Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Mallen v. Mallen

Supreme Court of Georgia
622 S.E.2d 812 (Ga. 2005)


Facts

Catherine Mallen (defendant) and Peter Mallen (plaintiff) lived together for four years. Catherine and Peter decided to marry. Peter presented Catherine with a prenuptial agreement, but stated that the agreement was merely a formality and that he would always take care of her. Peter’s business interests were listed in the agreement, but his income was not. Peter’s net worth at the time of the agreement was $8,500,000. Catherine signed the agreement, and Catherine and Peter married. Peter filed a petition for divorce and sought to enforce the prenuptial agreement. Peter’s net worth at the time of divorce had increased to $22,700,000. Catherine argued that the agreement was unenforceable for a number of reasons, including: (1) fraud because of Peter’s formality statement, (2) duress because the marriage would not have happened if Catherine had not signed the agreement, (3) nondisclosure of Peter’s income, (4) unconscionability, and (5) change of circumstances rendering the agreement unfair. The trial court granted Peter a divorce and enforced the prenuptial agreement. Catherine appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Benham, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Sears, C.J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 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 178,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.