In re Marriage of Bonds
99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The absence of independent legal counsel for a party to a premarital agreement is one of several factors to be considered in a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis of voluntariness, but it does not trigger a 'strict scrutiny' standard or shift the burden of proof to the party seeking to enforce the agreement.
Facts:
- Barry Bonds, a professional baseball player, and Susann (Sun) Bonds, a recent immigrant from Sweden, became engaged in November 1987.
- From the beginning of their relationship, Barry told Sun he would not marry her without a premarital agreement to keep their earnings and property separate.
- Sun, who planned to pursue her own career, agreed with this arrangement, stating it was similar to the practice in her home country of Sweden.
- On February 5, 1988, the day before their planned wedding in Las Vegas, the couple met with Barry's two attorneys to sign the agreement.
- Sun was not represented by her own attorney but brought a friend, Margareta Forsberg, to the meeting.
- At the meeting, Barry's attorneys advised Sun of her right to independent counsel and that they represented Barry, but Sun declined to seek her own lawyer.
- Barry's attorneys read and explained the agreement to Sun, who asked questions and indicated she understood its terms, which stipulated that each party's earnings during marriage would be their separate property.
- Sun signed the premarital agreement without expressing reluctance, and the couple married the following day.
Procedural Posture:
- Barry Bonds petitioned for legal separation from Susann (Sun) Bonds in California superior court (the trial court).
- The proceeding was converted to a dissolution of marriage, and the trial was bifurcated to first address the validity of the premarital agreement.
- The trial court found that the premarital agreement was valid and enforceable, ruling that Sun had entered into it voluntarily.
- Sun Bonds (as appellant) appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal, in a split decision, reversed the trial court, holding that the agreement required strict scrutiny due to Sun's lack of independent counsel and was therefore unenforceable.
- Barry Bonds (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the lack of independent legal counsel for one party to a premarital agreement require a court to apply strict scrutiny when determining whether the agreement was entered into voluntarily under the California Uniform Premarital Agreement Act?
Opinions:
Majority - George, C. J.
No. The absence of independent legal counsel for one party is only one of several factors to be considered in determining whether a premarital agreement was entered into voluntarily; it does not trigger a 'strict scrutiny' standard or shift the burden of proof to the party seeking to enforce the agreement. Family Code section 1615 places the burden of proving involuntariness on the party challenging the agreement. The history of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) shows that its drafters specifically rejected making independent counsel a prerequisite for enforceability, instead treating it as a single factor in the overall voluntariness determination. Other relevant factors include potential coercion from the wedding's proximity, surprise, inequality of bargaining power, disclosure of assets, and the party's understanding of the rights being waived. Parties contemplating marriage are not presumed to be in a fiduciary relationship, so the strict standards for spousal agreements do not apply. The trial court's finding that Sun voluntarily signed the agreement was supported by substantial evidence that she was not coerced, had an opportunity to obtain counsel, and understood the agreement's essential terms.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the standard for assessing the voluntariness of premarital agreements in California, promoting their enforceability as intended by the UPAA. By rejecting a bright-line rule requiring strict scrutiny for unrepresented parties, the court prevents the automatic invalidation of many such agreements. It establishes a fact-intensive, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry where the lack of counsel is an important but not dispositive factor. This ruling provides greater legal certainty for represented parties but places a significant evidentiary burden on unrepresented parties who later challenge an agreement's validity.
Unlock the full brief for In re Marriage of Bonds