Cadwell-Faso

Cadwell-Faso v. Faso

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 818·191 Cal. App. 4th 945
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 2011No. A126524California5,708 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reardon, J.

Family Code 1 section 1615, subdivision (c) (section 1615(c)), as amended effective January 1, 2002, creates a presumption “that a premarital agreement was not executed voluntarily” unless the court makes five designated findings. (See Stats. 2001, ch. 286, § 2, p. 2317; In re Marriage of Friedman (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 65, 72 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 ].) These include the finding that the party against whom enforcement is sought had at least seven calendar days between the date he or she was “first presented” with the agreement and advised to seek independent counsel, and the time he or she signed the agreement. (§ 1615(c)(2).) The trial court ruled that because seven days did not elapse between the time respondent Joseph R Faso (Faso) was presented with the final draft addenda (the Addendum) to the premarital agreement and the time he signed it, his execution was deemed involuntary *950 and the Addendum was unenforceable. Appellant Cari Lynn Cadwell-Faso (Cadwell-Faso) urges that where, as here, multiple drafts of a document are exchanged, the Legislature did not intend to erect an absolute seven-day waiting period between presentation of the last draft, and its execution.…

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.