Burkle

Burkle v. Burkle

Caution
139 Cal. App. 4th 712·43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 181
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 2006No. B179751California14,004 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Boland, J.

SUMMARY

The issue in this case is the enforceability of a postmarital agreement. We affirm the trial court’s order finding the agreement valid and enforceable. Our conclusions are:

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ronald W. Burkle and Janet E. Burkle were married on March 23, 1974. In April 1997, Ms. Burkle hired a personal attorney who assisted her in interviewing and obtaining family law counsel. In May, Ms. Burkle retained Barry T. Harlan, a certified family law specialist with more than 30 years of legal experience, and in June 1997 she filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. Ms. Burkle was also advised by two other certified family law specialists, as well as by other lawyers in Harlan’s firm with expertise in tax law, real estate law and other areas. She engaged forensic accountants (Gursey, Schneider & Co.) and hired a private investigative firm. After Ms. Burkle’s petition was filed, Mr. Burkle engaged David S. Karton to represent him in the dissolution proceeding.

The marriage did not proceed to dissolution in 1997. Instead, by August 1997, both parties were seriously considering an effort to reconcile, coupled with a postmarital agreement that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.