Michael v. Howell
195 Cal. App. 4th 1062
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pamela Howell and Michael Howell signed a 1999 premarital agreement that included a waiver of future spousal support.
- At the time, Pamela was not represented by independent legal counsel; the agreement advised her to obtain counsel but she did not.
- In 2002, the Legislature amended Family Code section 1612, subdivision (c) to render spousal-support waivers unenforceable if not counseled or if unconscionable at enforcement.
- The trial court held the 2002 amendment retroactive and voided the spousal-support waiver portion of the agreement.
- The appellate court held that subdivision (c) does not apply retroactively to agreements executed in 1999, and that the waiver was valid under the pre-2002 law, given substantial evidence Pamela voluntarily entered into the agreement.
- The appellate court reversed the portion invalidating the spousal-support waiver and the related spousal-support order, but affirmed other provisions and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1612(c) applies to pre-enactment premarital agreements | Howell: retroactive application voids waiver | Howell: 1612(c) clarifies law, retroactivity possible | §1612(c) does not apply retroactively |
| Whether the 2002 amendment changed or clarified law | Pendleton factors may show no change | amendment substantially changed enforceability | A material change in law occurred |
| Retroactive effect of §1612(c) given Pendleton and Bonds | retroactivity would undermine vested expectations | Legislature intended retroactive effect for enforcement standards | Legislature did not intend retroactive application |
| Validity of spousal-support waiver under pre-2002 law | waiver was unenforceable due to lack of independent counsel | waiver valid if entered voluntarily and not unconscionable | Waiver was valid and enforceable under former law |
| Were trial court findings as to voluntariness and unconscionability supported | Pamela lacked independent counsel and coercive factors existed | Pamela voluntarily entered and understood the terms; no duress | Findings supported; waiver voluntary and not unconscionable at execution |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman, 24 Cal.4th 39 (Cal. 2000) (premarital waiver not per se unenforceable; public policy considerations noted)
- In re Marriage of Bonds, 24 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2000) (one party's lack of independent counsel is only one factor in voluntariness)
- In re Fellows, 39 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2006) (retroactivity of laches defense in support cases discussed)
- Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1997) (clarification vs. change in law; retroactivity considerations)
- Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 38 Cal.4th 914 (Cal. 2006) (retroactivity analysis and standards for legislative intent)
- Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (Cal. 2009) (retroactivity presumptions and legislative intent considerations)