Court Opinion

ID: 9689418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:30:48.452625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:59.100959
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I agree with the district court’s refusal to enforce the antenuptial agreement. Taking the facts outlined by the majority, I would find that A.J.’s conduct and timing robbed Sara of a fair ability to reject the agreement. Notwithstanding the availability of legal counsel, I think she was, because of A.J.’s conduct, not equipped to accept her lawyer’s advice.
Because the majority prevails on this issue, it would be meaningless for me to explore whether the trial court’s property division was or was not appropriate.
I think, in view of Sara’s extensive contributions and A.J.’s earning capacity, alimony of $7000 per month is appropriate and should be permanent.
SNELL, J., joins this dissent.