Prenuptial Agreement.

The Validity of a Prenuptial Agreement
Name of Student
Institution Affiliation

The Validity of a Prenuptial Agreement
Abstract
In this case, marriage is planned for Peter and Catherine, who have lived together without getting married officially, after Catherine is believed to have conceived. The plan for marriage is faced with some issues because Catherine refuses to sign the prenuptial contract since she felt that her husband to be, Peter, has not disclosed his annual income. Catherine states that she contends the validity of the contract because it is immoral: the agreement purports to take advantage of Catherine’s minimal financial assets and business expertise. Prenuptial contract is done when a spouse contending validity of the agreement is in the knowledge of the other partner’s financial assets and income. On his side, Peter argues that there is no point of disclosing his annual income since Catherine already know what he earns as they have lived together for more than four years. Peter believes that the agreement was valid and such thing should not be a cause of terming it invalid.
The Validity of a Prenuptial Agreement
In the present case, Catherine argues that the prenuptial agreement is void owing to Mallen’s nondisclosure of his income of $560,000 a year. Here, Catherine feels that lack of disclosure of one’s assets is an immoral act and the agreement cannot be valid. For the agreement to be validated, all the parties included must disclose all their wealth without hiding some.

Peter contends that the agreement is valid because he disclosed his network fully. Moreover, Peter argues that Catherine was aware that he was wealthy from their standard of living in the four years they had lived together (Leeson & Pierson, 2016). Under the Californian law, persons planning to get married are not living in a relationship that is well-grounded. Moreover, the enforceable of a prenuptial contract is done when a spouse contending validity of the agreement is in the knowledge of the other partner’s financial assets and income. Thus, Catherine does not prove that Peter’s failure to disclose his precise income constituted to a lack of disclosure of resources facts, which would invalidate the prenuptial agreement (Twomey &Jennings, 2016).
Relatively, Catherine argues that the prenuptial agreement was unconscionable because of some differences between experience in business and financial situation. Catherine states that she contends the validity of the contract because it is immoral: the agreement purports to take advantage of Catherine’s minimal financial assets and business expertise. On the contrary, Peter contends that by quoting the facts in Adams v. Adams, 278 Ga. 521(1), 603 S.E.2d 273 (2004) in which the disparities experienced between the assets of the parties involved agreed to become unconscionable. Thus, the differences in the financial status and business experience between Peter and Catherine do not render the prenuptial agreement as unconscionable (Gann, 2016).
Reference
Gann Jr, A. F. (2016). Prenuptial Agreements and Fraud on the Widow’s Share: A Look at Virginia’s Law on Premarital Agreement Enforcement at Death. Va. J. Soc. Poly & L., 23, 231.
Leeson, P. T., & Pierson, J. (2016). Prenups. The Journal of Legal Studies.
Twomey, D. P., Jennings, M. M., & Greene, S. M. (2016). Anderson’s Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume. Nelson Education.