Simone V. Simone's Case: The Uniform Prenuptial Agreement Act
Simone , a Pennsylvania case, used more of a contract approach when determineing the enforceability of a premarital agreement. In that case, a neurosurgeon presented a prenuptial agreement to his soon to be wife, who was a nurse, for her to sign on the night before their wedding. Mrs Simone argued that such agreement was invalid because she signed the agreement without fully understanding the content of the agreement, and without the advice of an attorney. The court disagreed and ruled that even though the agreement between the parties did not embody a reasonable or good bargain, the lack of legal counsel along with Mrs. Simone’s ignorance of the terms, were not valid reasons to not enforce the contract. Simone v. Simone, 581 A.2d 162 (Penn. 1990). The court looked at the procedural fairness along with the substantive fairness, and adopted the standards that a spouse should be bound by the terms of a prenuptial agreement, so long as the agreement is in writing, there is a full and fair financial disclosure by both parties prior to execution, no fraud, duress, or misrepresentation exists, and the terms of the agreement must not be unconscionable at the time of execution. Id. Here, the Pennsylvania court look at the unconcionability at the time the agreement was executed. The court did not concern themselves about the fairness at the time of …show more content…
In Benscoter v. Benscoter, 200 Pa.Super. 251, 188 A.2d (1963), a couple married for fifteen years with four boy children. The husband filed for a divorce on the grounds of indignities. The husband complained that the wife expressed her disappointment in failing to have a female child and that she verbally abused him and blamed him for this failure. The wife was stricken with multiple scrosses and claimed that her husband was seeing another woman because of her illness.
In Pennsylvania to succeed in a divorce case on the grounds of cruelty, the plaintiff must show marital misconduct on the part of the other spouse. Here the court believed that the husband was not the innocent and injured spouse and that the wife’s illness, both explained and excused the wife’s conduct and the acts of a spouse resulting from ill health do not furnish a ground for