California Pre/Post Marital Agreements: August 1999 Summary

Legal Developments

In re Marriage of Bonds

On April 12, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District held in In re the Marriage of Susanne Margreth and Barry Lamar Bonds, (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 290, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 783, modified 5/12/99 at 99 DJDAR 4455, that where only one party is represented, and where the other party does not knowingly refuse assistance of counsel, is unsophisticated from a business and legal standpoint, and agrees to forego statutory rights, the court must strictly and more carefully scrutinize the circumstances involved in the execution of the agreement. Finding that the agreement contained numerous typographical errors, was missing exhibits, ended abruptly, and had a detachable signature page, and further finding that the unrepresented spouse (Sun) was first presented the agreement the day before the wedding, did not understand that she was giving anything up by the agreement, did not understand that the attorneys presenting the agreement were representing Barry, and therefore did not voluntarily enter into the agreement, the appellate court overturned the trial court and determined that the agreement was invalid. The court noted that informing unrepresented parties that they may obtain legal counsel does not provide an understanding of why they might need separate counsel, a prerequisite for a knowing refusal to obtain counsel.

As indicated in our May 1999 practice alert, the issues raised by Bonds were already addressed by Lawgic prior to the release of the decision. This update includes commentary specifically discussing Bonds, as well as additional options and document language for agreements signed by an unrepresented party.