Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Postnuptial agreements can provide solutions to complicated issues that may arise during the marriage. Consequently, there has been a reported increase in the number of postnuptial agreements being drafted by practitioners.
While postnuptial agreements are not enforceable in every state (Ohio, for example), some states place substantial limitations on the ability of a husband and wife to enter into these agreements. The following 11 states evaluate post-nuptial agreements under the same statute as pre-nuptial agreements: Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. The following 15 states impose greater restrictions on post-nuptial agreements than pre-nuptial agreements: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming and Puerto Rico. Other states impose myriad requirements on post-nuptial agreements for them to be enforceable. For example, couples in Minnesota may enter into a postnuptial agreement only if: 1) each spouse has a net worth of $1.2 million; and 2) the couple stays married for at least two years after the agreement is executed. Several states including New Jersey and Tennessee require that a post-nuptial agreement meet standards of substantive fairness both at the time it is signed and at the time it is ultimately enforced. With regard to post-nuptial agreements, California imposes a rebuttable presumption of coercion. (Citations to the relevant statutory and case law are available upon request to the editor.)
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.