Ansin v. Craven-Ansin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
929 N.E.2d 955 (2010)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Kenneth Ansin (plaintiff) and Cheryl Craven-Ansin (defendant) were married. Kenneth had substantial interests in real estate, the exact value of which was speculative. The Ansins’ financial advisor valued the interests at $4,000,000 to $5,000,000. Kenneth and Cheryl signed an agreement that provided for the distribution of their marital assets, including Kenneth’s real-estate interests, if the Ansins were ever to divorce. The agreement stated that Kenneth would retain the entire marital interest in the real estate. In turn, the agreement provided that Kenneth would pay Cheryl $5,000,000, plus 30 percent of the increase in value of the marital property from the time the agreement was signed until the time of divorce. In light of the agreement, Kenneth and Cheryl agreed to waive their rights to judicial distribution of the assets. Each party was represented by counsel during the negotiations and execution of the agreement. Approximately two years after the agreement was signed, Kenneth filed a petition for divorce. The family court entered a divorce decree upholding the terms of the agreement. Cheryl appealed, arguing that the agreement was contrary to public policy, that Kenneth had undervalued his real-estate interests, and that she was coerced to sign the agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Marshall, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.