If you have questions about divorce, legal separation, alimony pendente lite, or alimony in Connecticut, please feel free to call the experienced divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at 203-221-3100 or email Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the plaintiff and enforcing the parties' premarital agreement. The agreement provided that in the event of the dissolution of their marriage, the parties waived any claim to the property of the other party and any entitlement to alimony or other support.

The plaintiff commenced this marital dissolution action and filed a pendente lite motion to enforce the agreement. The defendant filed an objection arguing that the agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion concluding that the agreement, both at the time of its execution and at the time of its enforcement, was not unconscionable. The defendant filed a motion to reargue, claiming that the agreement was unenforceable because the plaintiff did not include his Schedule E income in his financial disclosure, and, therefore, he failed to provide her with a fair and reasonable disclosure of his income before the execution of the agreement as required by statute (§ 46b-36g [a] [3]). The court denied the defendant's motion to reargue. Thereafter, the court rendered judgment dissolving the parties' marriage and granted certain other relief in accordance with the agreement, from which the defendant appealed to this court.

On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court properly enforced the parties' premarital agreement, as that court's conclusion that the agreement was not unconscionable when the plaintiff sought to enforce it was supported by the record. The agreement was not forced upon the defendant, the parties mutually agreed to all its terms, the defendant was represented by counsel when the parties executed the agreement and had ample opportunity to review it, and although there was a marked disparity in the parties' wealth at the time that the plaintiff sought to enforce the agreement, that disparity existed at the time the parties willingly executed the agreement and was substantially similar at both times.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to reargue its ruling granting the plaintiff's motion to enforce the premarital agreement; contrary to the defendant's claim, the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff provided the defendant with a fair and reasonable disclosure of his income before the execution of the agreement as required by § 46b-36g (a) (3), and although he did not provide the defendant with his Schedule E income, he did disclose the sources of that income and their value, thereby providing the defendant with a sufficient approximation of the amount, character and value of his property, financial obligations and income.

For a free consultation, please do not hesitate to call the experienced family law and divorce attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport, CT at 203-221-3100. We may also be reached for inquiries by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Source: Beyor v. Beyor,  2015 Conn. App. LEXIS 266 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)