Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Marriage of Burkle

Court of Appeal of California
139 Cal.App.4th 712 (2006)


Facts

Ronald Burkle (defendant) and Janet Burkle (plaintiff) were married in 1974. In June 1997, Janet hired an attorney and filed for divorce. In August 1997, Ronald and Janet attempted reconciliation and entered into a post-marital agreement that was intended to settle financial issues between them should reconciliation be unsuccessful. The agreement delineated the community and separate property that the couple owned, as well as various provisions related to management of the property and compensation. Generally, Ronald would manage their community property freely, as if it were his separate property. Janet was to be provided with financial support or compensation and a home that would allow her to maintain her preferred lifestyle. The agreement specified that Janet wanted financial security and the maintenance of her current lifestyle and that Ronald wanted to be able to freely engage in investment opportunities. Ronald and Janet both discussed this agreement with their attorneys. Ronald and Janet acknowledged that neither of them obtained an unfair advantage as a result of this agreement. Further, Ronald and Janet waived their fiduciary duties to one another in the agreement. Ronald and Janet were unable to successfully reconcile their marriage. In June 2003, Janet filed for divorce and claimed that the post-marital agreement was invalid and unenforceable. According to Janet, a presumption of undue influence arose because Ronald obtained an advantage from the agreement, and thus, Ronald had the burden to show that there was no undue influence. The trial court disagreed and held that the agreement was valid and enforceable. Janet 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 (Boland, 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.

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 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.