BURKLE v. BURKLE
Filed 5/18/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re Marriage of JANET E. and RONALD W. BURKLE. | B179751 |
JANET E. BURKLE, Appellant, v. RONALD W. BURKLE, Respondent. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD390479) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Stephen M. Lachs, Temporary Judge (pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21). Affirmed.
Philip Kaufler, Hugh John Gibson and Hillel Chodos for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Wasser, Cooperman & Carter, Dennis M. Wasser and Bruce E. Cooperman; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Irving H. Greines; Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro and Patricia L. Glaser, for Defendant and Respondent.
__________________________________
SUMMARY
The issue in this case is the enforceability of a post-marital agreement. We affirm the trial court's order finding the agreement valid and enforceable. Our conclusions are:
· A presumption of undue influence does not arise in an interspousal transaction unless one spouse obtains an unfair advantage or obtains property for which no or clearly inadequate consideration has been given. The presumption does not apply to a post-marital agreement in which both spouses obtain advantages; both are represented by independent and competent legal counsel; the wife is offered full access to the husband's business records relating to the marital assets; and both spouses acknowledge in the agreement that neither has obtained any unfair advantage as a result of the agreement.
· Even if a presumption of undue influence applied to the parties' post-marital agreement and the trial court erred in allocating to the wife the burden of proving the agreement was invalid, substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the credible evidence â€
