Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

In re Marriage of Bonds

California Supreme Court
99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252 (Cal. 2000)


In 1987, Barry Bonds (petitioner) met a Swedish woman named Susann (Sun) (respondent). Barry and Sun began a romantic relationship that led to their marriage the following year, when they were both 23 years old. Barry, a professional baseball player, was earning about $100,000 annually. Sun had worked as a waitress and bartender and had taken some cosmetology classes, but she was unemployed when she and Barry married. Sun’s native language was Swedish. However, she had also used English in her jobs, classes, and friendships. Sun and Barry had a quick Las Vegas wedding. The day before their wedding, Barry and Sun entered a prenuptial agreement that provided that the couple would not have any community property. This means, if they divorced, Barry and Sun would each keep everything he or she individually acquired during the marriage. In 1994, Sun and Barry divorced. Sun asked the court to invalidate the premarital agreement due to a lack of voluntariness. At trial, Barry testified that he had told Sun from the outset that he believed his earnings should remain his in the event of divorce. Barry further testified that Sun agreed, saying that that was the rule in Sweden. According to Sun, however, she only learned about the prenuptial agreement the day before the document was signed. Sun also testified that she had poor English skills at the time and did not understand the agreement. Barry’s lawyers testified that, at the signing, they told Sun that they represented Barry alone and advised her to get her own lawyer. When Sun declined, the lawyers walked her through the contract paragraph-by-paragraph, explaining all the terms. The trial court concluded that Sun had entered the prenuptial agreement voluntarily and upheld it. The appellate court, however, reversed, emphasizing Sun’s lack of independent counsel. Barry appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (George, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 498,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 498,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial