PAMELA A. CLERMONT, Respondent, v. KEVIN M. CLERMONT, Appellant., 198 A.D.2d 631

Summary

The ex-husband's fourth defense was that the antenuptial agreement and its reaffirmation constituted an affirmative defense to equitable distribution. The lower court held that the fourth defense was improper and paragraph 4(b) of the agreement was unconscionable. The court viewed the disputed paragraph four as providing that each party's individual income and property, even though acquired during the marriage, would retain its characterization as separate property. Another provision granted the ex-husband all of the ex-wife's property acquired before the marriage, but not held solely in her name, and all property acquired by her subsequently but not acknowledged by the ex-husband to be her property. Thus, the court held that the provision, which would have granted to the ex-husband all marital property even if purchased with the ex-wife's separate income, was unconscionable. No rational person would have agreed to such an arrangement and no fair and honest person would have accepted ...