However, upon learning that the accused was pregnant, the applicant amended his proposal and made a new and inferior offer to the defendant. After some discussion, the accused agreed. But this reduction by the complainants was only the first of many other reductions to come, and each time the defendant accepted a new lower offer, the plaintiff would reseed his offer and ask the defendant to accept his most recent terms. As this pattern was repeated and the baby`s delivery date approached, the respondent suggested that the parties keep their counsel separate and ensure that the parties consult with a licensed clinical social worker. However, the consultation did not help and negotiations continued to end after the complainant and his lawyer caused delays. Then, when the accused was in the third trimester of the pregnancy, the complainant unexpectedly announced that he would not sign an agreement until after the baby was born, despite his previous promise to the accused. As a result, the parties did not marry on time and their first child was born in May 2006. The court then turned to the marital context and discussed the separation agreements. The Court found that “separation agreements on their faces are regularly binding on the parties,” that “[t]he review must be carried out in a prudent manner” and that if there is full disclosure and “no undue conduct,” … Dishes should not penetrate to rearrange the bargain” (Christian 71, 72).
However, the investigation does not end there and the Court has set out a number of fair principles that also apply to the verification of spousal transactions. As the Court has recognized more than once, marital parties are not commercial actors: “Unlike ordinary commercial contracts, agreements between spouses involve a fiduciary relationship that requires maximum trust in the trust” (Christian at 72, citing Ducas v Guggenheimer, 90 Misc 191 [Sup Ct, NY County 1915], affd sub nom. Ducas/Ducas, 173 App Div 884 [1st Dept 1916]). As a result, “this is a strict control of all transactions between married persons, including separation agreements,” and these agreements can be annulled according to the principles of justice (Christian 72). It found that “to such an extent that a separation agreement can be struck down for reasons that would not be sufficient to obtain a formal contract” (Christian 72). The Court summed up these principles: during the woman`s pregnancy, the parties repeatedly discussed the terms of the marriage agreement, but no agreement was reached. In mid-March 2006, after consulting with a number of lawyers, the woman retained the services of a partner in a famous New York wedding company. However, the husband informed the wife that, on the advice of her lawyer, he would not enter into the marriage agreement or marry until after the child was born. In May 2006, the woman gave birth to a daughter and negotiations were temporarily interrupted. If the first step shows that there is no overtaking, the investigation stops and the application cannot be avoided under this defense.
However, if the participant finds that the request goes too far, the investigation moves to the second stage, where the participant must prove that the agreement is manifestly unfair.