Holler v. Holler
South Carolina Court of Appeals
612 S.E.2d 469 (2005)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
William Holler (husband) lived in the United States and Nataliya Holler (wife) lived in Ukraine. The wife did not speak very good English. The two began a relationship and eventually decided to get married. The wife came to the United States for that purpose and obtained a three month visa. Soon after she arrived, she became pregnant with the husband’s child. The husband told the wife that they had to sign an agreement to get married in the United States, and he presented the wife with a premarital agreement. The wife attempted to translate the agreement from English, but was unable to do so effectively. The wife had no money of her own so could not afford a lawyer to read or translate the agreement for her. Nevertheless, the wife signed the agreement and the couple was married three days before the wife’s visa was going to expire. Eventually, the couple separated and the wife filed for divorce. The wife sought custody of the child, child support, part of the marital property, and alimony. The husband filed a motion to dismiss based on the premarital agreement. The family court denied the motion, finding that the wife signed the premarital agreement under duress and it was therefore invalid. The husband appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.