Grabe v. Hokin
Citations
- 341 Conn. 360
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to dissolve her marriage to the defendant and to enforce a nuptial agreement that the parties had executed shorty before their mar- riage. The prenuptial agreement provided that, in the event of dissolu- tion, the parties agreed to waive any claim to each other's separate property or to support from the other. The agreement also provided that a party who unsuccessfully challenged its enforceability would pay the attorney's fees of the other party and contained a severability clause providing that, if any provision or provisions in the agreement were found to be unenforceable, the remainder of the agreement would con- tinue in full force and effect. The defendant filed a cross complaint, claiming that enforcement of the agreement would be unconscionable in light of certain, uncontemplated events during the marriage, including the birth of the parties' three children, the destruction of the defendant's house by fire, the destruction of a yacht club, in which the defendant had an indirect ownership interest, due to a natural disaster, and the failure of a business from which the defendant derived his primary source of income. The trial court found that, although these events were not contemplated, they did not render enforcement of the agreement unconscionable. The court found, however, that enforcement of the attorney's fees provision would be unconscionable insofar as it would financially cripple the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment dissolving the parties' marriage, striking the attorney's fees provision from the prenuptial agreement and concluding that the remainder of the agreement was enforceable. The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court incorrectly determined that the occurrence of the uncon- templated events during the parties' marriage did not render enforce- ment of the agreement unconscionable at the time of dissolution. Held that the trial court correctly determined that enforcement of the parties' prenuptial agr
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “It may be that Dr. Free was mistaken in his diagnosis. [But] the undisputed testimony of quite a number of surgeons, called as witnesses, is that this injury is such that it is very difficult to detect its exact character.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.