According to the marital laws, the court ought to honor any pre nuptial agreement made by two parties entering into a marriage regardless of whether the agreement was made in the presence of a lawyer or not (Krause, 2003). This means that in case of a divorce, the agreements that the parties made between themselves override what the law says on the division of property after a divorce. In this case, Leora and Vern Brooks enter into a formal marriage and each of the party brings with themselves property into the marriage because the two had been married and divorced to other people before.
The two decide to divorce after living together for five years, though they never bore the kids and their only dependants are the children that each of them brought into the marriage from previous marriages. In their prenuptial agreement that each of the parties signed before their marriage, they had agreed that each party shall retain separate rights over the property that each of them brought into that marriage and no one shall lay claims unto the property of the other.
However, any money and property acquired after their marriage shall be considered as joint property and should their marriage be terminated, that property should be divided equally. After making the above considerations, I proceed to list the property that Lavern, the husband should get in case of a divorce and the property that is protected by the agreement that the two signed prior to their marriage.
Leora brought into the marriage $ 80,000 worth of cash and a town house while Lavern brought into the marriage an apartment complex, their Kent street residence, stocks, bonds and Juneau escrow . This means that the property that the aforementioned property that Lavern brought into the marriage is protected by the pre nuptial agreement and Leora cannot lay claim to that property during the subdivision of property after their divorce. However, the two continued to acquire property separately after their marriage.
During the subdivision of property, Lavern is entitled to a share of the following property that Leora acquired during their marriage: One-half appreciation in apartment complex worth $200,000 , One-half marital assets used for gifts to Vern’s sons worth $ 60,000 , 45th Avenue complex worth $ 50,000, Prepaid tax credit worth $ 12,110, Cash amounting to $ 87,500, Jewelry; other personal property in her possession, State retirement benefits, interest in upholstery partnership (The Golden Needle), Vehicles in her possession, undivided one-half interest in Mobile Home Park and Bank notes with interest secured by deeds on mobile home park, payable upon sale of the park $155,416.
Leora is also entitled to a share of the following property that Vern acquired during their five year matrimony: One-half appreciation in apartment complex $200,000, cash amounting to $ 37,500, undivided one-half interest in Mobile Home Park , jewelry and vehicles. The property that is protected by the law in reference to the prenuptial agreement is the $ 80,000 worth of cash and a town house that Leora brought into the marriage and the apartment complex, Kent street residence, stocks, bonds and Juneau escrow that Vern had before the marriage. This means that the only property that will be divided by half by the court is the property that was acquired during their five year matrimony. References Krause, E. (2003). Family Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions: NY: Thomson West