Legal Opinion
In Re Marriage of Friedman
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 15, 2002No. B151847PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VEGAN, J.
Judicial erasure of a competent adult’s signature on an agreement does not serve the purpose of the law of contracts, i.e., to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties. (Ben-Ziv v. Edmar (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 468, 475 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 12].) Here the adult is not only competent, she is a competent lawyer. As we shall explain, at the time the postnuptial agreement was signed, the parties had reasonable expectations that they would not share in the fruits of each other’s business achievements. The parties did not foresee that Keith Friedman’s (husband) business would…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Flatt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- In Re Marriage of BondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Ben-Zvi v. Edmar Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Klemm v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- In Re Marriage of ZimmermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In Re Marriage of BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Burkle v. BurkleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Cadwell-Faso v. FasoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Hill v. DittmerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- In re Estate of WilberSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2013
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.