Supreme Court nullifies pre-nup agreements

[Jetsfan]

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_p...html?id=967648

The Supreme Court of Canada recently refused to hear an appeal in LeVan vs. LeVan, thereby passing up a splendid chance to undo mischief done by Ontario's lower courts.

Putting it bluntly, the bride had two options: either sign the contract and get virtually none of the husband's money, or not get married at all -- in which case she would obviously get none of the husband's money. Note that both options included the part about not getting any significant amount of the husband's money. Therefore, how could it have mattered whether she knew the dollar value of his assets, since she wasn't going to get any of them either way? Zero percent of any number is still zero.

[Boblobla]

EDIT: NM, I misread the article. I thought the supreme court was overturning the decision to give the wife money.

I disagree with the agreement being nullified.

[troutman]

The court found the contract "unfair" for several reasons, but the one I want to focus on is the fact that the husband had not disclosed in advance the value of his assets.

I don't think the Supreme Court is nullifying pre-nups - they will be nullified in unfair circumstances, and this article only describes one of them from the case.

The husband's net worth was at least $10 M.

[Bobblehead]

Last 5 threads Jetsfan started:

• Supreme Court nullifies pre-nup agreements
• DNA tests...one in five men NOT the father
• Go to first new post Food Riots & Tax Rebellions by 2012
• Go to first new post Women who lie about paternity forced to repay duped men
• Go to first new post Craigslist Woman...Why Nice Guys Suck

Other than the Rebellions one, I sense a theme.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Last 5 threads Jetsfan started:

• Supreme Court nullifies pre-nup agreements
• DNA tests...one in five men NOT the father
• Go to first new post Food Riots & Tax Rebellions by 2012
• Go to first new post Women who lie about paternity forced to repay duped men
• Go to first new post Craigslist Woman...Why Nice Guys Suck

Other than the Rebellions one, I sense a theme.

http://www.divorce-for-men.com/resourcmen.htm

[troutman]

Trial decision:

http://www.heydary.com/resources/cas...n_v_levan.html

“s.56 (4) A court may, on application, set aside a domestic contract or a provision in it,
(a) if a party failed to disclose to the other significant assets, or significant debts or other liabilities, existing when the domestic contract was made;
(b) if a party did not understand the nature or consequences of the domestic contract; or
(c) otherwise in accordance with the law of contract.”

The contract the wife entered into could have resulted in the husband having assets in excess of one hundred million dollars and the wife receiving nothing under the contract and owing him an equalization payment. She significantly compromised her right to spousal support and gave up her rights to share in the increase in value of virtually all of the husband’s assets, save the matrimonial home, if there was one, and potentially the growth in a secondary residence, although that is not clear. She did this without knowing what his income was from all sources and without having any idea of his net worth. In surrendering virtually all of her rights and agreeing to contract out of the provisions of the Family Law Act, she did so without any meaningful information about the husband’s assets and income, coupled with seriously misleading information about his net worth. In my opinion, the marriage contract was not reasonably fair to the wife.

Pursuant to s.5 (6) of the Family Law Act, it is unconscionable to equalize net family properties. The wife is entitled to 15% of the net family property or $3,066,467

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by troutman

The court found the contract "unfair" for several reasons, but the one I want to focus on is the fact that the husband had not disclosed in advance the value of his assets.

I don't think the Supreme Court is nullifying pre-nups - they will be nullified in unfair circumstances, and this article only describes one of them from the case.

The husband's net worth was at least $10 M.

There may have been some other circumstances that actually made the agreement unfair. Unfortunately, the article didn't list them so I don't know what they were. This particular one, in my opinion, doesn't seem unfair.

Could you shed any light on how not disclosing your net worth would be deemed unfair from a legal perspective?

edit: i see you've posted some trial details while I saw typing. Thanks.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

There may have been some other circumstances that actually made the agreement unfair. Unfortunately, the article didn't list them so I don't know what they were. This particular one, in my opinion, doesn't seem unfair.

Could you shed any light on how not disclosing your net worth would be deemed unfair from a legal perspective?

edit: i see you've posted some trial details while I saw typing. Thanks.

See the Trial Judge's findings above ^^^^^

[FireFly]

This is a sketchy area to me. I mean, if a person is wealthy, I can see them not wanting to be hosed in case of divorce. By saying regardless of what happens, you get nothing, one has to sense that he's holding something back, or planning to exchange for a newer model eventually.

I wonder why she'd even bother... although it worked out in her favour in the end!