|
Research guides prepared by the Connecticut Judicial
Branch law librarians:
Legislative histories compiled by
the Connecticut Judicial Branch law librarians:
Check with
your local law library for availability.
- Connecticut Family Law Citations: A Reference Guide to Connecticut Family
Law Decisions, by Cynthia C. George
- Connecticut Practice,
Family Law and Practice with Forms, by Arnold H. Rutkin
Chapter 48: Premarital Agreements
- Lindey on
Separation Agreements and Antenuptial Contracts, by Alexander Lindey And
Louis I. Parley
|
|
Sec. 46b-36c.
Form of premarital agreement
Sec. 46b-36d.
Content of premarital agreement
Sec. 46b-36e.
Effect of marriage on premarital agreement.
Sec. 46b-36f.
Amendment or revocation of premarital
agreement after marriage.
Sec. 46b-36g.
Enforcement of premarital agreement
Sec. 46b-36h.
Enforcement of premarital agreement when
marriage void
Sec. 46b-36i.
Statute of limitation re claims under
premarital agreement
Sec. 46b-36j.
Premarital agreements made prior to October 1,
1995, not affected
Friezo v. Friezo, 281 Conn. 166 (2007) “Although §
46b-36g does not expressly define ‘fair and reasonable’ financial disclosure, a
plain reading of the statute indicates that the term was intended to be
understood in the context of the phrase that directly follows, namely, ‘the
amount, character and value of property, financial obligations and income of the
other party . . . ’ General Statutes § 46b-36g (a) (3). Accordingly, ‘fair and
reasonable’ disclosure refers to the nature, extent and accuracy of the
information to be disclosed, and not to extraneous factors such as the timing of
the disclosure.”
“Additionally, we do not believe that parties require a
detailed understanding of Connecticut law on marriage and divorce to validly
waive their statutory rights in a prenuptial agreement, nor is it necessary to
have a college degree in order to understand the concept of net worth.”
Crews v. Crews, 107 Conn. App. 279 (2008)
"Although it is a creature of statute, generally speaking, a dissolution
action is equitable in nature. See
Loughlin v. Loughlin,
280 Conn. 632, 641, 910 A.2d 963 (2006). ‘‘The power to act equitably is the
keystone to the court’s ability to fashion relief in the infinite variety of
circumstances which arise out of the dissolution of a marriage. . . . . [I]n
the exercise of its inherent equitable powers it may also consider any other
factors [besides those enumerated in the statutes pertaining to dissolution]
which may be appropriate for a just and equitable resolution of the marital
dispute. . . . [I]n . . . questions arising out of marital disputes, this
court relies heavily on the exercise of sound discretion by the trial court.
. . . A less deferential standard applies, however, when the decision of the
trial court is based not on an exercise of discretion but on a purported
principle of law.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Id., 641. ‘‘An antenuptial agreement is a type of contract and must,
therefore, comply with ordinary principles of contract law.’’
McHugh v. McHugh, 181 Conn. 482, 486,
436 A.2d 8 (1980). ‘‘[A]ntenuptial agreements are to be construed according
to the principles of construction applicable to contracts generally. The
basic purpose of construction is to ascertain and give effect to the
intention of the parties.Id., 491.
|
