Legal Opinion
Dornemann v. Dornemann
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided April 14, 2004No. File No. FA-03 0194829SPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
WINSLOW, J.
Maryann H. Domemann, the plaintiff, has moved to preclude evidence of the parties’ premarital agreement at the divorce trial. The special defense of the defendant, Michael Domemann, claims that the premarital agreement governs the central issues in the divorce. The plaintiff asserts that the premarital agreement is unenforceable for four reasons. First, written financial disclosures were not attached to it. Second, it was executed by the plaintiff as the result of undue influence and lack of free will. Third, it was not signed by the defendant and, therefore, was…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Dowling v. SlotnikSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Batter Building Materials Co. v. KirschnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- United Illuminating Co. v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Williams v. Commission On Human Rights & OpportunitiesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Crest Pontiac Cadillac, Inc. v. HadleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Friezo v. FriezoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- People v. ForsythSupreme Court of Colorado · 2012
- Friezo v. FriezoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Friezo v. FriezoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007