Burkle signed the agreement; and2) A later, second merger between Food-4-Less/Ralphs (a community property holding) and Fred Meyer/Hughes, which was announced publicly on November 6, 1997, the day after Ms.Burkle signed the post-marital agreement (and two weeks before Mr.Burkle desired the financial freedom to make investments that could yield high returns but which carried the risk of significant loss.• If the parties were ultimately unable to reconcile their differences and either of them desired to dissolve the marriage, both parties wanted the agreement to fully resolve all possible financial issues so they would be spared the financial and emotional costs of litigation.• The parties had been living separate and apart for approximately five years.They disputed the legal effect of their separate residences, and acknowledged the dispute would create a substantial difference in the value of the community estate, depending on which party prevailed.• The parties acknowledged that:○ They discussed with their respective legal counsel, “at length, numerous alternatives available with respect to the form and substance of a postmarital agreement, and that they have adopted the provisions of this agreement after careful consideration of such available alternatives.”○ They were aware that the assets on Schedules A and C “may, and probably will, increase dramatically in value in the future and that Jan's interest therein is being fixed at this time, notwithstanding the possibility of future increases.”○ They had the right to conduct formal discovery in the dissolution proceeding, and voluntarily elected to forego such discovery.○ They did not rely on any statement, warranty or representation of the other party, except as stated in the agreement, “as being a representation upon which reliance was based in agreeing to” the post-marital agreement.○ Neither party had obtained any unfair advantage as a result of the agreement.○ No presumption concerning the fiduciary duty owed by one spouse to another (Fam. Karton to represent him in the dissolution proceeding.
Philip Kaufler, Hugh John Gibson, Beverly Hills, and Hillel Chodos, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Greines, Los Angeles; Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro and Patricia L. SUMMARYThe issue in this case is the enforceability of a post-marital agreement. Burkle hired a personal attorney who assisted her in interviewing and obtaining family law counsel. She engaged forensic accountants (Gursey, Schneider & Co.) and hired a private investigative firm. Instead, by August 1997, both parties were seriously considering an effort to reconcile, coupled with a post-marital agreement that would resolve all present and future financial issues between them. We first describe the post-marital agreement, and then turn to the events surrounding its execution and the subsequent proceedings leading to this appeal, including the relevant findings and conclusions of the trial court. Burkle listing and valuing community property assets (Schedule A) and assets he claimed as separate property (Schedule C), as of June 6, 1997.
Burkle that she did not sign the agreement of her own free will, and (2) whether Mr.
Burkle concealed assets or significant financial information from Ms. The principal component involved in the second issue was Ms.
Our conclusions are:• A presumption of undue influence does not arise in an interspousal transaction unless one spouse obtains an unfair advantage or obtains property for which no or clearly inadequate consideration has been given. Burkle contended the parties had lived separate and apart (a contention disputed by Ms. Burkle, on the anniversary date of the agreement for every year (or pro rata portion) the parties lived together, one million dollars in cash or negotiable securities, deemed her distributive share of the appreciation and income from community assets for the preceding year, and considered her separate property upon receipt.• If either party sought a dissolution of the marriage, or elected a division of the community property, then:○Mr.
The presumption does not apply to a post-marital agreement in which both spouses obtain advantages; both are represented by independent and competent legal counsel; the wife is offered full access to the husband's business records relating to the marital assets; and both spouses acknowledge in the agreement that neither has obtained any unfair advantage as a result of the agreement.• Even if a presumption of undue influence applied to the parties' post-marital agreement and the trial court erred in allocating to the wife the burden of proving the agreement was invalid, substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the credible evidence “established overwhelmingly” that the agreement was not procured by undue influence.• The wife's claim that the post-marital agreement was procured by the husband through actual fraud, by reason of his failure to provide written information to her on the effects of a prospective merger that would later affect the value of marital assets, is without merit.• Family Code sections 21, requiring parties to a marital dissolution action to serve preliminary and final verified declarations disclosing all assets and liabilities, do not apply to spouses who negotiate and execute a post-marital agreement while a dissolution proceeding is in abeyance, and the spouses are attempting to reconcile rather than contemplating the imminent dissolution of the marriage.• The wife's claim that she properly rescinded the post-marital agreement for “non-performance and failure of consideration” is without merit, because the wife repudiated the agreement in her dissolution petition, excusing further performance by the husband pending judicial determination of the validity of the agreement.• The doctrines of ratification and estoppel preclude the wife from claiming the post-marital agreement is unenforceable. Burkle), and was valued at a tax-effected fair market value of ,755,898.1• All appreciation and income from the community property accruing from the date of the agreement were to be Mr. Burkle would be awarded, as his share of the community assets, all the assets on the community property schedule and/or all assets acquired with any proceeds derived from those assets.○ Ms. Burkle (a) million within 90 days of service of a petition for dissolution (or written notice of an election to divide the community property); (b) million with 90 days after the first payment; and (c) million on each annual anniversary date of the second million payment, until paid in full.• Mr.
Search for burkle dating:
Burkle was taken advantage of, then it may very well be that she is entitled to further discovery.”A ten-day trial ensued, at which Ms.