## Facts

- A husband and wife executed an antenuptial agreement providing that each would retain separate ownership and control of property owned at marriage.
- The agreement also provided that if the parties ceased living together or the marriage was dissolved, the husband would pay the wife $500 as a full settlement of all claims against him or his property.
- After marriage, the wife alleged the husband failed to provide proper support for more than two years, wilfully deserted her, and engaged in conduct constituting cruelty, including consorting with another woman and assisting that woman in litigation against the wife.
- The wife sued for a limited divorce (a mensa et thoro) and support, alleging the existence of substantial community property.
- A jury returned a verdict for the husband, but the trial court treated it as advisory, granted the wife a limited divorce, and ordered the husband to pay $100 per month for support; it declined to enforce the antenuptial limitation.
- The husband appealed, challenging jurisdiction due to a decision entered more than 60 days after submission, the lack of a community property division, the court’s disregard of the jury verdict, and the refusal to enforce the antenuptial support limitation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction by entering its decision more than 60 days after the case was submitted under the Arizona Constitution.
2. Whether failing to divide community property in a limited-divorce decree required reversal.
3. Whether a premarital agreement waiving the wife’s right to support during marriage is enforceable.
4. Whether a premarital agreement limiting the wife to $500 in lieu of support if the parties separate or divorce is enforceable.
5. Whether a jury verdict in a divorce action is binding on the trial court.
6. Whether the evidence supported a finding of cruelty and desertion sufficient to justify a limited divorce and support.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the limited-divorce decree and the $100-per-month support award.
- The constitutional 60-day decision requirement was directory, not jurisdictional; the court retained power to enter judgment after 60 days.
- The absence of an express division of community property was not reversible error because, by statute, undivided community property would be held by the parties as tenants in common.
- The jury’s verdict in a divorce action was advisory only and could be disregarded by the judge.
- The antenuptial provisions attempting to waive or limit spousal support obligations were unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
- The husband’s conduct—including prolonged failure to support, desertion without cause, and humiliating conduct involving another woman and related litigation—supported a finding of legal cruelty warranting relief.

## Legal Principles

- A constitutional provision requiring decisions within a specified time may be directory; noncompliance does not necessarily divest a court of jurisdiction to enter judgment.
- In a limited-divorce action, failure to divide community property is not reversible error when a statute supplies a default rule that the property is held as tenants in common absent division.
- Premarital agreements may regulate property rights, but provisions that waive or restrict a spouse’s right to support during marriage are void as against public policy.
- Premarital provisions attempting to relieve a spouse from support obligations in the event of separation or divorce (including fixed-sum settlement clauses) are unenforceable as against public policy.
- In divorce proceedings, a jury’s verdict is advisory; the trial court remains the factfinder responsible for the decree.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a limited divorce and continuing support despite a premarital $500 settlement clause and a jury verdict favoring the husband, holding that spousal support waivers made in contemplation of marriage are void as against public policy, that divorce juries are advisory, that delayed decisions do not defeat jurisdiction, and that undivided community property remains governed by the statutory tenancy-in-common rule.


Williams v. Williams, 29 Ariz. 538, 243 P. 402 (Ariz. 1926)