DANIELLE DEON DICKERSON ACURIO v. DR MICHAEL THOMAS ACURIO (2017)

I respectfully dissent. The contract in this case was entered into before the marriage. There is no question of forgery or fraud. The plaintiff acknowledges her signature under oath. The contract was honored for many years. To now hold that the contract under private signature, which has never been questioned over the years, is somehow invalid due to a timing requirement not found in the law will cause problems in the public record for any transactions involving the separate property of the parties that may have occurred in the interim.

The contract was complete between the parties when signed. The acknowledgment is a form of proof and does not affect the substance of the contract. The law does not supply a time requirement for when an act under private signature, duly acknowledged, may be acknowledged. The important issue is whether it is acknowledged, not when. In this case the act was acknowledged, in accord with the actual practice of the parties over the years.

Hughes, J., dissenting.