Posted on July 24, 2009 by Kysa Crusco

Top 10 reasons a court may invalidate a prenup

A premarital agreement, also called antenuptial agreement, is a written contract entered into in contemplation of marriage. A prenup can protect your separate property and address the division of assets in the event of divorce or death of a spouse. Findlaw has a short article listing the top 10 reasons a premarital agreement may be found invalid. The original article has more details on each point that is worth reading through, but here are the reasons in short that a prenup may be invalidated:

  1. NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT
  2. NOT PROPERLY EXECUTED. 
  3. YOU WERE PRESSURED. 
  4. YOU DIDN'T READ IT.
  5. NO TIME FOR CONSIDERATION. 
  6. INVALID PROVISIONS. 
  7. FALSE INFORMATION. 
  8. INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. 
  9. NO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.
  10. UNCONSCIONABILITY.  

Each state has very specific laws about prenuptial agreements. In New Hampshire, a prenup is generally presumed to be valid unless a party proves circumstances such as 1) fraud, undue influence, duress; 2) failure to disclose a material fact; 3) that the agreement is unconscionable; 4) or circumstances have rendered it unfair. In order to protect the validity of any prenup, parties desiring a prenuptial agreement should contact a seasoned New Hampshire attorney.

Source: Attorney Stephen Worrall's Georgia Family Law Blog post "Top Ten Reasons a Premarital Agreement May be Invalid"

Tags: , , ,
Posted on July 7, 2009 by Kysa Crusco

Court filing fees increase as of July 1, 2009

On July 1, 2009, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an order increasing the filing fees in all cases. The filing fee for a divorce without children is now $205, and a divorce with children or a parenting petition is now $207.

According the the media advisory posted by the court, the fee increase was necessary to continue to fund the services provided by the judicial branch.

Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr. said the court's decision to change the fees came after state lawmakers asked each branch of state government to find ways to increase state revenue during a severe economic downturn. The Judicial Branch had suggested generating more revenue through fee changes during recent budget negotiations with House and Senate members.

“We have agreed to keep almost 60 staff positions open during the next biennium and will manage with reductions in our operations to meet the new biennial budget,” Chief Justice Broderick said. “In order to keep the system functioning and avoid even further reductions, we felt we had to ask court users to shoulder some of the economic strain on our state during this very difficult time, " the Chief Justice said. "We view our decision as a necessary step we had to take to assist the state in meeting its budget.These are unprecedented economic times,” he added.

 

Tags: , , , ,