Cadwell-Faso v. Faso
191 Cal. App. 4th 945
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Faso and Cadwell-Faso married May 27, 2006; premarital agreement and five addenda drafted March–May 2006; Faso represented by counsel; seven-day rule at issue between presentation of final addendum and signing; trial court ruled addenda unenforceable due to seven-day requirement; phase one findings described; phase two addressed spousal support and business value; appellate court reversed, holding 1615(c)(2) does not apply to Faso who was represented from outset; judgment reversed with costs to Cadwell-Faso.
- Cadwell-Faso initially sought legal separation, and Faso sought dissolution; the Addendum included mortgage payoff, property rights, health care obligations, and spousal support provisions; initial drafts were rejected by Faso; fifth draft finalized May 18–25, 2006, with execution on May 25, 2006, two days before marriage.
- The trial court found Faso knowingly signed under advice that the seven-day period was not satisfied; court considered estoppel and other factors under 4320; evidence of hardball negotiations was noted.
- Phase Two addressed restitutionary spousal support and business valuation, with conflicting expert testimony; ultimately the trial court awarded attorney fees but denied spousal support on restitutionary grounds.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding section 1615(c)(2) does not apply to represented parties, and the Addendum is enforceable; costs awarded to Cadwell-Faso on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1615(c)(2) applies to represented parties | Faso represented; seven-day rule should not apply | Cadwell-Faso argues broad seven-day requirement. | Not applicable to Faso; enforceable Addendum. |
| When the seven-day clock begins | Seven days begin at first presentment to seek counsel | Clock should apply only to unrepresented parties | Seven-day clock not applicable here; representation from outset negates the need. |
| Effect of seven-day rule on voluntary execution | Seven-day rule ensures voluntariness for unrepresented parties | Represented party protected by counsel, clock unnecessary | Rule not controlling where party was represented. |
| Estoppel and other factors | Promissory estoppel cannot enforce due to seven days; other factors relevant | Equitable factors may be considered under 4320(n) | 7-day requirement governs voluntariness; Addendum enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Bonds, 24 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2000) (lack of independent counsel as one factor among voluntariness considerations; new UPAA amendments enacted thereafter)
- In re Marriage of Friedman, 100 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. App. 2002) (discussion of premarital agreement enforceability and voluntariness)
- In re Falcone & Fyke, 164 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. App. 2008) ( Falcone & Fyke addressing unrepresented party protections and voluntariness)