Q: What constitutes “unconscionable” spousal support in a postnup?
Spouse A gave up their job to move to where Spouse B lived. They only had 80K in assets and was unable to work for almost a year. Spouse B came into the marriage with 1.7M. Upon marrying they signed a prenup that Spouse A was not comfortable with, but they felt under pressure. The prenup was signed the day of the wedding. Property would remain completely separate and spousal support would have been a lump-sum of 10K.
Once the prenup expired, they signed a postnup (Spouse’s B condition to remain married), which slightly more genero us (lump-sum of 40K). Spouse A now has a “good” job (let’s say 100K) but is not confident on being able to keep it. They have a chronic illness that may make future earnings questionable and have had to take medical leaves of absence from work. Spouse B makes 500K+ and now has 3M in assets.
Spouse A still has only 80K in assets since all marital expenses have been split evenly, not proportionally, and they have incurred in considerable medical expenses.
A:
Based on the facts provided, there are several arguments that the spousal support provision in the postnuptial agreement may be considered unconscionable under California law:
1. The disparity in assets and income between Spouse A and Spouse B is quite substantial. Spouse B earning 5 times as much and having significantly more assets could weigh toward the support terms being unconscionable.
2. The lump sum amount of $40,000 seems inadequate given Spouse A's contributions, financial sacrifices, and needs. After giving up their job and career to move, incurring medical costs, and 10+ years of marriage, the amount awarded may be deemed insufficient.
3. The chronic illness and questionable future earnings potential for Spouse A indicate they have a greater need for supportive resources. The agreement does not provide reasonably adequate assistance.
4. There was no independent counsel review of the postnup - without the chance to consult a separate lawyer, consent may not be fully informed.
Overall, the disproportionate situation, minimal spousal support total, and pressure imposed on the less financially powerful spouse all suggest a possibility that the provision may be struck down as unconscionable if challenged in court. The lack of fairness, overall one-sidedness, and Spouse A's few negotiating options indicate the terms are likely unenforceable. Consulting an attorney who handles marital agreement disputes would be advisable for Spouse A.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
