Massachusetts Ante-nuptial Agreement Divorce Void Public Policy alimony Lawyers Attorneys

AMANOLLAH HOMAYOUN VAKIL vs. GUITI ADJAMI VAKIL.

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

January 11, 2008

Factual Background:

Appellant husband filed a complaint for divorce from appellee wife pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 208, 1B, alleging an irretrievable breakdown. Before their second marriage to each other, the parties executed an ante nuptial agreement which provided that the wife could not claim alimony if she contested the granting of a divorce. The wife's answer requested that the husband's complaint for divorce be dismissed. On the second day of trial, the wife moved to amend her answer in order to clarify that she did not contest the granting of divorce. The wife's motion to amend her answer was denied. A judgment of divorce nisi was issued, which awarded no alimony to the wife. The Appeals Court (Massachusetts) affirmed the judgment insofar as it granted the parties' divorce, but otherwise reversed and remanded the matter. The husband appealed.

Issues:

Whether antenuptial agreement was void as against public policy?

Whether the judge had erred in denying her motion to amend her answer and her request to be relieved of her April 2, 2003, stipulation concerning the enforceability of the agreement and in thus concluding that she had waived her right to seek alimony?

Whether the judge had erred in failing to award her $ 25,000 when she vacated the marital residence?

Discussion and Holding:

Mass. R. Dom. Rel. P. 15 (a) provides that, after the expiration of the period during which a pleading may be amended as of right, "a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." We have stated that "leave should be granted unless there appears some good reason for denying the motion." The Court held that "we note that the alimony waiver provision of the antenuptial agreement is triggered only by a contest to the granting of a divorce, not by a challenge to the terms of the divorce, the enforcement of the agreement, or even the factual circumstances creating grounds for divorce. The judge found that the alimony waiver provision had been triggered because the wife had contested the granting of a divorce both in her answer and in her cross-examination of the husband regarding the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. On the latter point, having read the trial transcript, we disagree that the questioning by wife's counsel regarding the events of May 10 or 11, 2002 (see notes 2 and 3, supra), constituted an opposition to the granting of adivorce. In questioning the husband's assertion that the wife had made a "false claim" against him, counsel sought not to undermine the evidence of an irretrievable breakdown but rather to establish that the husband had physically abused the wife. Seen in this light, the line of questioning is consistent with a strategy seeking divorce and an award of alimony, because it bears on "the conduct of the parties during the marriage," one of the factors a judge must consider in fixing the amount of alimony under G. L. c. 208, 34. We find nothing in the record to suggest that the wife's strategy during trial was to contest "the granting of a divorce" to the husband." This leaves only the wife's original pleading, denying the alleged irretrievable breakdown and requesting that the complaint for divorce be dismissed, as a bar to her eligibility for alimony. It is true that nine months had passed since the wife filed her answer, and four months had passed since the pretrial conference at which the judge accepted the wife's withdrawal of her challenge to the antenuptial agreement and suggested that her original answer constituted a contest to thedivorce. However, delay alone is generally not sufficient reason to deny a motion to amend. Moreover, as the judge's memorandum of decision demonstrates, there was sufficient evidence to enable him to make findings on all of the factors that G. L. c. 208, 34, requires a judge to consider in awarding alimony. Because the judge thus had enough information to establish an alimony award, and because this was not a jury trial, the judge's assertion that allowing the wife's amendment would have necessitated a mistrial seems dubious. Finally, as the Appeals Court pointed out, "[t]here is nothing in the record before us to suggest that in seeking to amend her answer the wife was acting in bad faith, with a dilatory motive, or to the surprise and prejudice of the husband," and, because the disparityin the parties' economic situations could well have led to an award of alimony under the statutory factors if she were eligible, "the wife's claims were far from futile." Because the record reveals no justification for the denial of the wife's motion for leave to amend, the judge should have allowed the motion and considered the wife's application for alimony under the terms of the antenuptial agreement.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Massachusetts Ante-nuptial Agreement Divorce Void Public Policy alimony Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

Massachusetts Separation Divorce Nisi Prosecution Lack Personal Jurisdiction Lawyers Attorneys Massachusetts Divorce Separation Agreement Modification Alimony Obligation Lawyers Attorneys How Important Is The Role Of A Great Divorce Lawyer Why Need A Criminal Defense Lawyer In A Dui Charge? Why Retirement Planning Is Essential Make Money Investing In Silver Bullion Coins K1 Visa Laos: Finding A Licensed American Lawyer For A Laotian Fiancee Why A Protection Lawyer Can Be So Essential Do I need a criminal defense lawyer and how do I find one Searching for a Divorce Lawyer in St. Louis Why Involve a Divorce Lawyer? San Diego Habitat for Humanity | The Retirement Group: Your Partners In Retirement The Retirement Group | Just in Time for Foster Youth