Simeone v. Simeone
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
525 Pa. 392, 581 A.2d 162 (1990)
- Written by Christine Hilgeman, JD
Facts
Following a period of separation between 1982 and 1984, Catherine Simeone (plaintiff), née Walsh, and her husband, Frederick Simeone (defendant) commenced divorce proceedings. In the course of those proceedings, Catherine sought alimony, which Frederick opposed in light of a prenuptial agreement that Catherine had signed on the eve of their wedding. The prenuptial agreement had been presented to Catherine at 5 p.m. the night before the wedding and she signed the agreement at that time without seeking the advice of counsel. Testimony at trial indicated that she and Frederick had discussed the contents of the agreement over a period of six months prior to the wedding, and Frederick's attorney who drafted the agreement and witnessed its execution testified that Catherine signed the agreement willingly. Catherine did not seek the advice of counsel during the six-month period preceding the wedding. The prenuptial agreement provided that in the event of a separation or divorce, Catherine would be entitled to receive a maximum of $25,000 from Frederick. Frederick claimed that he had made payments to Catherine during their separation and the maximum set out in the prenuptial agreement had been reached. The prenuptial agreement was upheld by the master, and affirmed on appeal to the intermediate appellate court. Catherine then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaherty, J.)
Concurrence (Papadakos, J.)
Dissent (McDermott, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
