Date Filed: April 01, 2022 Case Number: B281051 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four The Court holds that when a premarital agreement limits spousal support, the trial court is not confined to the “unconscionable-at-execution” test of Family Code section 1615(a)(2); under section 1612(a)(7) the court may deem the provision unenforceable as contrary to public policy if it is unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Accordingly, the appellate court affirms the trial court’s finding that the Zucker premarital agreement’s spousal-support limitation is void, corrects an arithmetic error in the attorney-fee award (ordering Mark to pay Kim $870,000), and remands for determination of pendente-lite spousal support.
— This case summary was prepared for educational purposes. For the authoritative version, please refer to the full opinion or the official California Courts website .