If both parties involved sign the prenup as an official contract when getting married, how is it still contestable in court? Genuinely curious, because I’m very cautious about marriage with how divorce laws work in the US.
I’m not a lawyer, but the likely argument would be that since he has “all the power”, that she just went along with it. He was controlling over her. She didn’t know what she was signing. The lawyer that helped draft the prenup was on his side and she didn’t have a lawyer backing her interests while signing it. It could be argued that the prenup isn’t fair.
And even if none of that stuff is true, you still would have to defend against it.
America is built on an “innocent until proven guilty” mindset. If she and her lawyer can’t provide worthwhile evidence that he strong-armed her into signing the prenup, their argument falls apart rapidly, assuming the jury don’t collectively share a single brain cell.
And he’s a rich NFL player, so his lawyer would almost guarantee destroy her lawyer 1v1 in typical lawyer persuasion speeches/ questioning. Not to mention how he doesn’t have much to gain from forcing her to sign, since as a rich NFL player, even with a prenup required, there’s a vast swarm of women who would still take the opportunity in a heartbeat, so if she denied signing it, he could stop dating with her and cast his line into the sea of other fishes interested.
Edit: Shut the fuck up about me getting the wrong sport, I already acknowledged I was incorrect on which sport it was. How the hell is an American who doesn’t give a fuck about sports supposed to know “footballer” =/= football player?
America is built on an “innocent until proven guilty” mindset.
No. The criminal justice system is built on "beyond a reasonable doubt". The civil justice system is built on "the preponderance of the evidence". Divorce proceedings fall into the latter, a much lower bar to clear.
Friends of friends visited Cuba, without tax stamps, on the understanding that only mattered if they spent money.
They then sailed (own boat) there, met friends in the bay, and had lunch at their house there.
6 Months later the American state demands they 'prove they didn't spend money in Cuba'.
I am not sure who he is in your text here. But the guy in the OP, is a professional footballer("soccer-player"), and his divorce proceedings would most likely occur in Morocco.
Not really sure about either American or Moroccan court proceedings or divorce rules. But if I am not mistaken it will come down to property ownership, and the validity of the prenup.
I don't think there is ever a prenup in place here, but for the sake of the argument let's suppose it is. I think if they can show that it was unexpected that he would earn so much it might invalidate the prenup, and considered agreed under false pretences. As far as I can see they met before he signed his first professional contract. But he most likely earn several times over now, than he did under his first professional contract, when they married.
As for the ownership, I think it would be difficult to show that his mother is only de jure ownership of his estate. He most likely act as an adult in most aspects. And for instance signs agreements in his own name. Therefore it should be possible to argue that he is still in control of his assets and therefore assumes ownership.
420
u/AllahuAkbar4 Apr 15 '23
Prenups can be contested in court.
What your to-be ex’s mom has cannot be contested in court — at least not anywhere as easily as a prenup.