Problem
Millionaire Peter Petrakis presented his fiance, Elizabeth, with a prenuptial agreement three months before their wedding which provided that in the event of a divorce all property acquired during their marriage (i) as a result of his employment and separate property would remain his sole and separate property and (ii) as a result of her employment and separate property would remain her sole and separate property. The Agreement provided that Elizabeth was guaranteed a $25,000 payout for every year the couple was married. Elizabeth refused to sign the prenuptial agreement and still had not done so four days before the wedding. Ultimately, Peter convinced her to sign promising that he would tear up the agreement after the couple had children. The couple married and did have children. Soon after, the marriage deteriorated and the couple divorced. However, Peter never tore up the prenup as he promised to do.
Answer the following eight questions. Please number them in your answer:
1. Do you think the prenup is valid?
2. Was fraud involved?
3. What are the main reasons prenups are found to be invalid?
4. Would a clause that absolved Peter or Elizabeth from paying child support have validity? Why or why not?
5. Would a clause that designated the parent who would have primary custody of the children be valid? Why or why not?
6. Obviously, a spousal support clause was included, but what other clauses can be included in a prenup?
7. What if the prenup included a stipulation regarding how much weight Elizabeth could gain, with a fine of $500 per excess pound? - Would that stipulation be enforceable?
8. In your opinion what demographic enters into prenups nowadays and why?