'Disposable' wife beats prenup

[question everything]

Monday, July 12, 2004

Court says woman whose husband sought divorce after she was severely injured is entitled to more than the $100,000 in agreement.

By GREG HARDESTY
The Orange County Register

NEWPORT BEACH – Carol Rosendale had suffered a crushed face, brain damage and too many shattered bones to count, but nothing could prepare her for the pain she felt when her husband of 10 years called her one day. "I want a divorce," he said.

(snip)

Warren Rosendale cited irreconcilable differences in his January 2000 petition for divorce. The multimillionaire refused to pay Carol spousal support, citing a prenuptial agreement. A family-law judge ruled the contract valid.

Now, in a ruling that could have significant consequences in some divorce cases statewide, an appellate court has sided with Carol Rosendale, saying Warren treated her as a "disposable spouse" by casting her off without support after she became "damaged."

(snip)

In its June 28 opinion, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana cited a 2002 change in the law, saying that waiving spousal support should be prohibited when it would be "unconscionable" to do so - something the panel determined has been part of common law since the 1950s.

Laws designed to protect spouses who sign prenuptial agreements and later become ill "underscore the continued importance of spousal support in our modern society, under appropriate circumstances," Justice Eileen Moore wrote.

More...

http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/07/12/sections/news/news/article_165280.php

[Maat]

1. Thanks for the post!

This law student loved it!

[Downtown Hound]

2. Newt Gingrich beware!

Your kind's number is up! For those of you who don't know, Gingrich presented, oh I don't know, his second or third wife, with divorce papers in the hospital right as she was about to go in for surgery.

[zmdem]

3. Some men are scum

Marriage is not to be entered into lightly. "For better or worse" means something, or it should. Good to see the court takes the marriage sacriment seriously, unlike the poor woman's husband.

[oldcoot]

4. Where is the "Sanctity of Marriage" crowd?

If we must oppose gay marriage because gay marriage might destroy the sanctity of marriage then we should also abolish prenuptial agreements. If marriage is truly a sacred institution, then married couples should expect to stay married. They should not plan on how the resources will be divided in the case of a divorce before their marriage.

[qwlauren35]

5. Can't agree to Ban Prenups

But then again, I'm not trying to ban gay marriages either.

I have a prenup. When my marriage began, I felt that I needed one.

Divorce can be nasty and vicious. A prenup can forestall a vindictive unnecessary attack on someone's assets, not because the other person needs them, but simply to put the first party through hell.

I do believe that folks who marry should stay married, for better or worse, sickness and health, richer or poorer. And if you won't stay married under those circumstances but you want to CLAIM married for tax purposes, I think that needs to be part of the prenup - I can dump you if you get sick or injured.

At least that way, both parties know what kind of shallow assholes they're getting married to from the beginning.

[oldcoot]

6. I honestly do not support banning prenups or divorces.

However, I am tired of the anti-gay crowd complaining about how they are not really bigoted but they are just worried about the sanctity of marriage. I believe that if they were really worried about the sanctity of marriage, then they would turn their attention to divorces and prenups. They would also want to make it harder for people with multiple divorces to get remarried. The fact that they only focus on gays and lesbians indicates that they are more interested in making U.S. laws conform to their prejudices than actually protecting marriage.