S.Taylor wrote:
> Yet another example of how the judiciary favors women.
> This judge, and those like him, should be dismissed.
>
> The judge is effectively saying that women are incapable of entering
in contracts. This is
> also true of children.
>
> Women are children and should not be permitted to vote.
>
>
>
> ==================================================
> The State continues to view marriage as prostitution, where men must
pay
> for sex!
> http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=61048
> Boston Herald
> 30 December 2004
>
> Judge to hubby: Forget prenup, pay up
> By David Weber
>
> In a possibly precedent-setting case, the state Appeals Court has
ruled
> that an ex-wife is entitled to alimony even though she signed a
prenuptial
> agreement waiving it.
>
> Donna Austin was 37, and Craig Austin was 35 when they were married
in May
> 1989, each for the second time. Two days before the wedding, Craig
Austin
> presented Donna with a prenuptial agreement, which she signed,
according to
> her attorney, Dana Curhan.
>
> The Appeals Court upheld the portion of the prenuptial that protected

> assets Craig Austin had acquired before the wedding. But it said
Donna
> Austin's waiver of alimony was not reasonable at the time she and
Craig
> Austin signed the document.
>
> "It was unreasonable to expect that his spouse, who then had no
assets and
> negligible earning capacity, would contribute to the marriage by
raising
> his child and by supporting his ability to work outside the home,
with no
> expectation of future support, no matter how long the marriage, and
> regardless whether she might never acquire assets of her own,"
Justice
> Fernande Duffly wrote in the court's opinion.
>
> Craig Austin's attorney, Jacob Atwood, said he will appeal the
decision.
> Atwood said Donna Austin benefited greatly by receiving "hundreds of
> thousands of dollars" in the division of property assets at the end
of the
> Sandwich couple's 12-year marriage.
>
> "I think this decision flies in the teeth of the DeMatteo case,"
Atwood
> said, referring to a 2002 Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding
> prenuptial agreements except in cases where one of the marital
parties was
> left with an extreme hardship.
>
> But Donna Austin's attorney said, "The court is saying that by
waiving her
> right to alimony, she was essentially waiving her future rights,
which was
> not a realistic thing to do."

Sure it was realistic if a person who has "negligible earning capacity"
suddenly
can improve their standard of living several times by marrying up!
So much for Parg's "sacrifice".

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/31/04 3:03:44 PM