right right estate sales person part of this life diane was married she had two children she worked at times in various capacities but ultimately after her worse than one hundred seventy seven she likes him to become self  shortly thereafter and later that summer they became engaged married however the topic of a prenuptial agreement was raised at some point the factual the facts regarding same are highly contested on the one him diane claims that she did not see the prenuptial agreement until roughly the day that it was signed bob to the contrary i'm going to guess because of this failing memory due to his advanced age really couldn't give us a concrete story at trial hit one time  years that was all she was concerned about because she thought well five years you've been arguing stage is probably fair i only need to be worried about a five years i'm not going to stress myself about the terms of the agreement i'm not going to read it i'm not going to pay attention to because i written provisions which contain a date of december fifth one nine hundred eighty so if it's true what bob says that he gave it to read october but how did these typewritten provisions dated in december good or or she can't leave it instilled that she can establish that he that he destroyed it it wasn't well the testimony is that he thinks it may have been destroyed also even fact i think that it may have been shredded she says she knows it was destroyed she threw it away at some point in time and i think those statements by the two parties are consistent with fact that they never intended for it to be enforceable after five years and i get into that a second because the case law does provide that even if they originally signed it if later they and i think that you find evidence your which half said it was shredded said he never saw one or talked about it in or even thought about it again even during the period of time when they were consulting with estate planning even during th period of time which is approximately ten years when they were consulting with attorneys estate planners what was what was the main sticking point for me of when we bought the prenup the main sticking point in where there is a tremendous travesty of this case is the fact that prenuptial agreement by its terms says that they get property as its title in this case the large majority of the of the business assets remain titled in bob's they even though diane was led to believe business they had cards identifying themselves as broker owners sure they previously had a card that identified jane as an associate but her testimony wasn't present and contradicted that that was done at the advice of remarks later they changed the price reflect the actual understanding they have money from the businesses the money from the fruit and labor of his hard work efforts and the evidence is clear that she was the primary earner of commissions on real estate sales for yvonne period of time the court company's money according to the account that testified but the important point about all that is that now when we are average terminations bob secured for himself a tremendous amount of wealth and keeping in mind about was the party who made all the decisions regarding the time of assets all the decisions and how to invest the assets all the decisions on who was the whites were made between bottom his people his people including the financial advisors his people including the attorneys is people including the accountant diane in retrospection paid more attention diane in retrospect shouldn't have trusted but she did they were married she trusted her husband they're married for a long period of time she's of the generation where she looks to her husband in  figures that he is running this this is fine he would never do this do anything harmful to me and canonically he put all these retirement assets in his name but we're going to be married he put all these retirement assets he made all the decisions we're going to ret assets because that's what she trusted him to do little did she mean in the meantime she's done personal guarantees for all these businesses were tremendous amounts of money she's told she's an officer and director we are sure that they're the same thing as an owner she trusted and i think that's the theme here she trusted to her detriment there is a fiduciary relationship that results from an american relationship there is but you should relationship which requires the op treat her fairly in their gear in their dealings especially when considering  prenuptial agreement in this case there is one contradicted evidence that it no time to dine in ever be seated vice from their counsel for that she should be protecting her own assets because god forbid the marriage doesn't work out ask and get everything titled in his remembers that's all fine and well i know dying came into this marriage with very little money i do but as a result of their combined efforts in running these businesses these parties accumulated a tremendous amount of wealth unfortunately for diane bob took that the fact that he's a whole lot lower than they increase of failing health and if he passes away then his the need maintenance that diane means at this point to live her life the meanness the dying deserves at this point considering the contributions she mentioned marriage would be preserved if the court were to award in love some make sense we could ask for that and projected out numbers as well that could accomplish that i don't understand the concept of a long thought hundred absolutely incredible the sickening to think that would be fair well with the no my point is with the no on the lump sum distribution why didn't you really force the kept intact and is a matter of fact during the entire marriage only ten dollars was put into the pension so it's it's a nine marital asset that he kept and a group what's interesting is that sixty three thousand that is what bob owes it another seventy thousand was debt that is very unlikely to be quite that bad about five hundred that left about a certain amount of money that property actually had bob had before the marriage and that was his non marital property scribed in the pre modern now full agreement was placed in then and there were certain additions to property that so that after both passed away the children would have the amounts than most given a two point eight percent interest in that which she maintains that she has about twelve thousand five hundred dollars so the value taylor home is an  that really has diminished in value from the time when the parties were married now the real property is divided up before he out of work we have the large kind o which is about one white city piece of property which was built that had value six hundred twenty thousand then we have a small condo unit now those are the items of major and the courts said well what you can do in this case is diane you made five hundred ten thousand or so but has to pay a five hundred ten thousand buyer up because he's buying out of the larger properties that what is not clear in one of the judge's opinion but it's there obviously is that there are certain debts that bob had an addition to either property that he received and the debts were incurred directly as a result of the building and the acquisition of these four parcels the real estate we have equity and it made a little money over the last years it's now a shell because no one's working the realtors are working so we look at further let's take a look at the assets that councils describe are so so substantial so we have two point two million we see this four hundred thousand dollars of debt that remains and paid well there is also a three hundred thousand fair twenty thousand out contribution that bob made in two thousand by just before diana filed for divorce the payoff a in obviously a prenuptial agreement but that when then and that's been their property so you have to look at that two thousand to as now about one point four billion and there isn't a two hundred twenty why couldn't it be maintained because they were spending money on automobiles insurance perhaps go out to dinner several times when taking high saudi was a viral lifestyle but it that's where the has really this is the sticking point where you get to the maintenance issue duck session you're really really really taking away the rights of the parties to congress because what you're saying is it's not not just that dire session that we're going to sack where spouses in dire circumstances we're going to say that any i find it very interesting that despite the fact that the vast majority of their wealth was earned post the time that they were married and all the investments into power from america that were made post after the time they were married case which reflect an contradicted that diane was taken advantage of through bob and his people who told her that she should trust we've got this we're taking care of this don't worry dear we'll be ok you'll be ok we're all going to be ok but we are not it's not true getting should adverse decision i don't mean the case the same way i think never to the judge the bottom line is burgess is there to prevent injustice you're right here it is just an example other things were considered by this court and correctly considered  never talked about again you look at the fact that for ten straight years the net with attorneys retirement planners etc etc was never discussed and even bob said his eyes opened when it fell out of the attorney's files he hadn't thought of was suspect i suggest to the court that since bob hadn't even measurements and this attorney that's representing him now because if he had been pleasant from the feds the fact that it didn't even get discussed until it fell out of the attorney for she just uncertain is why she destroyed it and threw it away when she transferred the assets of the new secured past box why keep it around it's not forced when we're five years five years if you look at the contract it was you know that real court please do what's right please help this woman she's had enough when things happen here's our thank you evidence shows that bob did repay certain amounts of money that were borrow because he had to repay and in fact there's an obligation to do so for your share obligations which can be enforced by those people who are affected and we believe that diane is going to tr regain any property owned by him or her at the time of the marriage and his or her proportional share of any property wired by the parties after the marriage and hello or all by them as status and counting and as the entire enjoying tennis in