NY court tosses millionaire's signed pre-nup, says verbal contract trumps written contract

[devil21]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/millionaires-estranged-wife-gets-court-151945705.html



A real estate mogul's wife doesn't have to abide by the prenuptial agreement she signed days before the wedding, a Brooklyn appeals court has affirmed.

Elizabeth Petrakis said her ex, Peter, made her sign a prenup four days before their 1998 wedding, reported Kieran Crowley at The New York Post. He has a real estate empire worth about $20 million.

Elizabeth claimed that Peter told her that he'd rip up the prenup as soon as they had kids, but didn't. The couple has three children.

When the couple separated seven years ago, Elizabeth began fighting to have the prenup revoked.

On February 20, a Brooklyn Appellate Court panel unanimously sided with Elizabeth, and said that Peter "fraudulently induced" her to sign the prenup, the Post reported.

The couple is now beginning divorce proceedings. Elizabeth's lawyer says the court's decision to invalidate the prenup based on a verbal agreement is unprecedented.

“It resets the bar. It’s an entirely different landscape out there in regard to prenups. I’ve been inundated with calls. Spouses who are challenging prenups now have a leg to stand on,” Elixabeth's attorney Dennis D’Antonio told The Post.

Elizabeth has started a business to counsel people through prenups called Divorce Prep Experts. Her husband declined the Post's request for comment.

Lots of NY court decisions in the news lately. Anyway, I think this is a prime example of how the nicely named but badly flawed 'Violence Against Women Act' influences court decisions. Is it any wonder men are marrying less and less?

[satchelmcqueen]

unbelievable! this is so wrong.

[angelatc]

Yes, it is terribly wrong. The written contract specifically says that there are no verbal contracts.

[angelatc]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/millionaires-estranged-wife-gets-court-151945705.html



Lots of NY court decisions in the news lately. Anyway, I think this is a prime example of how the nicely named but badly flawed 'Violence Against Women Act' influences court decisions. Is it any wonder men are marrying less and less?


If you ask me, they're marrying less because fewer women want to be saddled with materialistic douchebags for the next 60 years.

[thoughtomator]

If you ask me, they're marrying less because fewer women want to be saddled with materialistic douchebags for the next 60 years.

You mean fewer men want to be saddled with tattooed whores who've slept with 2 dozen other men, carry a six figure college debt, suck them dry through their wallets, and don't want to have children - or if they do, they ditch the husband as soon as they've had them, getting some court to enslave him in a mockery of due process for decades?

[tod evans]

This decision will just further erode the little moral fiber left in our society...

[Brian4Liberty]

Lol, written contracts are meant to prevent he said/she said disputes. Guess the Court has arbitrarily set the legal system back 3000 years. Might as well, since we are throwing out other long standing traditions. Magna Carta? Never heard of it.

[presence]

The written contract specifically says that there are no verbal contracts.

s/b end of story


she's a gold digger

[ninepointfive]

I bet if the role of male female were switched, the prenup would stand

[phill4paul]

Lol, written contracts are meant to prevent he said/she said disputes. Guess the Court has arbitrarily set the legal system back 3000 years. Might as well, since we are throwing out other long standing traditions. Magna Carta? Never heard of it.

Well, this certainly sets precedent. Wonderful day for lawyers who can now challenge ANY legal document with hearsay.

[osan]

What is the evidence that he said what she alleges? Even so, how can a verbal contract trump the written? On what basis is this opinion founded, the judge's mood?

Is there any better information on this?

[Nirvikalpa]

You mean fewer men want to be saddled with tattooed whores who've slept with 2 dozen other men, carry a six figure college debt, suck them dry through their wallets, and don't want to have children - or if they do, they ditch the husband as soon as they've had them, getting some court to enslave him in a mockery of due process for decades?

LMAO. And men are angels who are virgins when they marry, have no skin adornments, and never take out college loans - and of course there are no men out there who don't want any children. Got it.

--------

A written contract > verbal contract, always. However, I really wish people could be civil enough to not even have to settle shit like this in courts.

[devil21]

Notice the plaintiff has started a company apparently devoted to getting written contracts thrown out if the signatory later doesn't like what he/she signed. I'm curious if there's any connections between this plaintiff and the appellate judge's business interests. The corruption runs so deep that it wouldn't surprise me if there's some tit-for-tat going on there. I definitely would like to read the court's opinion in full. If anyone has a line on the written opinion please post a link here.



If you ask me, they're marrying less because fewer women want to be saddled with materialistic douchebags for the next 60 years.

In fairy tale land, maybe. Men are starting to realize that the legal system is heavily tilted in favor of women in domestic relations courts and since most marriages end in divorce, what's the point? Now apparently even a legal pre-nup can be thrown out and your assets divided on a judge's whim. I hope he appeals to the NY Supreme Court.

[MelissaWV]

Between the two of them they've spent over a million dollars on lawyers.

Guess who's really excited about this?

* * *

Oh and some of you have some scary issues :eek:

[Keith and stuff]

Now apparently even a legal pre-nup can be thrown out and your assets divided on a judge's whim. I hope he appeals to the NY Supreme Court.

There is no way this is something new. Pre-nups have been broken for far less serious reasons in the past.

How to Break a Prenup
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN (@GoldmanRussell)
July 9, 2008


Just because Cynthia signed a prenup does not mean a judge won't throw it out, divorce attorneys told ABC News. Airtight prenuptial agreements are rare, and a number of factors can give an angry spouse the means to get out of it.

Rules for prenups vary from state to state, and each contract has to be evaluated on its individual merits. But lawyers looking to help clients get out of prenups generally look to see which of the rules may have been broken when the contract was signed.

"Any lawyer looking to get his client out of a prenup is going to ask three questions," said James Hennenhoefer, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "When was it signed? Where was it signed? And under what conditions was it signed?"

Timing is a big deal when it comes to breaking a prenup, lawyers said. The closer the contract is signed to the wedding date, the easier it is to break -- a result of parties not having had time to fully vet the contents of the contract. and more http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5333445&page=1

How to Contest a Prenuptial Agreement
http://www.ehow.com/how_2140154_contest-pre-nuptial-agreement.html

[devil21]

^^^^^^
You don't think it's new that a state appeals court has ruled that a verbal contract is more pertinent than a signed written contract?

No doubt there are instances of pre-nups being thrown out and various ways to contest a pre-nup. That's not the point though. NEVER has a verbal contract been ruled to trump a written contract. If you can show an example of that happening then you'd have a point.

[Rudeman]

7 years fighting to have a pre-nup revoked? Seems like the real winners are the lawyers involved.

[Liberty74]

Another reason NOT to get married...

[MelissaWV]

7 years fighting to have a pre-nup revoked? Seems like the real winners are the lawyers involved.

Yep. Like I said, over a million dollars in legal fees.

[Danan]

7 years fighting to have a pre-nup revoked? Seems like the real winners are the lawyers involved.

The real winner is the ex-wife. I bet she has won more than what the lawyers got.

[MelissaWV]

The real winner is the ex-wife. I bet she has won more than what the lawyers got.

They haven't even gotten the divorce yet.

[Danan]

They haven't even gotten the divorce yet.

Still, I guess it's not unlikely that tossing out the pre-nup will turn out to be favourable to her, even if you subtract the costs.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I just came up with NEW litigation against my EX... thanks for pointing it out courts ;)

[John of Des Moines]

The mistake the husband made well before even thinking about getting married was not creating a trust with him as trustee. The trust would be the owner of the man's real estate company and other property. The trustee would hire him(self) to run the real estate business paying him(self) a nice comfortable salary while the trust banked the profits out of reach of a future ex-wife to be.

[KingNothing]

If you ask me, they're marrying less because fewer women want to be saddled with materialistic douchebags for the next 60 years.


Yeah, I don't think that's it.

I'm a young man who has absolutely no intention of getting married any time soon. I don't understand where I gain from such an arrangement. It's basically just a 50-percent shot at losing half your things at some point down the line. The way I see it, marriage should be reserved for a woman who proves herself to be an extremely worthy and loyal soldier throughout life who continually goes above an beyond the call of duty. An engagement ring is, ya know, like a medal of honor.

[devil21]

Only a matter of time before the laws on alimony and asset division during divorce are changed to match how child support is disbursed, where the payer is required to pay the state and the state disburses it out to the payee. Im kinda surprised they haven't realized yet how much interest earnings the state could get from holding half of his $20 million fortune for a few weeks while "processing" her payout and alimony. That's why the states changed the laws to require child support be paid directly to the state. Big interest $$$ for gov't bank accounts.

[BAllen]

This decision will just further erode the little moral fiber left in our society...

And that is the point of it. Marxist demoralization taken to the next level. First, it was easier divorce, then government money for unwed mothers, with the purpose of destroying traditional families. Paralleled with the promotion of gays in the entertainment industry and then to children in the schools. Now, the next step is to give women even more advantage in divorce settlements and personal disputes as in the new vawa where the woman can just fabricate abuse by the man, who will not even be allowed counsel. This step, of course is to destroy relationships even further, thus hoping to make gay lifestyle more attractive. Paralleled by promotion of pedophilia as and alternative lifestyle. Bit by bit, chisel away at traditional relationships.

[PaulConventionWV]

If you ask me, they're marrying less because fewer women want to be saddled with materialistic douchebags for the next 60 years.

So you think it's all about the women, huh? Men are all just douchebags and women are starting to shrug them off? That's not sexist at all.

[dinosaur]

Yeah, I don't think that's it.

I'm a young man who has absolutely no intention of getting married any time soon. I don't understand where I gain from such an arrangement. It's basically just a 50-percent shot at losing half your things at some point down the line. The way I see it, marriage should be reserved for a woman who proves herself to be an extremely worthy and loyal soldier throughout life who continually goes above an beyond the call of duty. An engagement ring is, ya know, like a medal of honor.

The only way to be with a virtuous girl is to marry. Of course most men aren't interested in virtue, hence the problems we face.

[ninepointfive]

The only way to be with a virtuous girl is to marry.

not too sure about that

[thoughtomator]

LMAO. And men are angels who are virgins when they marry, have no skin adornments, and never take out college loans - and of course there are no men out there who don't want any children. Got it.

The point is not that men are angels, but that marriage is a particularly treacherous proposition for men because the law behaves as if women have a divine right to all the benefits of marriage, even after divorce, while men are lucky to get any of those rights, and where he does get them he is still at the mercy of an often vindictive woman to get them. The risk/reward ratio for men is very different from the risk/reward ratio for women. In addition, the more decent the man, the worse the ratio is, because the scumbags don't care about their children, hold marriage to be a sacrosanct institution, and so on.

Women can sucker men into relationships, get pregnant, immediately ditch him and have the courts dun him for the cost of the child. This is today a very viable path for childbearing, and it shouldn't be. There really are strong incentives for the woman to consider "for better or for worse" to be optional. She can do this serially, too - no need to stop at one. Men are basically hardwired to be vulnerable to this sort of thing, and it's so often exploited it's the oldest cliche known to man. When he says "I do", he does - and the courts make sure of it. When she says it, it's at her pleasure. It's an incredibly raw deal and it makes the institution of marriage an extremely treacherous and unbalanced proposition.

The number of single moms is incredible, and so is the corresponding number of fathers paying for but separated from their children. Every man knows at least one other who is in this situation - it's not a marginal risk, it's a serious one.

[UWDude]

LOL

Marriage

"here in my hand is a contract that says we'll love each other forever"

It's sooo romantic!

If you are foolish enough to invite the court system into your love life, you deserve what comes next.

[S.Shorland]

Hindu you take?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jaggers-settle-on-annulled-marriage-1105343.html

[kathy88]

Wow. Thread O fail!!!

[BAllen]

LOL

Marriage

"here in my hand is a contract that says we'll love each other forever"

It's sooo romantic!

If you are foolish enough to invite the court system into your love life, you deserve what comes next.

The court is involved, whether you want them or not. It's called common law marriage. Even if you're not living with them, they can use that new vawa law to fabricate abuse by the man, who now has no right to counsel under the same law.

[KingNothing]

The only way to be with a virtuous girl is to marry.

That isn't even remotely true. I've had great times with great women and have never been married. I regret none of it. I would, however, regret rushing into a binding contract, which a huge swath of the population does, and having it come back to cost me half of my wealth and a huge chunk of my time.

[satchelmcqueen]

truth!! all someone has to do is accuse you of something. lies work great in family court i can tell you for a fact. truth doesnt count.
Well, this certainly sets precedent. Wonderful day for lawyers who can now challenge ANY legal document with hearsay.

[satchelmcqueen]

me to IF he can afford it. in my case if the judge rules against me, i can appeal, but itll start out at $10,000. i barely had the $1500 to get the lawyer i have now, even though the stated law is in my favor. i still may lose due to a lying ex. i feel for this guy. a contract is a contract and should stand.
Notice the plaintiff has started a company apparently devoted to getting written contracts thrown out if the signatory later doesn't like what he/she signed. I'm curious if there's any connections between this plaintiff and the appellate judge's business interests. The corruption runs so deep that it wouldn't surprise me if there's some tit-for-tat going on there. I definitely would like to read the court's opinion in full. If anyone has a line on the written opinion please post a link here.




In fairy tale land, maybe. Men are starting to realize that the legal system is heavily tilted in favor of women in domestic relations courts and since most marriages end in divorce, what's the point? Now apparently even a legal pre-nup can be thrown out and your assets divided on a judge's whim. I hope he appeals to the NY Supreme Court.

[James Madison]

Another reason NOT to get married to the state...

FIFY

[ninepointfive]

FIFY

i dont think you have that option, as common law takes care of that little problem for them

[James Madison]

i dont think you have that option, as common law takes care of that little problem for them

How so? Because the government passed a law giving them legal authority over marriage? Well, I'm part of the government and decided to pass my own law.

[ninepointfive]

How so? Because the government passed a law giving them legal authority over marriage? Well, I'm part of the government and decided to pass my own law.

yeah' im all for it - but the courts will just rule as if you're married so long as their common law conditions are met.

[James Madison]

yeah' im all for it - but the courts will just rule as if you're married so long as their common law conditions are met.

Government's a bitch, ain't it?

[angelatc]

Yeah, I don't think that's it.

I'm a young man who has absolutely no intention of getting married any time soon. I don't understand where I gain from such an arrangement. It's basically just a 50-percent shot at losing half your things at some point down the line. The way I see it, marriage should be reserved for a woman who proves herself to be an extremely worthy and loyal soldier throughout life who continually goes above an beyond the call of duty. An engagement ring is, ya know, like a medal of honor.

Yeah, I'm sure that the women are all just desperate to capture a guy like you.

[angelatc]

Notice the plaintiff has started a company apparently devoted to getting written contracts thrown out if the signatory later doesn't like what he/she signed. I'm curious if there's any connections between this plaintiff and the appellate judge's business interests. The corruption runs so deep that it wouldn't surprise me if there's some tit-for-tat going on there. I definitely would like to read the court's opinion in full. If anyone has a line on the written opinion please post a link here.




In fairy tale land, maybe. Men are starting to realize that the legal system is heavily tilted in favor of women in domestic relations courts and since most marriages end in divorce, what's the point? Now apparently even a legal pre-nup can be thrown out and your assets divided on a judge's whim. I hope he appeals to the NY Supreme Court.


Honey, if I had my way, there would be no divorce. When you said, "till death do we part," you'd mean it. That's what the terms of the original deal were - sharing (not splitting) everything for the rest of a spouse's life. But you're crying because the outcomes of breaking that deal aren't fair? Cry me a river.

And we've been through this. Most marriages don't end in divorce. That's a liberal lie. But congratulations on being bitter, self-centered and uninformed! Good luck with life.

[devil21]

Honey, if I had my way, there would be no divorce. When you said, "till death do we part," you'd mean it. That's what the terms of the original deal were - sharing (not splitting) everything for the rest of a spouse's life. But you're crying because the outcomes of breaking that deal aren't fair? Cry me a river.

I didn't take you for a contract breaker but I guess we learn something new every day. The whole intent of a pre-nup is that whoever brings a large amount of assets into a marriage gets to leave with them. A pre-nup generally isn't about what assets are amassed during the marriage.



And we've been through this. Most marriages don't end in divorce. That's a liberal lie. But congratulations on being bitter, self-centered and uninformed! Good luck with life.

You sure are hateful and personally attacking most members here lately. It's certainly you coming off as bitter and self-centered. You got something going on your personal life that's creeping over to the forum? Divorce maybe?

Anyway, 50% of first marriages, 67% of second marriages, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce. You want to tell me again that most marriages don't end in divorce? A better way to phrase it is most recent marriages end in divorce. The eras matter. Old couples were much less likely to end in divorce for economic and religious reasons. This isn't the 1950's though.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201202/the-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-does-divorce-rate-go-up-second-and-third-marriages

[HOLLYWOOD]

Sounds like someone wants the system full of "prenup' lawsuits... I wonder who really wins in the settlements? A huge slice definitely goes to those plaintiff lawyers.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

N I hope he appeals to the NY Supreme Court.

The NY Supreme Court is a trial-level court. The top court in the state is the Court of Appeals.

[devil21]

The NY Supreme Court is a trial-level court. The top court in the state is the Court of Appeals.

Say what?

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Say what?

In New York the lowest court is called the "Supreme Court." Decisions from there can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division. Decisions from there can then be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state.

In the federal court system it's:
District court -> Court of Appeals -> Supreme Court

In New York it's:
Supreme Court -> Appellate Court -> Court of Appeals

[moostraks]

And that is the point of it. Marxist demoralization taken to the next level. First, it was easier divorce, then government money for unwed mothers, with the purpose of destroying traditional families. Paralleled with the promotion of gays in the entertainment industry and then to children in the schools. Now, the next step is to give women even more advantage in divorce settlements and personal disputes as in the new vawa where the woman can just fabricate abuse by the man, who will not even be allowed counsel. This step, of course is to destroy relationships even further, thus hoping to make gay lifestyle more attractive. Paralleled by promotion of pedophilia as and alternative lifestyle. Bit by bit, chisel away at traditional relationships.

This is so true^^^ The other part is that this is the legal pendulum swinging too far the other direction. Good old boy systems were the norm where a woman had to go to extraordinary lengths to get away from abusive spouses. I know as I was one of them almost 20 years ago. It doesn't make the legal abuse in the opposite direction okay.

What is really pathetic is that some find it acceptable to collectivize all women as having an ulterior motive and poor character. People are individuals. If you go through life being paranoid about the opposite sex in its entirety then the system has won. A person of quality is a rare treasure and will not be found without some effort. Maybe this should instead inspire people to be more selective in those they choose to associate with as opposed to allowing themselves to be manipulated into viscious disparagers of the opposite sex.

[talkingpointes]

This site sometimes makes me laugh so hard. If there was ever a place where there is a ENDLESS supply of nice guys -- it's here. Leave it to Angelatc to say something like that. This site has to be like 80-90% white knights and I mean the hard-core take-off-their-jacket and throw it in a puddle types. Most guys here I would imagine (that are single) can't even talk to women because they grew up idealistically and cant realize we're really only more different in sexual dimorphism.

[talkingpointes]

The facts are women and men need each other and for different reasons. The government has totally skewed it. When the government provides to a mother who couldn't pick a mate if he fell from the sky and raised her first child for 18 years. They internally see the government as the father. Men in my eyes become providers of not just health but of usually out of reach lifestyles.

[devil21]

In New York the lowest court is called the "Supreme Court." Decisions from there can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division. Decisions from there can then be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state.

In the federal court system it's:
District court -> Court of Appeals -> Supreme Court

In New York it's:
Supreme Court -> Appellate Court -> Court of Appeals

Weird but good to know.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If this forum can't even get past gender how can we save our country?

[UWDude]

If this forum can't even get past gender how can we save our country?

meh. The battle of the sexes will never end.

Personal relationship are the most important thing in most people's lives, not politics. And if those relationships are not what was expected, people are sure to blame the other sex for their own perceived failings.

[MelissaWV]

This site sometimes makes me laugh so hard. If there was ever a place where there is a ENDLESS supply of nice guys -- it's here. Leave it to Angelatc to say something like that. This site has to be like 80-90% white knights and I mean the hard-core take-off-their-jacket and throw it in a puddle types. Most guys here I would imagine (that are single) can't even talk to women because they grew up idealistically and cant realize we're really only more different in sexual dimorphism.

No.

[RickyJ]

s/b end of story


she's a gold digger


Maybe, maybe not, but either way the written contract should have more legal standing than a verbal contract. Really the guy should have never married her if he didn't trust her. You don't trust someone if you ask them to sign a contract before you even get married.

[jmdrake]

So you think it's all about the women, huh? Men are all just douchebags and women are starting to shrug them off? That's not sexist at all.

Men becoming male anglerfish?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsmxs0uDXMo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-BbpaNXbxg

To the female anglerfish the human male is a loud, annoying and unnecessarily complex pair of gonads