Wife appeals from an order upholding a pre-nuptial agreement she and husband had signed. The agreement provided that in the case of a divorce, the wife would be given $1,400 per month for six years. She would also be entitled to half of the marital property, including furniture purchased after the marriage. The marital property was defined as property in which title was taken in both husband and wife’s names.

The trial court had noted that the wife had been competently represented in the drafting of the agreement. The disclosure of the husband’s assets far exceeded that required by law. The wife’s signing of the agreement was the voluntary act of a competent, fully-apprised adult.

The wife had moved to modify the agreement’s six-year maintenance award. Generally, maintenance may be modified by a court of law if untoward, catastrophic circumstances occurred after the marriage which would subject the wife to abject poverty or make her a public charge. The trial court denied her motion.

The attorney who drafted the agreement (Hogan) had told the woman that the agreement was not generous. He had advised her to delay the wedding in order to allow him time to secure a better deal for her. The woman said she wanted to get married and did not want to wait. Hogan felt that woman was not very concerned about the agreement and never allowed him much leeway to pursue her financial interests as he felt they should be addressed.

IRMO DRAG, 326 Ill.App.3d 1051

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Buffalo Grove Law Offices