provided the plaintiff with no way of assessing its source or consistency. To the extent that the agreement can be construed as having disclosed the defendant's income, it did so only twenty-four hours before the wedding took place, leaving the plaintiff little time to evaluate that disclosure or take any other action to protect her interest. Additionally, the trial court made significant findings regarding the plaintiff's financial inexperience. Specifically, the trial court found that the plaintiff possessed only a high school education, "had no knowledge of Connecticut marriage and divorce laws, etc." The trial court further found that the parties "kept their finances completely separated," and "did not talk of money issues." Accordingly, given the trial court's findings, the scope and timing of the disclosure raise serious doubts that the parties were aware of their legal rights and their respective assets and liabilities, and proceeded by the agreement to alter those rights in a fair and voluntary manner.
1 LAW. What was the majority's conclusion on the issue before the court in this case? What was the reasoning to support this conclusion?
2 LAW. On what points did the dissent disagree with the majority? Why?
3 ETHICS. At David's suggestion, before signing the prenuptial agreement, Victoria consulted an attorney who was an associate of the same law firm as David's sister-in-law. David paid his attorney more than $5,000 for working on the agreement. Victoria sent her attorney, again at David's suggestion, two bottles of wine as compensation. How do you interpret these circumstances?
4 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS. What does this case indicate about the status of women?
5 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INVESTOR. Litigating a dispute through a trial and an appeal is expensive. How might a party in David's position avoid the cost?