California Court of Appeal

Trial court's order finding post-marital agreement valid and enforceable is affirmed over claims that: 1) the substantial evidence rule does not apply; 2) because husband did not provide wife with written information about the mergers in progress during the negotiation of the post-marital agreement, the agreement was procured "through actual fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment"; 3) the agreement must be set aside for failure to comply with Family Code sections 2100 et seq.; and 4) wife properly rescinded the agreement for failure of consideration, based on husband's allegedly defective tender of payment under the agreement.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/18/2006
• Published 05/18/2006

Judges

• BOLAND, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Philip Kaufler,Hugh John Gibson, Beverly Hills, and Hillel Chodos, for Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Wasser, Cooperman & Carter, Dennis M. Wasser and Bruce E. Cooperman, Los Angeles;  Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Irving H. Greines, Los Angeles;  Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro and Patricia L. Glaser, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.