In Re Marriage of Noghrey
169 Cal. App. 3d 326, 215 Cal.Rptr. 153, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2001 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement is void as against public policy and therefore unenforceable if its terms encourage or promote divorce by providing for a settlement only in the event of a dissolution.
Facts:
- Kambiz Noghrey and Farima Human planned to marry.
- Just before the wedding ceremony, an agreement was handwritten on the back of the ceremonial wedding certificate.
- The agreement stated, 'I, Kambiz Noghrey, agree to settle on Farima Human, the house ... in Sunnyvale, ... [a]nd $500,000.00 or one-half of my assets, whichever is greater, in the event of a divorce.'
- Kambiz and Farima both signed the agreement before the wedding.
- Farima testified she signed because a husband should provide protection for a new wife in case of divorce, and in return, she provided medical assurances that she was a virgin.
- Kambiz testified he felt coerced into signing by Farima's mother, who allegedly threatened to cancel the wedding if he refused.
- The marriage lasted for seven and a half months.
Procedural Posture:
- Farima Noghrey filed a petition for divorce against Kambiz Noghrey in a California trial court.
- The trial court bifurcated the proceedings, first addressing the issue of the existence and validity of the antenuptial agreement.
- Following a separate trial on that issue, the trial court found that the parties had entered into a written antenuptial agreement and that it was valid, binding, and enforceable.
- Kambiz Noghrey (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision on the validity of the agreement to the California Court of Appeal.
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 a premarital agreement that provides for a substantial payment of money and property to one spouse only upon the occurrence of a divorce violate public policy and is it therefore unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Foley, J.
Yes. An antenuptial agreement that encourages or promotes divorce by providing for a settlement only upon such an occurrence is void as against public policy. While premarital agreements that define property rights are generally valid, this agreement's terms do not seek to define the character of property acquired during marriage. Instead, it creates a promise by the husband to give the wife a substantial amount of money and property, but only upon the occurrence of a divorce. This structure provides a profound financial incentive for the wife to seek a dissolution of the marriage, as she would not receive the assets otherwise. Because the agreement encourages profiteering by divorce, it offends the public policy to foster and protect marriage and is therefore unenforceable.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the long-standing public policy limitation on the freedom to contract in the context of marriage. It distinguishes permissible prenuptial agreements, which clarify property rights to simplify a potential dissolution, from impermissible ones that create a financial incentive for divorce. The court's focus on the structure of the payment—being contingent solely upon divorce—establishes that such a provision can render an entire agreement void, regardless of other circumstances. This decision serves as a clear precedent that courts will invalidate agreements that appear to make divorce more profitable than continuing the marital relationship for one party.
