Vermont Prenuptial Agreement

| 0

21. As we found in Catamount, agreements of similar length and complexity justify „waiting for a letter.“  2003 VT 112, 23, 176 Vt. 158, 845 A.2d 324 (seeking a comparative agreement with „many very specific conditions for the detailed exploitation of a shale quarry“ and the imposition of multi-year commitments so complex that writing is required);  See also Ciaramella, 131 F.3d to 326 (the finding that the complexity of an 11-page agreement with „permanent“ provisions favours formal writing);  Winston, 777 F.2d at 83 (with a four-page agreement that imposes obligations over several years).   The family court`s decision in favour of the wife appears to be based on the fact that, although the agreement was complex, there were no substantive differences between the parties on the conditions agreed orally on September 23, 2004.   As discussed in more detail in the third Catamount factor, see 17, the Family Court received sufficient evidence that the essential terms of the contract had been agreed on September 23 and that the complexity of the agreement should not stand in the way of its application. Public order prohibits the application of an intenuptial agreement, which is unacceptable at the time of its implementation. The final condition for the certification of the agreement is the court`s desire to protect the party with fewer assets by ensuring that it voluntarily accepted the agreement at the time of its signing.  19. First, the Family Court correctly held that conjugal agreements are always reduced to the letter and that the act of termination that renounces the woman`s interest in marriage must be written.  12 V.S.A.

No 181 (5).   The Family Court found that the Fraud Act does not prevent the execution of the verbal agreement.   The husband argues, on the one hand, that there are significant factual disputes over the terms of the oral agreement and, on the other hand, that the term „leaf“ above page 5 does not comply with the law of fraud.