Burkle dating

Rated 4.22/5 based on 637 customer reviews

Burkle desired the financial freedom to make investments that could yield high returns but which carried the risk of significant loss.• If the parties were ultimately unable to reconcile their differences and either of them desired to dissolve the marriage, both parties wanted the agreement to fully resolve all possible financial issues so they would be spared the financial and emotional costs of litigation.• The parties had been living separate and apart for approximately five years.

They disputed the legal effect of their separate residences, and acknowledged the dispute would create a substantial difference in the value of the community estate, depending on which party prevailed.• The parties acknowledged that:○ They discussed with their respective legal counsel, “at length, numerous alternatives available with respect to the form and substance of a postmarital agreement, and that they have adopted the provisions of this agreement after careful consideration of such available alternatives.”○ They were aware that the assets on Schedules A and C “may, and probably will, increase dramatically in value in the future and that Jan's interest therein is being fixed at this time, notwithstanding the possibility of future increases.”○ They had the right to conduct formal discovery in the dissolution proceeding, and voluntarily elected to forego such discovery.○ They did not rely on any statement, warranty or representation of the other party, except as stated in the agreement, “as being a representation upon which reliance was based in agreeing to” the post-marital agreement.○ Neither party had obtained any unfair advantage as a result of the agreement.○ No presumption concerning the fiduciary duty owed by one spouse to another (Fam.

Burkle signed the post-marital agreement (and two weeks before Mr.Burkle's complaint that the schedules to the agreement did not mention two mergers Mr.Burkle was negotiating during the period between June 1997 and November 1997, which transformed his two major business assets from privately held regional supermarket chains to publicly merged national supermarket chains. Cooperman, Los Angeles; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Irving H. Harlan, a certified family law specialist with more than 30 years of legal experience, and in June 1997 she filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. Burkle was also advised by two other certified family law specialists, as well as by other lawyers in Harlan's firm with expertise in tax law, real estate law and other areas. The marriage did not proceed to dissolution in 1997. Burkle filed the current petition for dissolution of marriage, in which she contends the post-marital agreement is void and unenforceable. In broad strokes, the significant financial effects of the agreement executed by the Burkles in November 1997 were these:• Schedules were prepared by Mr.We affirm the trial court's order finding the agreement valid and enforceable. The parties resumed living together in September 1997, and executed a post-marital agreement in November 1997. As to these schedules:○ The community property schedule showed property with a tax-effected fair market value of ,028,267.○ The property listed as separate was acquired during a five-year period between 19, during which Mr.

Leave a Reply