## Facts

- Farima Noghrey (wife) and Kambiz Noghrey (husband) married; approximately seven and one-half months later, the wife filed for dissolution and sought enforcement of a premarital agreement.
- The alleged premarital agreement was executed on the wedding day at the hotel where the ceremony was to occur and was handwritten on the back of a ceremonial wedding certificate.
- A witness testified that the husband agreed that, in the event of divorce, the wife would receive (1) the husband’s Sunnyvale house and (2) the greater of $500,000 or one-half of the husband’s assets.
- The original document could not be located; the trial court received testimony concerning its execution and terms.
- The trial court bifurcated the validity of the premarital agreement, found it valid and enforceable, and the husband appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a premarital agreement that provides a substantial property benefit to one spouse only upon divorce is unenforceable as contrary to public policy because it encourages or promotes dissolution.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment enforcing the premarital agreement.
- The court held the agreement invalid and unenforceable because it promoted and facilitated divorce by creating a strong financial incentive to end the marriage.
- The matter was remanded for further dissolution proceedings without enforcement of the agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Premarital agreements concerning property rights may be enforceable, but they are subject to public-policy limits.
- An agreement is void when its design or effect encourages or promotes divorce, including by conferring a significant financial benefit triggered solely by dissolution.
- Not all divorce-contingent provisions are invalid; agreements that merely clarify or simplify property allocation upon divorce may be permissible when they do not create an affirmative incentive to dissolve the marriage.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a premarital agreement that promised a large transfer of assets exclusively upon divorce, holding that such a divorce-triggered windfall contravenes California public policy by encouraging dissolution rather than preserving the marital relationship.


In re Marriage of Noghrey, 169 Cal. App. 3d 326 (Ct. App. 1985)