Court Opinion

ID: 9552803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:17:09.627467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:02.061912
License: Public Domain

ROVIRA, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the result reached by the court and Parts I and II A of the opinion. For the reasons so well stated in Part II A concerning antenuptial agreements involving property division, I dissent from the court’s analysis and conclusion in Part II B.
In essence, the court’s opinion giveth with one hand and taketh with the other. While acknowledging that there is an assumption in the law that parties are able to act independently and rationally concerning matters relating to property, the court does not allow that assumption to operate when dealing with a maintenance provision in an antenuptial agreement. It departs from this assumption by finding a governmental interest in the health and welfare of its citizens and thereby concludes that the judiciary must interpose itself to protect persons who may have entered into a contract which, due to the passage of time, is not beneficial to them. I am of the view that such a determination is better left to the legislature.