I was under the impression that any proof of adultery lead to an automatic dissolution of a marriage contract resulting in the guilty party giving up any claim to the estate or at the very least a full half of it. Would the husband really have had to include it as proviso in the pre-nup? I know it's just a movie but if it's dramatic licence it's a big one.
Yours sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott
Without a pre-nup, even if you do cheat, if the marriage lasted for a certain amount of time you would still be entitled to half of the marital assets. While infidelity is grounds for a divorce, after a certain amount of time it isn't enough for everyone involved to just be able to walk away. Generally speaking though, if you cheat and your spouse wants to take it to court, you are going to end up losing.
shareThere is no such thing as an "automatic dissolution of a marriage contract." That is called a divorce and must be handled by a legal process. Even if one partner engages in public sex with another person in front of the couple's house with the other partner watching you require a divorce to dissolve the marriage. Even if one spouse shoots the other spouse, you require a divorce to dissolve the marriage. (unless, of course, the spouse who is shot dies, in which case the marriage dissolves. That doesn't necessarily, though, dissolve legal requirements on property/children.)
shareI just now all the sudden thought about this and was going to ask if my self before I saw that somebody beat me to it but I was kind of curious myself how she still won that case when the attorney of the husband was asking Jim Carrey’s character how he planned to win this case with a prenup and proof of adultery, like she was saying that she had a pretty strong case against his client but all the sudden when it is revealed that she was only 17 when she signed his prenup and he said that because of California law, no person is legally allowed to enter any binding contract under 18 without consent from a parent or legal guardian but because of that, all the sudden she went on to win the case because it’s like at that point, nobody cared anymore about the fact that there’s solid proof of her infidelity towards her husband but I guess that’s just not how divorce law works, especially in California.
shareThat was odd to me too. If her husband was older than her and she was 17, whether he knew she was or not, he'd be guilty of statutory rape. Unless the age of consent was 17 in California back then. Doh. Just looked it up. The age of consent in California as far back as 1993 was 18 so he would be guilty of statutory rape.
shareThey never said anything about having sex before she was 18. Just that she eloped to get married while under age. She falsely emancipated herself, in other words.
shareThis is true. I think the only sexual relations talked about was between her and the dude the cheated with on her husband…lol.
share