(561) 842-2820
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE / POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT
Critton, Luttier & Coleman represented the husband in the dissolution of marriage proceeding. The parties had been married for more than 40 years and had three adult children. The parties executed a postnuptial agreement, which was governed by Virginia law and the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (now adopted in Florida). There was no written financial disclosure provided at the time the agreement was executed. The wife alleged that the husband had a net worth in excess of $45 million. The wife also claimed that she executed the agreement under duress. The client argued that the wife had waived the right to financial disclosure.
– RESULT –
After extensive research and argument to the Court, the firm’s partner, Mark Luttier, obtained an order that the wife had waived the right to financial disclosure. Thereafter, a trial was conducted at which time the Court determined that the wife executed the agreement freely and voluntarily. After the trial, the husband was awarded attorneys fees and all costs incurred in defending the validity of the parties postnuptial agreement.
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
Attorney, Mark Luttier, represented the husband in a dissolution of a long-term marriage involving three adult children. The most significant asset was the closely-held stock in the family business. Neither party was actively involved in the business. The party’s three adult sons ran the business. Over a period of time, the parties had gifted some of the stock in the business to their sons. At the time of the dissolution, the husband owned the remaining shares of stock in the family business. The wife alleged that there was a conspiracy between the husband and sons and amended her complaint to sue the sons. The wife also sought to place an unreasonably high value on the stock in the family business and required the husband to pay half of the value.
– RESULT –
Two trials were brought to court, one on the conspiracy issue and the other on the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets. The husband proposed an equal division of the remaining family stock between the parties to place them in an equal position. The court entered a final judgment to divide the stock equally. The wife appealed, but the original ruling was affirmed.