GA judgment upholding validity and enforceability of parties’ antenuptial agreement, AFFIRMED, 5-2; agreement was clearly contract made in contemplation of divorce, not contract made in contemplation of marriage, thus, agreement was not subject to OCGA 19-3-63′s dual attestation requirement – agreement addressed alimony and referred explicitly to possibility of divorce; record supported trial court’s finding that there are adequate pre-execution disclosure of husband’s financial statue – parties dated and/or lived together for more than 3.5 years before marriage, wife knew that husband owned professional building where she worked and wife knew that husband had siccessful real estte practice and knew about roughly 95 peson of land he owned when she signed agreement.

Lawrence v. Lawrence, S09A1370 (11/09/09)

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (November 20, 2009)

Denial of wife’s motion for partial summary judgment, REVERSED, in parties’ divorce case, as trial court erred in finding that parties’ antenuptial agreement was enforceable under OCGA 19-3-63 because it was not signed by two attesting witnesses; agreement constituted marriage contract, entered into in consideration of marriage, which must be attested by at least two witnesses, rather than agreement in contemplation of divorce, because agreement waived each spouses’ rights in others property and did not mention either divorce or alimony.

From:  Fulton County Daily Report (10/09/09)

Sullivan v. Sullivan, S09A0928 (09/28/09), 09FCDR 3046

Attorneys: Martin L. Fierman, Jeremy A. Moulton

Judges:  William A. Prior Jr., Morgan Superior Court;  Supreme Court of GA:  Carley