Private judge adjudicated 1996 Premarital Agreement to be enforceable. PMA waived spousal support for both parties. Affirmed. Even though Wife was not represented by counsel when she executed PMA, the requirement for counsel under FC 1612(c) was not enacted until 2002 and is not applied retroactively. Lack of representation is a factor that can be considered by a court in evaluating a pre-2002 PMA for unconscionability. However, trial court found there was not a “significant inequality of bargaining power” and record contained substantial evidence supporting conclusion both parties voluntarily waived right to spousal support. Further, because unconscionability had to be assessed at the time private judge made a ruling on the PMA, subsequent circumstances arising after that determination were not relevant. CtA analogized to spousal support waivers in an MSA and inability to re-institute spousal support regardless of subsequent circumstances which occur.
Marriage of Miotke
5/28/19, CA6: H040611
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H040611.PDF
