Bucci & Dix

Call Today

(877) 276-3870 (toll free)
(804) 897-3950

10710 Midlothian Turnpike
Suite 304
Richmond, VA 23235
info@buccidix.com

Practice Areas

B&D Blog

Frequent Questions

Automobile, Truck & Motorcycle Accidents

Labor & Employment, Civil Rights and Discrimination

Latest News

Hunter Jamerson Joins Bucci & Dix As An Associate
Posted on 4/15/2009
Amanda Burke Promoted To Paralegal
Posted on 4/15/2009

view all

Divorce

7/31/2010
Hunter W. Jamerson
Comments (0)

Court Cannot Contradict Property Settlement Agreement As To Spousal Support Terms

A court cannot deviate from the terms of a property settlement agreement when evaluating spousal support unless expressly given the power to do so under the agreement.

Labels: divorce PSA spousal support

6/27/2010
Hunter W. Jamerson
Comments (0)

Court Cannot Order Life Insurance

Divorce, Property Settlement, Equitable Distribution, Life Insurance

Labels: Chesterfield divorce equitable distribution PSA

5/31/2010
Hunter W. Jamerson
Comments (0)

Unconscionable Premarital Agreement

In Chaplain v. Chaplain, the Virginia Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court's holding that a premarital agreement was enforceable. Husband, a Virginia native with a twenty million dollar fortune, married Wife, a Moroccan immigrant of limited means. Prior to marriage, Husband arranged for Wife to endorse a premarital agreement, telling Wife, whose literacy was described as "able to read English on a Chinese menu," that she was signing marriage papers. The agreement waived equitable distribution in the event of a divorce and awarded wife only $100,000, if she was still married and living with Husband at the time of this death. Husband made no disclosures about his wealth, telling Wife only that he was "not a wealthy man." While the trial court did not observe any unconscionable aspects to the agreement, the Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed noting the gross disparity in the distribution and the circumstances under which Wife signed the agreement. The trial court will now have a second chance to determine how to properly distribute the marital estate.

Labels: divorce equitable distribution PSA

12/31/2009
Hunter W. Jamerson
Comments (0)

Court Invalidates Property Settlement Agreement Due to Mental Incapacity

Court Invalidates Property Settlement Agreement Due in Divorce due to Mental Incapacity

Labels: divorce PSA

10/9/2009
William V. Riggenbach
Comments (0)

Despite wife’s claim of husband’s fraud, court dismisses wife’s appeal because of provision in the property settlement agreement precluding appellate review

The Virginia Court of Appeals, an appellate court whose jurisdiction includes appeals of the decisions of trial courts involving issues of divorce, custody, visitation, spousal support, child support, property settlement agreements and other family law issues, dismissed an appeal from a Virginia Circuit Court because of a provision in the property settlement agreement (PSA) which precluded appellate review.

In Burke v. Burke, the wife separated from her husband who had served in the military for over twenty two years and with whom she had been married for seventeen years. After they separated and before the wife filed for divorce, the parties discussed proposed terms for the PSA, including the wife continuing to receive coverage under the husband’s military health insurance plan. The PSA was later drafted by the wife’s attorney and signed by the husband who was an attorney.

The PSA contained a provision allowing the wife to continue to receive the military health insurance coverage as they had discussed, but also stated that the coverage would be “as provided by law”. Because federal law does not allow military health insurance coverage to continue after divorce decrees are entered, her military health insurance coverage ended when the divorce decree was entered.

The PSA also contained a provision that all Circuit Court decisions relating to the PSA would be final and not subject to appeal.

After the divorce decree was entered and the wife learned that her military health insurance coverage ended, she filed a Circuit Court lawsuit claiming that she was the victim of fraud by her then ex-husband regarding her health insurance coverage.

The trial court found that her ex-husband “deliberately misled” the wife and concealed “material facts” about her future health care coverage when signing the PSA, vacated the health care benefits provision in the PSA and reformed it. However, the wife was still dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision and appealed.

The Virginia Court of Appeals dismissed her appeal. Despite the wife’s claims of fraud and dissatisfaction with the trial court’s decision about health insurance coverage, the Court of Appeals upheld the PSA provision declaring that all decisions by the trial court relating to the PSA would be final and not subject to appeal. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals rejected the wife’s arguments that the PSA appeal provision was void as against public policy. It reaffirmed established Virginia law which allows parties considerable freedom in negotiating contracts and agreements, like PSAs, even those that include the waiver of significant rights, like health insurance coverage.

Labels: divorce PSA