Burkle v. Burkle was a 2006 California case in which the enforcement of a postnuptial agreement was contested by the wife at the time of divorce (Janet E. Burkle v. Ronald W. Burkle, 139 Cal.App4th 712 2006). In Burkle, a divorce dissolution proceeding was pending when the agreement was executed. The parties withdrew the divorce action and lived together for four more years prior to divorcing.
At the time of divorce the Wife argued that the parties had not agreed to reconcile, and that the postnuptial agreement was essentially a “prepackaged” divorce, and did not provide her what she would have received in a divorce agreement. The California Appeals Court held that the postnuptial agreement was an agreement where the parties had both intended reconciliation of their marriage and was not executed in “imminent dissolution” of the marriage, and that the Husband had adequately disclosed his assets. The Appeals Court discussed the fiduciary duty that ran between spouses, and said that it was satisfied here because the postnuptial agreement did not create an “unfair advantage” for the Husband, but provided mutual advantages to each of the parties.
Read the published Burkle v. Burkle opinion of the California Court of Appeals.
If you want more background on the case, you can also read the brief from Ronald Burkle’s attorneys.
Learn more about postnuptial agreements.