In re Kennedy`s Estate, 135 N.W. 53 (Iowa 1912). But what if Heidi Klum and Seal lived in another state and executed their post-marital agreement that recognizes the post-marital agreements, and then moved to Iowa, where post-nuclear agreements are not recognized? What will happen to the immense wealth they have accumulated over the years? In May 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled such an issue in Hussemann v. Hussemann. In Hussemann, Herbert Husseemann senior and Velma Hussemann were married in Florida in 1991. Herbert Sr. and Velma had married before and the children of these marriages Velma had a daughter and Herbert had two sons. Shortly after their marriage, Velma and Herbert entered into a post-marriage agreement under which Velma waived any claim against Herbert`s estate after his death, including the electoral quota, dowers, family allowances, inheritance or other marital assistance, or any claim granted by law. A provision of the choice of law in the agreement stipulated that all issues relating to the validity and construction of the agreement are decided according to Florida law. Both sides signed the agreement. After signing the post-uptial contract, Herbert created an inter vivo trust fund that left all the remaining assets to Herbert`s sons.
The terms of the trust indicated that the trust should be governed by Florida law. In 2005, Velma and Herbert moved from Florida to Belle Plaine, Iowa, and remained there until Herbert`s death in 2012. Velma filed a petition asking her third of the trust`s votes under Section 633.238 of the Iowa Code. Herbert`s sons resisted on the basis of the terms of the post-uptial agreement. Iowa Code No. 596.8 (1) (2018). In determining whether a marriage is procedurally unacceptable, the Tribunal will consider factors such as the maintenance of legal assistance, the legal and financial expertise of the party challenging the agreement, the period before the marriage that the party was to consider, and fraudulent practices to encourage the other party to sign. Under Iowa law, marital agreements are valid if they are executed correctly. Marital agreements are still applicable, even if it is “a bad tax windfall for a party.” In re Marriage of Spiegel, 553 N.W.2d 309, 316 (Iowa 1996). However, the marriage agreement is not applicable if: at the time of the divorce, both the husband and wife were limited by various affections.
The man lost several fingers in a workplace accident in 2002. During the marriage, he was operated on three times. The woman suffered from painful nerve damage and moved to Colorado to meditate with legal medicinal cannabis oil. The husband sought divorce after the woman moved to Colorado. He tried to enforce the marital agreement. At the time of the divorce, the value of the Court had increased considerably as a result of the improved campaign. It was the second marriage for the husband and the woman`s third. On the day of the couple`s wedding, the husband gave the wife a marriage pact that she signed. The first instance found that the woman had not had time to consult a lawyer before signing and that no financial disclosure had been made. The husband signed and dated the agreement three days before the wedding, but the wife testified that he presented it to her on the day of the wedding. The court found that they did not have time to consult a lawyer. In addition, the court found that the woman had no specific knowledge of legal or financial matters.
One last blow for the husband was the lack of financial information in the agreement. In light of the above, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the trial had concluded that the agreement was unacceptable.