In Re Marriage of Pendleton & Fireman
24 Cal.4th 39, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 278, 5 P.3d 839 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A premarital agreement in which the parties waive the right to spousal support is not per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy.
Facts:
- On July 1, 1991, Candace Pendleton and Barry Fireman executed a premarital agreement.
- The agreement contained a clause stating that both parties waived all rights to any type of spousal support from the other in the event of a dissolution of the marriage.
- Both Pendleton and Fireman were represented by independent counsel, who certified that their clients understood the agreement and executed it freely and voluntarily.
- At the time of the agreement, both parties were self-sufficient, with individual net worths of approximately $2.5 million each.
- Pendleton was an aspiring writer with a master's degree, and Fireman was a businessman with a doctorate and a law degree.
- The couple married on July 13, 1991, and separated in 1995.
Procedural Posture:
- Candace Pendleton filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the state trial court and requested spousal support.
- Barry Fireman moved to strike the spousal support request, citing the waiver in the parties' premarital agreement.
- The trial court denied Fireman's motion, ruling the waiver was void as against public policy, and ordered Fireman to pay temporary spousal support.
- Barry Fireman (appellant) appealed the trial court's support order to the Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, concluding that spousal support waivers are not per se unenforceable, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a premarital agreement waiving the right to spousal support in the event of a marital dissolution per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No, a premarital agreement waiving spousal support is not per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. The historical common law policy that held such waivers invalid because they were thought to promote dissolution is anachronistic in light of modern social and legal changes. These changes include the adoption of no-fault divorce, equal rights for spouses in managing community property, and a statutory goal that supported spouses become self-supporting. The Legislature's omission of a provision expressly authorizing spousal support waivers from the California Uniform Premarital Agreement Act is best understood as an intent to allow the common law to continue evolving through the courts, not to freeze it. Therefore, a waiver executed by intelligent, self-sufficient, and well-counseled parties does not violate public policy and is not automatically unenforceable.
Concurring - Mosk, J.
No, the agreement does not violate public policy. The analysis is straightforward based on the statutory text. The Family Code allows premarital agreements on any matter not violating public policy, and it explicitly prohibits waivers of child support in a separate subdivision. Had the Legislature intended to prohibit waivers of spousal support, it would have included that prohibition alongside the one for child support. Its failure to do so indicates that spousal support waivers are permissible.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes, a premarital agreement waiving spousal support is per se unenforceable as a violation of public policy. The Legislature's deliberate deletion of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act's provision authorizing spousal support waivers was a clear affirmation of existing California case law which held such waivers to be invalid. The majority's decision to overrule this legislative choice is a usurpation of legislative power. Sound public policy supports prohibiting such waivers, as a party's circumstances can change dramatically during a marriage, potentially making an agreement that was fair at its execution deeply unjust at the time of dissolution. By invalidating the established rule, the majority also fails to provide clear guidance on when such a waiver might be deemed unenforceable in the future.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant departure from long-standing California precedent that had deemed premarital spousal support waivers void as against public policy. It aligns California with the majority of jurisdictions by recognizing the validity of such waivers, reflecting a modern view of marriage as a partnership between autonomous individuals capable of contracting their own affairs. The ruling modernizes family law by acknowledging societal shifts toward no-fault divorce and spousal self-sufficiency. However, by explicitly declining to decide whether a waiver could be unconscionable at the time of enforcement, the court left the door open for future litigation to define the limits of enforceability, particularly in cases involving long-term marriages or significant changes in circumstances.
