Divorce Mediation Blog

A guy on the water and a wife in the soup… MEANS A FAILED PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (AND EVEN WHEN THEY’RE NOT ABOUT ALIMONY THEY’RE STILL ABOUT ALIMONY) Kelcourse v. Kelcourse – Part 1

Wednesday, February 04, 2015

The recent Massachusetts Appeals Court case of Kelcourse v. Kelcourse is significant for upholding a Probate and Family Court’s determination that a prenuptial agreement was unenforceable when it would have left the wife without sufficient property, alimony or other means of self-support. It begins to shape the “second look” factually, 33 years after the Supreme Judicial Court’s Osborne v. Osborne mandated that a prenuptial agreement be fair and reasonable at the time of divorce, and 13 years past DeMatteo v. DeMatteo’s conscionability test.

We suspect that the facts made this an easy decision for the trial judge. It had all the earmarks of behavior that would drive her to want to find against the husband. As always, we can only rely on the facts as selected and presented by the appellate court, but the published reasons that would likely have pushed any judge over the edge, included:

-- a last minute agreement (four days before marriage);

-- a broken promise (to buy a home shortly after the start of marriage, with the wife finding herself in the same rental unit 15 years later);

-- a slick maneuver (the husband removing himself to a $1.7 million “marina residence”;

-- mice! (the husband leaving the wife behind in the offending rental unit that the parties had subsequently purchased at fire sale, that had equity, at the time of divorce, according to the judge of minus $66,000 (the husband protested that it had +$62,000 of equity!), with $300,000 of required repairs, and yes, vermin;

-- a wife who earned $300.00 per week; and

-- a husband who apparently made a whole lot more, given the alimony award, such as it was.

The “feel” and the facts say that the judge and the Appeals Court got it right, at least in not reinstating the terms of the offending agreement. The trial judge could have easily justified giving the wife more, perhaps considerably more, since M.G.L., chapter 208, section 34 equitable division was now in play, with the prenup gone. It appears, though, that the wife did not seek more at the appellate level, but was merely defending what she had received from the trial judge, so the Appeals Court correctly hewed to the issues before it.

In the opinion, alimony was a bit player. Yet, even here, where alimony was not a central appellate issue, there is still an “alimony reform” angle. We will explore that in our next entry.

Get e-mail notifications of new blog posts! Enter email address below.:

Delivered by FeedBurner

other articles

recent posts


divorce mediations mediator mediation disputes Levine Dispute Resolution Family Law Arbitration Divorce arbitration divorce judgment lawyer-attended mediation health coverage mediations LDRC divorce and family law mediators Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly annulment COLA Act Reforming Alimony in the Commonwealth Baseball Arbitration Baseball alimony law Major League Baseball Arbitration divorce litigation Massachusetts divorce mediators health insurance divorce arbitration Matrimonial Arbitration Self-adjusting alimony orders Alimony Reform Act family law divorce arbitrator Cohabitation conciliation divorce process Boston alimony medical benefits divorced pre-ARA alimony alimony statute family law mediation divorce mediator arbitrators self-adjusting alimony family support The Seven Sins of Alimony Baseball Players Obamacare divorce mediators fraud family law arbitrator divorce agreement facilitated negotiations separation Divorce Agreements high-risk methodology Defense of Marriage Act litigation rehabilitative alimony Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act MLB labor agreement family mediation alimony reform legislation Massachusetts divorce lawyers dispute resolution divorce mediation Massachusetts alimony and child support med-arb Levine Dispute Resolutions divorce lawyers Massachusetts alimony SJC how baseball arbitration works Uniform Arbitration Act med/arb child support support orders special master resolve disputes IRC §2704 lawyers Child Support Guidelines Massachusetts lawyers alimony orders divorce and family law arbitrator Chouteau Levine private dispute resolution mediators family and probate law disputes Levine Dispute Resolution Center LLC General term alimony family law arbitrators divorce arbitrators Levine Dispute Resolution Center lawyer Same Sex Marriage traditional negotiations DOMA Massachusetts