212 Cal. App. 4th 967
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jeffrey and Nancy Facter signed a 1994 premarital agreement stating none of the property acquired during the marriage would be community property.
- Their 1996 son was born; they separated in 2010 and initiated divorce proceedings.
- The trial court declared the premarital agreement invalid in its entirety, including the property provisions.
- Jeffrey appealed, arguing the court should sever invalid terms and enforce the remaining provisions.
- During proceedings, it was conceded that the child-support provisions were unenforceable, but the spousal-support waiver and related terms remained contested.
- Evidence showed Jeffrey drafted the agreement, Nancy relied on it, and there was a substantial disparity in assets and income at the time of execution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of spousal support validity | Facter argues the waiver is valid or severable. | Facter contends the waiver is unconscionable and invalid under former §1615. | Waiver is unconscionable; severable remedy allowed. |
| Severability of invalid provisions | Property provisions should be enforceable if separable from invalid terms. | The invalid waivers taint the contract; severability should not apply. | Trial court abused discretion; sever invalid terms from the property provisions. |
| Retroactivity and interpretation of UPAA provisions | Pendleton allows waivers to be enforced if voluntary and counsel-represented. | Section 1612(c) retroactivity issues affect unconscionability analysis. | Pendleton governs; does not require retroactive application of modern §1612; unconscionability evaluated at enforcement time. |
| Disclosures and enforcement of reduced contract scope | Disclosures were adequate; contract should be enforced to the extent lawful. | Incomplete disclosure can render entire contract unenforceable per former §1615(a)(2). | Disclosure adequate; entire contract not unenforceable; severance appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Smith, 148 Cal.App.4th 1115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (contract interpretation uses plain meaning and mutual intent at contracting)
- Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995) (contract interpretation and certainty of terms)
- Pendleton, 24 Cal.4th 39 (Cal. 2000) (premarital waivers of spousal support allowed if voluntary and counsel-represented)
- Higgason, 10 Cal.3d 476 (Cal. 1973) (waiver of support against public policy)
- Dawley, 17 Cal.3d 342 (Cal. 1976) (property rights waivers can be upheld separate from support waivers)
- Bonds, 24 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2000) (UPAA, disclosure and knowledge standards for premarital agreements)
- Howell, 195 Cal.App.4th 1062 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (retroactivity of §1612(c) and unconscionability analysis in premarital waivers)
- Marathon Entertainment v. Blasi, 42 Cal.4th 974 (Cal. 2008) (severability framework for contract terms with illegality)
- Bakhtiari, 195 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (equitable approach to severance of unlawful terms)
- Adair v. Stockton Unified School Dist., 162 Cal.App.4th 1436 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (liberal severability posture in contract enforcement)