In Re Marriage of Friedman

Judicial erasure of a competent adult’s signature on an agreement does not serve the purpose of the law of contracts, i.e., to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties. (Ben-Ziv v. Edmar (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 468, 475 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 12 ].) Here the adult is not only competent, she is a competent lawyer. As we shall explain, at the time the postnuptial agreement was signed, the parties had reasonable expectations that they would not share in the fruits of each other’s business achievements. The parties did not foresee that Keith Friedman’s (husband) business would flourish to the extent that it did. Characterization of this asset is the driving force of the dispute.

In this action for martial dissolution, Jill L. Friedman (wife) appeals from an order that a 1991 postnuptial agreement is valid and enforceable. The trial court found that wife voluntarily entered into the agreement and that the agreement was not invalid because of alleged conflict of interest by the attorney who prepared it. We affirm. (See In re Marriage of Egedi (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 17, 23-24 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ].)

Facts and Procedural History

In December 1990 wife worked as an attorney…