 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Hess11/4/1993
he agreement, we believe it is incumbent on the dominant party to ensure that the terms of the agreement and its implications are fully explained to the other party by independent, knowledgeable legal counsel. An attorney who represents the dominant party will not suffice. See Rules of Professional Conduct, ER 1.7, ER 1.9, ER 4.1, ER 4.3, ER 4.4. In most circumstances, independent counsel would prevent the problems of lack of knowledge and understanding that occurred in this case. The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, as adopted by Arizona provides, "An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law." A.R.S. ยง 25-202(E). The standard of unconscionability is used in commercial law and contract law where its meaning includes protection against one-sidedness, oppression, or unfair surprise. It has been used in cases respecting divorce settlements or awards. Bell v. Bell, 150 Colo. 174, 371 P.2d 773 (Colo. 1962). The assistance of independent counsel will be a controlling factor in determining whether the requirements of A.R.S. section 25-202 have been met.
In summary, we conclude that the antenuptial agreement at issue is invalid. Accordingly, we reverse the February 4, 1991, partial summary judgment and the portion of the October 11, 1991, judgment and decree involving the division of the parties' property and remand for division of the property, including but not limited to the medical practice and the pension fund.
SARAH D. GRANT, Judge
CONCURRING:
RUTH V. McGREGOR, Presiding Judge
SHELDON H. WEISBERG, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|