it sets out the specificity of what's required for enforceability of a prenuptial agreement for cases that predate ninety nine hour we're relying on time case law so to that extent this case is unusual the second reason that this case is unusual is because our eyes it doesn't have to do we have all disclosure there's no dispute that in the one nine hundred eighty one well there was full disclosure and you will see as have but that doesn't end the question there also are issues about the promises they made an adequate about what is to take place in the future and that's the issue that we have here has to do with the after acquired property after the marriage and it says are property acquired by either future husband or future wife or by both of them after somne ization of the marriage whether real or personal shall be join on property of the party says tenants in common including all rents issues profits and proceeds of the party with each other one may have divided interest area now the depositions are of the administration the that the prenuptial agreement was prepared by fodor's or in houses where non writer that she did not see separate counsel and that she testified in her deposition she knew what his assets were not aware of this understanding of floyd until the reading of the well after you let me go very briefly at the time of the reading of the well estate was in a different in getting out of those difficulties so he as part of their transaction gave over his right to take yes one of the beneficiaries of the well also during the last several years of floyd's life year for several years leading up to flight staff and jane would sign off on their lives to maximize the amount they could be conveyed to the child with the result that at the time the protest the way there was fourteen percent subsequent dealing with the state in the interim after the fire well in the entry of the probate i say out of place a farm sale where the children sold all the equipment so forth without farm she was living on and the provisions of the prenuptial agreement provided the following character jane first of all the critical issue was this paragraph or what constituted marital property after they were married were provided with regard to jane was that she was given a life estate in the home that they lived in which is located on the farm and she was made the beneficiary of a fifty thousand life insurance policy both of those took place in the state and the children said jane you're not part of the well you don't have these meetings and she being not which is i think as lawyers get so i'm biased investigation all the time we forget that most people do not so with orders all lease payments a notice in the repairs office saying hey she's that life the state anybody who buys this property is going to be subject to that i for saving that house and then secondly we filed two things and the supreme court one was we have taken discovery there spent really no dispute about any of the facts the facts are the prenuptial agreement is what it is it was prepared by floyd's attorney jane's understanding was that she was protected judgment well first of all we asked for something that the judge grant summary judgment finding that the well was spoiled and i mean forcible and that she committed to take her where there was right against the well what was remaining of the estate which is the one there and they filed the countervailing motion to find the prenuptial agreement enforceable judge pistorius after hearing granted their motion denied  motion and that's why we're up here if you read through his hearing and the comments of the counsel and the comments of the poor u s c that the magic powers that they refer to every time is w wife he intended by marital property that they developed after night need one and that's where the dispute comes there's where we i think that the court made a mistake the courts relied common law as it is existed prior to nine hundred ninety first of all and this is undisputed by the parties the standard is set out in the most people versus murphy case and one of their requirements is that you bring me here i i i'm really i'm big on i'm nuts and bolts ok let's assume for the moment that the you know killer dream is valid ok let's also assume that this change or a standard pretty ninety nine and if you compare the figures here having two point two million dollars she coming out of the marriage with a life estate in the house a fifty thousand dollars life insurance policy and eleven thousand  contract and it can't be enforceable by clearly the relationship between husband and wife is the opposite of an arm's length relationship ok so the wife is given certain protections including  agreement circumstance and she may make a choice and that's that's what we think prevails here some things are based on relationships for example you may have a wonderful most wonderful grandparent grandson her granddaughter could ever have but you are not that child's parent that child's parent has primary claim with regard to that child the standard it's not a level playing field just thanking somewhere else and i'm i'm not sure what the last statement was and that's entirely primarily with the duty to deal fairly and equitably with one another because if you're in a confidential special on his own volition throws in a new interpretation of what he thinks should or should not be power within the mirror will stay and which h interpretation as he broke his will is somewhat contrary to the frozen rights if you were all under the pre ops will i don't agree after well after acquired pro example assume that rather than four in california that he was a grocer or groceries and somebody came in and bottle of bread off the shelf and he had paid fifty cents for that  i'm not necessarily disagreeing with the concept and but until we know what we're talking about in terms of as my prior question was did he sell one animal and buy another animal with no substantial appreciation in value or traded one combine and buy a new combine which would have a substantial appreciation value we don't know what we're talking about right and we would agree that of equipment when he got married and when he died he had fifty thousand dollars worth but we would also agree that there has been appreciation and addition and those things come under that provision and the fact of the matter is those he said one hundred seventy and that that is correct i wasn't sure at the time but we lucked out so in your view he probably had significantly less personal property when he died than he did when the energy to the degree if you're using the wor l to buy fifty thousand dollars worth of microsoft's stock stock we would be arguing about that right and we wouldn't be hard going about it if you bought fifty thousand dollars worth of additional capital well guess what we're and that the judge trial judge is going to have to decide whether these cattle are pretty or or she gets half of those or she doesn't get that that is another issue that's not the prenup itself first of all if you read the equipment that i have you know but i believe this is what it should be and that is something that there could be any good in that contract and it could be determined by the by the court one way or the other problem the court's going to have with that is all the stuff we're talking about is not admissible evidence what ford said in his will and what she's saying she understood that provision to be there are cases that say you can't do that a person cannot testify when one's deceased as to what the parson and the ideas that were there at the time that this was signed will have to be determined from the four corners of the document or bipolar evidence outside the testimony provision you're going to have to say or that they're going to have to decide that point went through this process i'm going to have my attorney draw this provision up in such a way that if there's an issue we can argue that i have to keep th my kids get to keep the stock which is that that's not logical to even assume that that what is wonderful to assume is that when that will was prepared somebody read that prenup agreement and said hey we may have an issue here every better addressed that issue in terms of what you're going to give about here now there are three criteria to set aside and you know one is that the with it what you want to do with it i'll support you during our marriage she's got twenty three hundred dollars a month for the last twenty six years imagine what that could be if she saved it but she had every right to and and could she could have a very healthy or polio in addition to that she has a house and according to the terms of the will everything is paid for she doesn't pay any  she doesn't take charge she doesn't pay any maintenance she doesn't pay anything but tell us everything else is paid for by the by the church and regard to the ad in the that agreement and agrees to do that our final point and i'm not sure it was mentioned in passing here by mr masson but it wasn't what group that it can and he said in there it's good you know makes good sense or something to that effect or this law is sound but in this particular case as to this particular thing it's really not fair conscionable and we're going to allow a lot of expensive i mean what she was really after in that regard is a great amount of money and view of setting aside the complete freedom when she said time and time again you know oil for these farms to go to his kids i have no problem with that as a matter of fact as he said they i hope give an interest in that form a way to those kids here's where it saps once they have that were they have to show it throws the burden upon those claiming in his right and parent's rights to affront the agreement to prove that there was full knowledge down but it's not that the law says the law says there is the burden upon both claiming and his rights are proof that there was full knowledge on her part of all that materially affect slow federal project and the only way you can reach that is has any effect yeah and here here's where i would ask you to look at has it was successful because it says that we have to show that cheerful knowledge of all that materially affect and she testif ma'am you are marrying a farmer and i'm well to do and this land is going to go to my children and you're never going to have any claim on it and farm land carries with it the idea i have relationship is with you very me you better understand that this land and my children come first in regards to that but in the interim i will be the best husband i can be and i will provid support you and i don't want you to single dime of your money for your hard earned retirement in your work is a lot of burning the support this family i will do that i don't i mean if i enter into a green into a relationship with somebody i marriage she has she had no knowledge of any of this deal she certainly did yes by this story behind me down his form and she had no problem with that where she had a problem with them saying that she had no claim to any marital property under paragraph or f and that by part of that agreement she waived her right to claim against the well what was the they cannot be that that doesn't mean all she gets as a result of that is what she would have had they not in the agreement which is the right claim one for sharing yes well and this is a relationship case your honour's it's not a