 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sands v. Albert2/6/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and plaintiff Fred Sands (Sands) hired respondent and defendant Carl Albert (Albert) to draft a prenuptial agreement. The agreement included paragraph 18, a provision Sands expected would result in a forfeiture if the agreement's validity were ever contested. In a subsequent dissolution proceeding, Sands's wife contested the agreement's validity. The trial court upheld the agreement's validity and thereafter held that paragraph 18 did not operate as a forfeiture.
Sands settled the issues in the dissolution proceedings and then filed this legal malpractice lawsuit against Albert. Upon Albert's summary judgment motion, the trial court ruled this malpractice lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations and entered judgment accordingly. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Preliminary facts and paragraph 18 of the prenuptial agreement.
In June 1980, Albert was Sands's attorney, handling transactional and litigation matters for Sands's company. Albert informed Sands that correctly drawn prenuptial agreements were enforceable.
Sands asked Cindy Ambrose (Ambrose) to marry him.
Sands met with Albert and discussed what he wanted in a prenuptial agreement. Sands's goal was to protect his accumulated assets, past and future. Sands did not want Ambrose to have a claim on his estate other than as provided in the agreement. Sands wanted the agreement to state that if Ambrose challenged the agreement, or made any attempt to seek any money or property other than as provided for in the agreement, she would forfeit all benefits thereunder. Albert told Sands that the prenuptial agreement could be structured so that if Ambrose challenged the property settlement she would get nothing.
About four weeks prior to July 1980, Ambrose was given a copy of a prenuptial agreement drafted by Albert.
Ambrose's attorney objected to paragraph 18 to the extent it provided for a waiver of spousal support.
Paragraph 18 was redrafted. It eliminated the reference to spousal support and stated that if Ambrose sought to obtain property rights from Sands other than as specified in the agreement, Sands would be relieved of his other obligations under the agreement.
Albert was aware of no-contest clauses in wills. He researched the validity of no-contest clauses in prenuptial agreements and could find no support for them in the law.
Albert did not guarantee Ambrose would not contest the prenuptial agreement. Albert told Sands that if Ambrose did, she would risk everything. Albert believed paragraph 18 protected Sands's interests by creating a disincentive for a challenge to the property settlement. Paragraph 18 arguably would cause Ambrose to lose her rights under the prenuptial agreement if she challenged the property rights provision of the agreement.
Ambrose and Sands signed the prenuptial agreement on July 23, 1980. They were married that same day.
2. The dissolution proceedings.
In December 1994, Ambrose and Sands separated. A petition for dissolution was filed. During the divorce proceedings, Ambrose challenged the validity of the prenuptial agreement.
Trial on the bifurcated issue of the validity of the prenuptial agreement was hel
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|